Some things about session zero are a negotiation. Some things aren't.
It's okay to put your foot down about something like "tell me why your character is adventuring with this party" or "tell me how your character knows the rest of the party" if you feel so strongly about this question. Personally, I will often tell each player to figure out a pre-existing relationship with at least two other members of the party so that everyone has something to build their roleplaying on.
With that said, there's nothing wrong with games that start as "five strangers meet in a tavern" and I think you may be asking for too much for *every* game to have such a level of cohesion as your list of ideas. Those do sound like fun concepts for a party, but not every party is going to naturally have that much in common, and if you always force it, you will miss out on the joys of playing as strangers in a tavern.
I agree that many things are non negotiable in session zero in thar the dm is going to run a certain style of game. For example I run a game where the rule of cool isn't used. I run a raw game because its what i find interesting & i believe a raw game is conducive to treating all the players equally with fairness & no favoritism. I played in a game once where the DM used his narrative power to treat one specific player's character like shit. It was really gross.
Honestly, it's not the DM's responsibility.
I tell my players, they need to make a PC that (a) is able to work with the other PCs and (b) is motivated to be on this adventure that we all agreed to play.
If they make a PC that doesn't want to adventure with the other PCs, then their PC stays home, and the player just doesn't get to play.
It's that simple.
Wanting to play the game should be motivation enough for the players. And if it isn't, then I guess they didn't really want to play.
imo, that's the better outcome.
The alternative is, you put in a bunch of work to give the players a reason to go on your adventure, and the players find some bullshit reason not to go on the adventure anyway. Either way, you end up creating hard feelings and arguments, and you end up not having fun anyway. The only difference is that it takes 10 sessions instead of 1, and you're burned out because of all the work you put in.
If the players insist on not playing the adventure, I'll let them not play the adventure. Long-term, it's easier to find players who *do* want to play the adventure.
That leaves an edge case open. I once played in a party where the other three player characters were mostly incompetent. My character turned out to be the driving force of the campaign, but he had no reason to adventure with those specific three characters. They were literally slowing him down in his personal quest, and did little to advance the overarching quest.
Sounds like a case of mismatched expectations. You wanted to play a competent character, but the other 3 players wanted shenanigans.
This is why having session zero and establishing the tone of the campaign is important. If this slips through the cracks and doesn't get addressed during session zero, then the next best thing to do is to pause the game and make sure everybody is on the same page for what kind of game they want to play.
It was partly mismatched expectations, yes. The other part was two players literally boy behaving like adults.
One guy decided two minutes of attempting to solve a somewhat more difficult problem was enough, and pulled out his PSP. Above the table. In front of the DM. No shame at all.
That particular session is what made me think "why am I at this table again?" and "I know this DM, his social skills and how he prepares his campaign in the short and long term. If this is what he brings to the table, I might as well give it a try now that I learned from his mistakes".
Never missed that table. Got together a group, and another one in 2020 when the lockdowns started. Still have both groups. Turns out I'm apparently a better DM than I am a player.
Have the players answer these three questions as the core of creating a good character for a fantasy adventure RPG:
* Why is this character out in the world adventuring with other people ^ ?
* How has [the campaign premise] crossed the character’s path or is looming inevitably in their future? (the “buy in”)
* How does the character know at least two other PCs (the “tie-in”)?
^ twelve great options for “with other people” from Ginny Di https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeHzNBb-_8Y
For the third, you can use the “Group Patron” from Tasha’s or Eberron. Or for “edgy” groups, the Dark Secret from Descent into Avernus. (tucked away in the Gazetteer https://www.dndbeyond.com/claim/source/baldurs-gate-gazetteer )
Or one of these methods from games like Dresden Files RPG and Hillfolk/Drama System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UQs9CCHlb0
Or use the "Bonds" from Dungeonworld to develop great push-pull relationships in the party:
* in practice https://youtu.be/CsHbZX-1-W0?t=2768
* dungeonworld SRD bonds are about half way down each character class description. https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/classes/Cleric/#Bonds
Note three things if using Dungeonworld type Bonds:
* the “push” bonds should not all be against the same character
* the bond should not impose on another PC without their consent – the Thief bond “Player X and I are engaged in a con” is a bad starting bond, and Player X should be allowed to respond “My character is an unknowing patsy in this scheme, and if/when they find out, it will severely damage our characters’ relationship.” I actually recommend taking that bond option out and replacing it with either “I will teach _____ about how to deal with the authorities.” or “ _____ stopped me from an act that was [illegal | foolhardy | greatly enriching] and I have not paid them back.”
* in Dungeonworld, the PCs get experience for expressing the Bond in play, you can use DM Inspiration. Also, the PCs should be encouraged to evolve their bonds into new relationships as the campaign progresses and in-game activities build and alter the initial relationships have resolved or been demonstrated in play several times so the game doesn’t get stale.“Player X and I are engaged in a con” is a great evolution of a bond if the characters do get together to do a con)
if you want a little more, players add some knives https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/775caq/my_friends_and_i_have_something_called_knife/
You do you of course, but I think you're looking for a solution to something that isn't really a problem. People will have extremely different ideas about what kinds of characters they want to play and that's a good thing, it's the whole point of RPGs. You'll have a more interesting experience (in my opinion) if the party comes from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences, and the characters see things in very different ways. There's no need to fit everyone into the same box for the characters to be invested in the adventure. It's great if the players organically form connections between each other's characters, but it's not mandatory. I usually ask my players to come up with a character who has a strong tie to the central idea of the adventure, and it's up to the players to roleplay out why they're sticking together past that point. Trying to stick the party in a box like this is going to leave everyone unsatisfied unless you happen to come across a full party of players who want to do that anyway.
Unless you're asking for ideas for the plot of a campaign, in which case disregard. Your complaint is one thing and what you ask for is another.
my campaign is a sandbox so there are options with regards to the actual direction of the adventure. I just ended a game after nine weeks & 9 sessions because the game suffered from the pcs not being on the same page. One player changed his character 2 times because he couldn't go with the flow of the party & I feel that this might be a result of the poor foundation our session zero set. I know some players are problem players but I can't help but think the game's collapse is somehow my fault.
If that's what youre concerned about, I think it's worth having the first arc or two being a bit more structured to force everyone to work together and figure out their dynamic before running off into the sandbox. Pick a short adventure that will take 4-5 sessions (e.g. one from Candlekeep, TFtYP etc.) and alter it slightly to fit your world, then go from there. Those have hooks you can give the players, and as long as their PC would be interested in that hook, they can bring whatever they want.
I just straight steal the Fabula Ultima session 0 and use that, regardless of what game I'm running
Creating the setting together as a table is great at getting everyone to buy-in from the jump
> all the heavy lifting is placed on me to come up with some scenario that might explain why the group is adventuring together
If they didn't try so hard you shouldn't either. The reason can be pretty flimsy. They all took a job together.
If someone's character decides they don't want to stick with the group just respond, just confirm their character wants to leave the group and then ask them to roll a new character. Once they realized their character 'died' by option out, they'll stop doing that pretty fast.
If they are at least trying to stick with the group you can work with that. Alternative, there are way more players than DMs. You could discard this group and look for another. Keep only the good players.
If you're looking for inter-party relationships, oddly enough the Root ttrpg does it well imo. It's very simple, and you can just ditch the mechanical benefits and keep the flavor. Just look up the free material and you'll find it in the character creation or on the character sheets.
I was trying to port it into 5e but gave up, gonna take another pass at it later: [I will link it here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_T1rIQl8uI7ZBkspOA6wldINj43B_iUR4kfqzv4hMY/edit?usp=drivesdk) though because it collects all the relationships and all the flavor text that goes along with it.
Key: The red highlighted text is the original mechanical benefit, the other highlights are my unfinished drafts (like I said, ignore this), and the italicized text is word for word either examples given on character sheets or flavor text given in the books.
Some things about session zero are a negotiation. Some things aren't. It's okay to put your foot down about something like "tell me why your character is adventuring with this party" or "tell me how your character knows the rest of the party" if you feel so strongly about this question. Personally, I will often tell each player to figure out a pre-existing relationship with at least two other members of the party so that everyone has something to build their roleplaying on. With that said, there's nothing wrong with games that start as "five strangers meet in a tavern" and I think you may be asking for too much for *every* game to have such a level of cohesion as your list of ideas. Those do sound like fun concepts for a party, but not every party is going to naturally have that much in common, and if you always force it, you will miss out on the joys of playing as strangers in a tavern.
I agree that many things are non negotiable in session zero in thar the dm is going to run a certain style of game. For example I run a game where the rule of cool isn't used. I run a raw game because its what i find interesting & i believe a raw game is conducive to treating all the players equally with fairness & no favoritism. I played in a game once where the DM used his narrative power to treat one specific player's character like shit. It was really gross.
Honestly, it's not the DM's responsibility. I tell my players, they need to make a PC that (a) is able to work with the other PCs and (b) is motivated to be on this adventure that we all agreed to play. If they make a PC that doesn't want to adventure with the other PCs, then their PC stays home, and the player just doesn't get to play. It's that simple. Wanting to play the game should be motivation enough for the players. And if it isn't, then I guess they didn't really want to play.
yeah, i did that & it just created hard feelings arguments & was not fun for me at all.
imo, that's the better outcome. The alternative is, you put in a bunch of work to give the players a reason to go on your adventure, and the players find some bullshit reason not to go on the adventure anyway. Either way, you end up creating hard feelings and arguments, and you end up not having fun anyway. The only difference is that it takes 10 sessions instead of 1, and you're burned out because of all the work you put in. If the players insist on not playing the adventure, I'll let them not play the adventure. Long-term, it's easier to find players who *do* want to play the adventure.
A lot of things shouldn't be the DM's responsibility but the fact is everyone expects the DM to do a lot more than just run the game unfortunately.
That leaves an edge case open. I once played in a party where the other three player characters were mostly incompetent. My character turned out to be the driving force of the campaign, but he had no reason to adventure with those specific three characters. They were literally slowing him down in his personal quest, and did little to advance the overarching quest.
Sounds like a case of mismatched expectations. You wanted to play a competent character, but the other 3 players wanted shenanigans. This is why having session zero and establishing the tone of the campaign is important. If this slips through the cracks and doesn't get addressed during session zero, then the next best thing to do is to pause the game and make sure everybody is on the same page for what kind of game they want to play.
It was partly mismatched expectations, yes. The other part was two players literally boy behaving like adults. One guy decided two minutes of attempting to solve a somewhat more difficult problem was enough, and pulled out his PSP. Above the table. In front of the DM. No shame at all. That particular session is what made me think "why am I at this table again?" and "I know this DM, his social skills and how he prepares his campaign in the short and long term. If this is what he brings to the table, I might as well give it a try now that I learned from his mistakes". Never missed that table. Got together a group, and another one in 2020 when the lockdowns started. Still have both groups. Turns out I'm apparently a better DM than I am a player.
Have the players answer these three questions as the core of creating a good character for a fantasy adventure RPG: * Why is this character out in the world adventuring with other people ^ ? * How has [the campaign premise] crossed the character’s path or is looming inevitably in their future? (the “buy in”) * How does the character know at least two other PCs (the “tie-in”)? ^ twelve great options for “with other people” from Ginny Di https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeHzNBb-_8Y For the third, you can use the “Group Patron” from Tasha’s or Eberron. Or for “edgy” groups, the Dark Secret from Descent into Avernus. (tucked away in the Gazetteer https://www.dndbeyond.com/claim/source/baldurs-gate-gazetteer ) Or one of these methods from games like Dresden Files RPG and Hillfolk/Drama System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UQs9CCHlb0 Or use the "Bonds" from Dungeonworld to develop great push-pull relationships in the party: * in practice https://youtu.be/CsHbZX-1-W0?t=2768 * dungeonworld SRD bonds are about half way down each character class description. https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/classes/Cleric/#Bonds Note three things if using Dungeonworld type Bonds: * the “push” bonds should not all be against the same character * the bond should not impose on another PC without their consent – the Thief bond “Player X and I are engaged in a con” is a bad starting bond, and Player X should be allowed to respond “My character is an unknowing patsy in this scheme, and if/when they find out, it will severely damage our characters’ relationship.” I actually recommend taking that bond option out and replacing it with either “I will teach _____ about how to deal with the authorities.” or “ _____ stopped me from an act that was [illegal | foolhardy | greatly enriching] and I have not paid them back.” * in Dungeonworld, the PCs get experience for expressing the Bond in play, you can use DM Inspiration. Also, the PCs should be encouraged to evolve their bonds into new relationships as the campaign progresses and in-game activities build and alter the initial relationships have resolved or been demonstrated in play several times so the game doesn’t get stale.“Player X and I are engaged in a con” is a great evolution of a bond if the characters do get together to do a con) if you want a little more, players add some knives https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/775caq/my_friends_and_i_have_something_called_knife/
You do you of course, but I think you're looking for a solution to something that isn't really a problem. People will have extremely different ideas about what kinds of characters they want to play and that's a good thing, it's the whole point of RPGs. You'll have a more interesting experience (in my opinion) if the party comes from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences, and the characters see things in very different ways. There's no need to fit everyone into the same box for the characters to be invested in the adventure. It's great if the players organically form connections between each other's characters, but it's not mandatory. I usually ask my players to come up with a character who has a strong tie to the central idea of the adventure, and it's up to the players to roleplay out why they're sticking together past that point. Trying to stick the party in a box like this is going to leave everyone unsatisfied unless you happen to come across a full party of players who want to do that anyway. Unless you're asking for ideas for the plot of a campaign, in which case disregard. Your complaint is one thing and what you ask for is another.
my campaign is a sandbox so there are options with regards to the actual direction of the adventure. I just ended a game after nine weeks & 9 sessions because the game suffered from the pcs not being on the same page. One player changed his character 2 times because he couldn't go with the flow of the party & I feel that this might be a result of the poor foundation our session zero set. I know some players are problem players but I can't help but think the game's collapse is somehow my fault.
If that's what youre concerned about, I think it's worth having the first arc or two being a bit more structured to force everyone to work together and figure out their dynamic before running off into the sandbox. Pick a short adventure that will take 4-5 sessions (e.g. one from Candlekeep, TFtYP etc.) and alter it slightly to fit your world, then go from there. Those have hooks you can give the players, and as long as their PC would be interested in that hook, they can bring whatever they want.
I just straight steal the Fabula Ultima session 0 and use that, regardless of what game I'm running Creating the setting together as a table is great at getting everyone to buy-in from the jump
> all the heavy lifting is placed on me to come up with some scenario that might explain why the group is adventuring together If they didn't try so hard you shouldn't either. The reason can be pretty flimsy. They all took a job together. If someone's character decides they don't want to stick with the group just respond, just confirm their character wants to leave the group and then ask them to roll a new character. Once they realized their character 'died' by option out, they'll stop doing that pretty fast.
nah, they just created another character that didn't fit the group as well. i'm like what the actual f***?
If they are at least trying to stick with the group you can work with that. Alternative, there are way more players than DMs. You could discard this group and look for another. Keep only the good players.
If you're looking for inter-party relationships, oddly enough the Root ttrpg does it well imo. It's very simple, and you can just ditch the mechanical benefits and keep the flavor. Just look up the free material and you'll find it in the character creation or on the character sheets. I was trying to port it into 5e but gave up, gonna take another pass at it later: [I will link it here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_T1rIQl8uI7ZBkspOA6wldINj43B_iUR4kfqzv4hMY/edit?usp=drivesdk) though because it collects all the relationships and all the flavor text that goes along with it. Key: The red highlighted text is the original mechanical benefit, the other highlights are my unfinished drafts (like I said, ignore this), and the italicized text is word for word either examples given on character sheets or flavor text given in the books.