I have noted something about our group of D&D players that I wondered if others went or are going through as well. Before the current game that we are currently playing that I am DMing(a Curse of Strahd 5e Campaign) we had an issue that always came up; party cohesion was almost non-existent. The problems were various; players more interested in the game world than other player characters, the characters themselves were at best indifferent towards each other and at worst had barely held back hostility or desire to ruin what the others were doing but not enough to warrant some kind of retaliation, a desire to hog the spotlight or be seen as the hero, overly dramatic backstories that focused on how super special these characters were or if not super special still had some sort of grand social standing(nobles, royalty, etc), the characters never tried to improve their relationships with each other or made it believable why they worked with each other.

These problems were of course not of the same severity with all the players, it was worse with some than others and to be fair some players tried to build some sort of team dynamic but it was mostly a futile effort.

When we started the Strahd game I had two sessions just to work on characters, the lore of the setting and even incorporated a system our most experienced player suggested from another game; the players take turns completing a story of how the characters met each other and why they are currently traveling with each other. This seems to have worked as the characters were interested in each others affairs as they were in the world itself, role-playing improved exponentially and DMing for the group actually became more enjoyable.

After finishing the current 5e campaign we are planning to shift to 4e and will likely utilize the same system again in generating character relations.

Did you face similar problems at your tables? What solutions did you employ?

I just got out of a Traveller campaign with that problem (among a few others).
Do the players get along outside of the game? What are their expectations of the game? What kind of experience are they trying to get out it it. It might be a conflict of priorities.

Quote from: Cave Bear on July 11, 2021, 06:22:20 PM
I just got out of a Traveller campaign with that problem (among a few others).
Do the players get along outside of the game? What are their expectations of the game? What kind of experience are they trying to get out it it. It might be a conflict of priorities.

Some of them are good friends outside of them game, others would qualify as aquintances with similar tastes in hobbies. I would say one of them is always trying to be in the lime light. This has decreased significantly though with the new campaign. Another just seems more interested in the npcs and we aren't talking ones that are super important just your run of the mill one time quest characters. One player enjoys watching others Role-Play but barely does any role-playing himself or not as much as the others. Overall things have improved and hopefully they will keep improving.

I am just glad that I am not DMing the next game. This entire situation really showed me how important session zero is, I will talk to the next DM and suggest he really emphasize character generation and relationships early on. Would hate for my upcoming player experience to be bogged down by the problems I mentioned earlier.

Session 0 is important, but using older systems helps. Random character generation helps deal with anyone prone to playing the Unique Special Snowflake, and a simpler system means that instead of responding to "and what do you do?" with looking at the character sheet, players look around the table.

Aside from that, it's GMing. The GM should ensure that anyone who runs off on their own experiences reasonable consequences from that, and should introduce house rules that encourage players to stay together, for example things like shield walls.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 03:14:34 AM
Session 0 is important, but using older systems helps. Random character generation helps deal with anyone prone to playing the Unique Special Snowflake, and a simpler system means that instead of responding to "and what do you do?" with looking at the character sheet, players look around the table.

Aside from that, it's GMing. The GM should ensure that anyone who runs off on their own experiences reasonable consequences from that, and should introduce house rules that encourage players to stay together, for example things like shield walls.

A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.

As the GM it's your job to curate things. And if you let people make PC's that contextually have no interest or need to be together - then you can expect that in play. It's important for you as the GM to either create that context in their PC's backgrounds with the player, or let them do it themselves contextually to the starting-point you establish with them in Session Zero.

This will alleviate this problem, unless you have very bad intentioned players - which is a different problem.

If someone wants to play a Snowflake concept, you don't immediately have to say "no" (but you're well within your right to do so). I typically try to think of any *good* reason to justify it. And it might mean some heavy consequences - which you should tell your player. And if they're cool with it, great. If not, it's a negotiation of what you're willing to accept.

Having players with PC's that have overt animosity to other PC's for in-game reasons takes a very mature player to pull off without screwing the game up. Tread carefully there.

"Through Sunken Lands" helps with tying characters together from the start but even it will not make the players work together if they are not motivated to do so.

Maybe "Sending in the Ninjas/Zombies" would? 

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
When we started the Strahd game I had two sessions just to work on characters, the lore of the setting and even incorporated a system our most experienced player suggested from another game; the players take turns completing a story of how the characters met each other and why they are currently traveling with each other. This seems to have worked as the characters were interested in each others affairs as they were in the world itself, role-playing improved exponentially and DMing for the group actually became more enjoyable.

After finishing the current 5e campaign we are planning to shift to 4e and will likely utilize the same system again in generating character relations.

Did you face similar problems at your tables? What solutions did you employ?

Yeah, it comes down to just talking to the players and getting everyone on board with making a close-knit party. I will do similar and come up with shared backstory and bonds between PCs for how they relate.

It's worth noting that in many games, having some PC rivalry and conflict is a desired feature - like in Paranoia, Amber Diceless, Vampire: The Masquerade, and others. There's nothing wrong with either everyone playing nicey-nicey together or having a bunch of loosely-associated bastards - but it's best to get all of the players and the GM on the same page about what they're looking for.

It is no issue if the party are not all nice to each other, but if it feels there is no measure of trust or respect(in the other members abilities if not personalities) it makes you wonder why these guys are even going on life risking missions and adventures together. Of course the plot hook could be what keeps them together but not every plot hook works this way.

I think something as bad as actively sabotaging or being hostile to each other is indifference; when the other characters in your party are just distractions that get in the way of you talking to the npcs or the equivalent of faceless mercs that are there to make sure you survive the battle, it somewhat breaks immersion for me as a DM and makes me wonder "why are you guys even together anyway?"

Quote from: Greentongue on July 12, 2021, 01:18:31 PM
"Through Sunken Lands" helps with tying characters together from the start but even it will not make the players work together if they are not motivated to do so.

Maybe "Sending in the Ninjas/Zombies" would? 

I will keep ninjas, zombies and zombie ninjas in reserve whenever I DM just in-case.

Life is short.  No way on this earth I would spend my time trying to GM a group of people, who from the scene painted here, do not like one another and like to let it show.  If this is the case I would just settle it simple, tell them to cut their shit out or not come back.  If it is a case of the people actually get along and feel their characters would behave in this way, I would do as others have said, give them a situation where they better work together or they can all die alone.

Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 03:32:28 PM
Yeah, it comes down to just talking to the players and getting everyone on board with making a close-knit party. I will do similar and come up with shared backstory and bonds between PCs for how they relate.

It's worth noting that in many games, having some PC rivalry and conflict is a desired feature - like in Paranoia, Amber Diceless, Vampire: The Masquerade, and others. There's nothing wrong with either everyone playing nicey-nicey together or having a bunch of loosely-associated bastards - but it's best to get all of the players and the GM on the same page about what they're looking for.

Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
Life is short.  No way on this earth I would spend my time trying to GM a group of people, who from the scene painted here, do not like one another and like to let it show.  If this is the case I would just settle it simple, tell them to cut their shit out or not come back.  If it is a case of the people actually get along and feel their characters would behave in this way, I would do as others have said, give them a situation where they better work together or they can all die alone.

There's a huge difference between the *players* not liking each other, and the *characters* not liking each other.

Especially in games like Paranoia, Amber, and others as I mentioned - I've frequently had PCs who happily trade barbs or even stab each other in the back - but the players are great with it and happily share a beer afterwards and joke over it, since it's just a game, after all. I think handling it well is mostly a matter of expectations and out-of-game social dynamics.

If there is a problem with out-of-game animosity between players, then it should be handled by talking things over out-of-game.

Quote from: jhkim on July 13, 2021, 01:16:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 03:32:28 PM
Yeah, it comes down to just talking to the players and getting everyone on board with making a close-knit party. I will do similar and come up with shared backstory and bonds between PCs for how they relate.

It's worth noting that in many games, having some PC rivalry and conflict is a desired feature - like in Paranoia, Amber Diceless, Vampire: The Masquerade, and others. There's nothing wrong with either everyone playing nicey-nicey together or having a bunch of loosely-associated bastards - but it's best to get all of the players and the GM on the same page about what they're looking for.

Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
Life is short.  No way on this earth I would spend my time trying to GM a group of people, who from the scene painted here, do not like one another and like to let it show.  If this is the case I would just settle it simple, tell them to cut their shit out or not come back.  If it is a case of the people actually get along and feel their characters would behave in this way, I would do as others have said, give them a situation where they better work together or they can all die alone.

There's a huge difference between the *players* not liking each other, and the *characters* not liking each other.

Especially in games like Paranoia, Amber, and others as I mentioned - I've frequently had PCs who happily trade barbs or even stab each other in the back - but the players are great with it and happily share a beer afterwards and joke over it, since it's just a game, after all. I think handling it well is mostly a matter of expectations and out-of-game social dynamics.

If there is a problem with out-of-game animosity between players, then it should be handled by talking things over out-of-game.

Thankfully there is no out of game problems in our table. Just the issues in-game that I mentioned.

Quote from: jhkim on July 13, 2021, 01:16:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 03:32:28 PM
Yeah, it comes down to just talking to the players and getting everyone on board with making a close-knit party. I will do similar and come up with shared backstory and bonds between PCs for how they relate.

It's worth noting that in many games, having some PC rivalry and conflict is a desired feature - like in Paranoia, Amber Diceless, Vampire: The Masquerade, and others. There's nothing wrong with either everyone playing nicey-nicey together or having a bunch of loosely-associated bastards - but it's best to get all of the players and the GM on the same page about what they're looking for.

Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
Life is short.  No way on this earth I would spend my time trying to GM a group of people, who from the scene painted here, do not like one another and like to let it show.  If this is the case I would just settle it simple, tell them to cut their shit out or not come back.  If it is a case of the people actually get along and feel their characters would behave in this way, I would do as others have said, give them a situation where they better work together or they can all die alone.

There's a huge difference between the *players* not liking each other, and the *characters* not liking each other.

Especially in games like Paranoia, Amber, and others as I mentioned - I've frequently had PCs who happily trade barbs or even stab each other in the back - but the players are great with it and happily share a beer afterwards and joke over it, since it's just a game, after all. I think handling it well is mostly a matter of expectations and out-of-game social dynamics.

If there is a problem with out-of-game animosity between players, then it should be handled by talking things over out-of-game.

   Was it unclear when I laid out an opinion about people, and another about characters?

Quote from: oggsmash on July 13, 2021, 04:04:04 PM
   Was it unclear when I laid out an opinion about people, and another about characters?

Sorry, oggsmash. You're right, I didn't properly read your last sentence.

The disconnect was that I didn't read Sellsword's original post as the players not liking each other out-of-game -- and Sellsword just said the same thing.

If the players are all getting along, I think it's mostly a matter of getting out-of-game agreement on creating characters who work together. I think an in-game cause to unify them might help with that, but the first thing is getting them to all buy in with getting along nicely as a goal.

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
...
The problems were various; players more interested in the game world than other player characters, ...

In general players don not care about the game world unless it directly affects them.

Big lore dumps generally go through one ear and out the other.

Better is a quick 2-6 sentence intro that includes the campaign starting point.

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
... the characters themselves were at best indifferent towards each other and at worst had barely held back hostility or desire to ruin what the others were doing but not enough to warrant some kind of retaliation, a desire to hog the spotlight or be seen as the hero, overly dramatic backstories that focused on how super special these characters were or if not super special still had some sort of grand social standing(nobles, royalty, etc),...

You need nip that shit right in the bud.

Who is your character? One or two sentences tops.

Just don't allow anything more. Flat out refuse to look at it.

First rule of Session Zero: The players show up with Zero work done on any PC's.

At most after you give them the campaign pitch, have them think of 2-3 character concepts.

I think that making the players come to session zero with multiple ideas in their head - and nothing written down, helps to mentally prep them to have more than one option in mind when they sit down to create PC's.

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
... the characters never tried to improve their relationships with each other or made it believable why they worked with each other.

They need to set those relationships at the beginning.

Each player should come into the game with a team mindset.

Don't let them create special snowflakes who don't contribute to the team.

In fact you should have them establish how they all met each other.

And then go around the table and have each player describe what they rely on their friends for.

They need to be a group of friends with a unified goal. Not a bunch of lone wolf opportunists who are only together for convenience that will backstab each other at the drop of a hat.


EDIT: How many players are you dealing with?  Too many players can also be a big factor in why you have problems.

Quote from: Jaeger on July 13, 2021, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
...
The problems were various; players more interested in the game world than other player characters, ...

In general players don not care about the game world unless it directly affects them.

Big lore dumps generally go through one ear and out the other.

Better is a quick 2-6 sentence intro that includes the campaign starting point.

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
... the characters themselves were at best indifferent towards each other and at worst had barely held back hostility or desire to ruin what the others were doing but not enough to warrant some kind of retaliation, a desire to hog the spotlight or be seen as the hero, overly dramatic backstories that focused on how super special these characters were or if not super special still had some sort of grand social standing(nobles, royalty, etc),...

You need nip that shit right in the bud.

Who is your character? One or two sentences tops.

Just don't allow anything more. Flat out refuse to look at it.

First rule of Session Zero: The players show up with Zero work done on any PC's.

At most after you give them the campaign pitch, have them think of 2-3 character concepts.

I think that making the players come to session zero with multiple ideas in their head - and nothing written down, helps to mentally prep them to have more than one option in mind when they sit down to create PC's.

Quote from: Sellsword on July 11, 2021, 04:17:01 PM
... the characters never tried to improve their relationships with each other or made it believable why they worked with each other.

They need to set those relationships at the beginning.

Each player should come into the game with a team mindset.

Don't let them create special snowflakes who don't contribute to the team.

In fact you should have them establish how they all met each other.

And then go around the table and have each player describe what they rely on their friends for.

They need to be a group of friends with a unified goal. Not a bunch of lone wolf opportunists who are only together for convenience that will backstab each other at the drop of a hat.

Greetings!

I just love smug, self-satisfied "Lone Wolf" opportunists that some players seem to love doing. They usually do something terribly selfish and stupid--like leaving their guard-post over the camp at night to investigate something shiny all by themselves--which often ends with some or all of the party being slaughtered, or enslaved and losing everything. If the players manage to survive, and the "Lone Wolf" jackass somehow avoided getting themselves killed, I've seen players corner the stupid fucker and kill their characters themselves. Brutal and harsh lessons for being selfish, stupid, and irresponsible. Lone Wolves need to fucking die and die horribly. The D&D world is a world that requires team-work and loyalty, not snowflake fucking superheroes that believe they can do whatever the hell they want.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK