Howdy folks. I've taken up DMing again after a long absence, and I have a question for players:
When starting a new campaign or group, do you like role-playing your PCs meeting up for the first time? Or do you just want assume that everyone knows everyone and dive right in as a group?
Seems like DMs are somewhat split. Many seem to like making players do that, but some don't. I figured I'd ask players what they thought.
My opinon on the matter: Role-playing the characters meeting for the first time includes risk that things don't go smoothly and the character's personalities clash in ways that might lead the players to not fully embrace being a party of characters rather than a collection of individuals, or leave the players feeling like they have to ignore some part of the role-playing that happened in the name of being a coherent party.
Having everyone work together to collectively establish how the party met and became a party carries less of that risk because you are saying "explain why the characters are a team, and so close that they each trust the others with their life," rather than saying "Steve's character meet Ted's character... hope you guys get along."
Barky wrote:
As a DM, I put the requirement on the players. They tell me why their characters are going to be travelling together for the next months and years.
One of my table rules is that if a player wants their character to betray the group then they need to first get the permissions of all the other players.
I often play out how the players meet. But since I tend to throw them all into a situation right from the start, I never have issues with players not getting along. As a DM I try to come up with an exciting event that requires them to work together right from the start.
Entirely dependent on the campaign.
Currently writing one in Waterdeep where beforehand players backgrounds all tie themselves tightly to each other and the city.
Previous campaign I ran the pc's where all unknown to each other and witnesses to an execution as the start point
For me it varies - typically, I will put out a teaser for the first adventure as an introduction to the campaign - a short one or two page scene that establishes the goal or mystery surrounding the first adventure and setting the mood. Then I ask the players to create characters that would be intrigued/involved in the upcoming scenario. I like to get the players together at least once during the char gen process, so we can discuss backgrounds and pre-existing histories/connections.
But not always - I once started a campaign in a tavern...
(Groan - I know, Right?)
...and none of the PCs knew each other. Several masked and cloaked knife-men came in and started a melee. Customers started dropping like flies, until only the PCs were left standing. Then the first PC died; then another; eventually they were all dead - TPK in the first scene 
The next scene inolved a spellcaster speaking to each of their spirits in turn. He offered to bring them back if they would undertake a quest for him. He needed good help, the bar fight had been the audition
He (much to the players' delight) turned out to be the BBEG, of course.
No we do a Session Zero and make characters and bonds together.
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4167196
Barky wrote:
It depends on who the players are. In gradeschool/highschool/college I always played with good friends so roleplaying the "meeting" session can be fun. My favorite campaign of all time had that. The "awkward posturing" that Iserith talks about didn't happen. It was very easy to jump right into character and stay there.
On the other hand, the campaign I started recently wasn't a group of long time friends and things were awkward. Of the seven players two were friends and people I knew, two were married, and the other three and no prior interaction with anyone except me during character creation. Because of schedule conflicts I didn't have a session zero with all the players together like I probably should have and I didn't mandate the players know each other (even a little) before hand.
As someone who runs primarily Expeditions and Encounters tables, this is a problem I frequently encounter. If it's the start of an adventure, i usually just use the Adventure Hooks provided, tweaked for each character's Adventure Log. If it's in the middle of an adventure, I try to come up with a way to fit the new player into the current scene. Otherwise, I have my fallbacks of "high level spellcasters within your faction teleported you" and "actions of the Cult of the Dragon have caused a flux in the Material Plane as Tiamat stirs."
One of my players who is notoriously late has made the unique entrances a part of his characters. His gnome arcane trickster has a propensity for appearing in conveniently placed barrels, having done so twice already in HotDQ Ep. 2 and DDEX1-2. His dragonborn barbarian joined a party running DDEX1-6 right after the explosion in the Archives. Cassra passed him as she was leaving to get medical attention and thought he was looking for reading lessons.
For LFR and AL, it seems to work best to have each member of the party give a brief introduction: Class / Level, Role (Striker, Sneak, Healer, &c), good skills, Race. One or two sentences about personality. If multiclassed, special synergy ability.
This helps the table's natural leader figure out who to ask to 'go first' as situations and challenges present themselves. It also helps set up cliches like 'all the squishy Magic-Users shift over to hide behind the Paladin; he strides to the fore and faces the enemy square-on.'
We do a bit of both. During our session zero we decide which characters know each other and why. Any characters who don't know each other need a reason to join up with the group and that introduction usually gets role played in a quick scene or through the first adventure.
In one game, my character was the face and knew everyone else but those characters didn't necessarily know each other. There was some introduction RP between those characters. In another game session zero was that we all are from the same major city and were winners in the King's games, which means we were picked as an adventuring team. There was some introduction RP between characters. In a game, everyone was from the same small town except for the mysterious lone wolf character. There was no introduction RP between characters. In one game the GM had us play Three Dragon Ante for the first game so that we can RP our introductions.
I prefer a Session Zero approach making it the players' responsibility to come up with a believable reason for the characters to get along. If characters come in blind with no knowledge of the campaign, the session/campaign is going to end catastrophically when the Dwarf Paladin, Orc Druid, and Drow Assassin all meet up in a bar with opposing goals, alignments, and racial hatreds. Setting up how different characters know each other and their relationships before hand lets people build on each other's ideas and avoid an epic-fail.
Not every character has to know each other, and not every character has to get along. But they have to be at least functional. Sturm and Raistlin hated each other, but they still functioned as a party. And when players talk about these "negative" relationships OOC-ly, it lets them be more objective and take things less personaly.
I like to get player input and buy-in on the type of campaign we'd like to be in. This sets expectations and makes sure there's something for everyone. If you run an intrigue game full of role-play, fancy parties, and bereft of combat. The half-orc Barbarian combat monkey with an 8 cha is going to feel pretty useless.
Here's a good guide for what Session Zero could be:
http://dungeonmastery.blogspot.com/2014/12/run-game-session-zero.html
- Eck
I mixed it up. Sometimes the PCs know each other, sometimes they don't. More often though, some of the PC's know each other, while the others do not.
Definitely depends on the group. Session Zero is the best option, in my opinion.
And I wanna play in Bumpo's game! That sounds like fun