I've tried so many things to make the players have an investment in the setting, their characters and each other and yet nothing ever seems to work. My fondest wish would be to have a group of PC's that actually care about each other and a group of players who care about the setting and their character's stories within it. Every method I've tried over 25 years, however, has either backfired or simply not worked. Same village, same orphanage, mentors, even once tried same parents. But there is zero investment no matter how many different ways I try and how many different players I DM for.
There has to be an answer and I refuse to accept that the answer as me being a poor DM. I'm awesome so it must be the player's fault.
Consider using something like the bonds from Dungeon World, if your players will go along with it. If they won't, then maybe you need to consider if what you are asking for is right for your groups.
Here's my process to get the players playing the sort of characters best suited to each of my campaigns:
- Step 1: Get everyone together at the table, hand out blank character sheets, dice, pencils, and any other required materials.
- Step 2: Explain the concept of the campaign, what setting it will take place in, and themes I'd like to use (an allow player feedback, which can be incorporated to keep the campaign interesting to not just me).
- Step 3: Tell the players the sort of characters I want them to be playing, and ask them to build such type of characters.
- Step 4: Point out plainly anything that isn't going to work well and suggest changes to put the character back in line.
- Step 5: Start playing.
And the eventual Step 6 applies only if a player is refusing to cooperate with the above procedure and play the kind of character the campaign requires - tell that player to find their gaming elsewhere.
There is no "trick", nor any "method" besides plainly asking your players if they would play the way you'd like them to that can "make" them do it.
Oraibi wrote:
I'm not sure what to tell you. The fate core system of collaborative world building does exactly what you are asking for. I've used it myself to great effect on multiple occasions as both a player and GM, for both Fate and D&D. I know with certainty that not only does it work - it works very well at doing exactly what you want.
Ansbach wrote:
You might want to check out Microscope. I think I'd also recommend watching some videos on YouTube of either Fate or Microscope. That will at least allow you to see collaboration done right and help you narrow down what the actual issue is. Sorry I'm not more help.
Maybe your players do not want to play a game where their characters are deeply involved with eachother and the setting? In your experience; what DOES seem to motivate your players and bring their best foot forward?
In my games, after the players have bought in on the campaign, I start with a few premises and ask for further buy-in:
1. The characters know each other and trust each other at least enough to adventure together. They didn't just meet up a the inn - they have a history as a group and bonds with each other. They don't have to be besties but they do have to get along well enough to accomplish goals together.
2. The characters have at least two bonds with two other characters. I provide them a list of bonds taken from the Dungeon World classes. We go around the table establishing these bonds by having the person in the spotlight say what and with whom the bond is. The person mentioned gets to add to that in a way that doesn't negate. During this time, I ask questions to encourage them to establish more details and flesh it out. I also use those questions to tie the characters to prepared materials for the campaign.
3. The characters are important and unique as befits their protagonist status. Their action or inaction will change the world for better or worse. Nobody else can do the job they can do.
Finally, I begin the campaign with a closed location like a dungeon for the group to explore. During this adventure, I am continuing to ask questions and pointing out when the bonds of the characters come into play. "Wow, looks like Lidda just saved Tordek's bacon again! How does Tordek feel about that?" for example. Additional questions include getting the players to establish details about the world beyond the dungeon, what it's like, what they know about it, what adventures lay in wait after this one. After a couple of sessions, when the characters emerge, battered, bruised, and bonded by the crucible of their adventure, we have a fully functional adventuring group with good relationships and an idea of what the world is like (because they helped create it as they played). And I have a ton of material to use to improvise future adventures.
Mobile site I hate you!!!
When my wife first started DMing one of the things I gave her as feedback was that the goal of the DM is to set up a fun story for the players, not fun for her alone. If the players are having fun playing a hack and slash game with no personal interconnection maybe you need to adjust your goals.
I'm a storyteller myself but I don't know how many times my campaigns have totally derailed because those darn players aren't characters in my book. I remember reading an interview with an author who originally started writing stories as part of DMing. When the interviewer asked her if she still DMed her response was that she did not because she found that she tried to control the PCs like they were characters in her book and that it never worked out well.
It could also be that you're trying too hard to push players into playing the way you think they should be playing and not the way they want to play. Try backing off some on the "how did that make you feel" and just let the story develop organically.
Ultimately it comes down to the question - are your players having fun? Can you live with the style of play they like? Can you find some happy compromise? If they want to play mercenary characters with no ties to each other maybe you just need to adjust the type of campaign you're running.
Another thing you could try is to set up a campaign site using one of the online tools. We use ObsidianPortal and while I don't always like the way it structures things we have had quite a bit of success with people writing stories between games and posting them to the wiki. This allows for a lot of character development off-screen and while the DM (currently my wife) has final say on anything that affects NPCs we've had people get romantically involved (with NPCs and other PCs), ongoing friendly feuds between siblings and have dealt with some serious campaign-altering issues. We typically exchange emails between affected players and DM before posting but we now have a ton of background and depth we would not have otherwise have. Postings are typically rewarded with inspiration that can be used in-game and other cosmetic perks.
That works for our group because we have multiple storytellers but may not work for everyone.
bawylie wrote:
I've always been a HUGE advocate of party dynamics, myself. I'm totes cool with inter-character conflict, sure, as long as it doesn't spread to the party (thus hindering it). It doesn't always work out, but I know what you mean. Though in my cases, it's usually one or two people sticking out like sore thumbs making people wonder "Hey, why are we adventuring with this person, again?" instead of what sounds like everyone not really being on board with this.
Bawlie:
Besides the big wall of text burning my eyes, 
what I got from your post is that you always run six session mini-campaigns. That's interesting because I like to do something similar although not quite as formulaic. How long are your sessions?
The mobile site is not the best, that's for sure. I've also noticed that posts on the forum usually take a while to show up on the mobile site, too, throwing off the flow of conversation.
They're not mini-campaigns. But they're like TV seasons. Structuring them that way adds focus, narrows attention. On both my side and players'.
Each session is 4-6 hrs. It's not quite as formulaic as I presented it, in practice. Thats the structure, generally, but it has to also respond to the players' choices in each session. In other words, I don't force things onto a schedule, but I do aim at it and shepherd it in that direction to the extent that's still productive.
Gotcha - like UK television instead of American.
I follow a similar pattern for the same reasons, although my sessions are shorter than yours: 2-3 hours online, weekly. The first "season" is short, then if everyone's on board for a second season with the same group it will be a bit longer with more depth. That's usually about all it takes before everyone is ready to try out something different.
Yeah kind of a combo though. Running A stories and B stories a la American TV. Focused seasons like Brit TV.
I think your partially right about it being a playstyle issue. A player that isn't not interested in investing into the roleplaying or setting is not going to be convinced. However, there are players that do get heavily invested. Without being selective about the players the uninvested players will set a tone that pulls everyone out of the story.
I believe this has more to do with the DM as a recruiter than as a story teller. It takes time to find the right group people and finding the right people isn't always a choices. It is a neccesary thing though, without depeding on luckly.