Splitting the party from session 1

You can get away with it while having some downtime in a village. The bard is making coin in the tavern and the barbarian is drinking in the same place, the priest visits the local chapel, the warlock looks to spend some coin on magic baubles, etc. This also increases the creativity in which you can give your players their next quest.

But once you're out adventuring on that quest, you're a goddamn party. If you don't want to be a party, then go home and play a single player game.

Edit: I have had good DMs separate the party themselves though, but we always spend it trying to find each other again.

make checks until you fail. take 40d8 damage from a mysterious source. no one's around you to help unfortunately because you were dumb enough to separate from the party.

now make a better character or go home, your choice.

I did this in the very first RPG I played. It was Star Wars and I was playing a smuggler (who thus had a ship). Obviously the GM intended my ship to be used to move the party around. Well, the jedi PC shows up wanting to board my ship as I'm getting ready to leave. I don't know this guy so obviously the first thing my character would do would be to say that and then turn the turrets on when this strange jedi tried to insist on joining me, followed by promptly flying off so he ended up needing to find another way to our adventure.

No idea why I was like that. The player was pretty much my best friend at the school, too, so it wasn't anything personal against him. I think I was just trying to hard to do what "my character would realistically do" instead of just playing a game.

Probably for the best. If you'd let him onboard it might have ended up like this story.

My rule on this is very simple; if your character isn't a part of the group, they're not part of the story. That goes for lone wolves, people who betray the party, "evil" characters who work against the party's interests, etc. You make the choices you want to make, you do what seems right for your character, but the moment that means you're not a part of the group, you either figure out a good story for how we're going to fix that, or you hand me your character sheet. It's really that easy.

"But thats just what my character would do!"

OK, let's unpack that. If that's truly, genuinely the case, if there's no way your character could no work against the group or leave them at this point, then this is how your characters story ends. If that comes twenty sessions into a game, well, waking away rather than betray your morals is a pretty good story if you ask me. If it comes two sessions in then we need to figure out why you're not on the same page as everyone else.

But more often, the player simply thinks its the only possible way their character can act in this situation because they're not thinking creatively. People are complicated. Consistency is actually the bane of interesting characters. A good character is inconsistent for interesting reasons. "My character would never trust someone in this situation!" OK, but what if they did? Now we're left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.

There's also the other side of this coin, which is the responsibility on the GM's shoulders. Yes, your players owe it to each other to try to keep the story moving forward, but you also owe it to them to respect the reality their story takes place in. Don't run a gritty crime game and then expect your players to just automatically trust some NPC that turns up with no bona fides. You actually have to put the work into crafting scenarios where the players can have their characters react naturally and still drive the story. It's a bad GM who pisses their pants and cries because they created something that looks like an obvious trap (whether it is or not) and their players refused to walk into it.

OK, but what if they did? Now we're left with the question of why, and figuring that out is surely going to be interesting.
"I
<something disruptive >
."
"You're about to, when you change your mind. What made you change your mind?"
It's a powerful tool. It can be overused, but it's good for bringing people into the right frame of mind.
Maybe something happens that's more urgent than the trust issue. Maybe they see a tattoo on another character that has meaning for you. Maybe they just realize it could be useful to be in the party for now. Whatever it is, they are solidifying the team while also taking more authorship of the story.
- I don't like prescribing a characters actions to that degree, but I would certainly work with the player to try to help them come up with an alternate path.
  If a player ultimately chooses to commit to a path that puts them at odds with the party, I'll respect that, but I'll make it clear to them that this is where that character's story ends.

Your character purchased and ate bad fish the night before, and you have uncontrollable gas, which quickly turns to greasy, putrid diarrhea. As the pub bouncer tosses you out the door for smelling like raw sewage, a micrometeorite hits you in the eye and lodges itself into your brain, disrupting your medula. As you lay there struggling to breate, you shake yourself awake. It would seem you fell asleep at the table and had an awful dream.

Sorry, what were you saying about not wanting to stick around?

Biggest pet peeve with players. This is why, during session 0, I make players pre-establish a reason that they not only go along with the party and the planned campaign but also a reason why they trust at least two other characters.

I've made it a hard rule, "Your characters are at least familiar with each other. They're not total strangers." It just makes everything so much easier.
And the person who didn't gets to default to being the loner outcast who doesn't talk much, easy
- How would they not? Session 0 we create characters together, anyone who doesn't follow the previously stated rules can leave my table.
  The entire point is to prevent the creation of "rando loner who just sits in a corner and sulks".

Ngl, this has never been a problem for multiple sessions for me. As a player or DM.

As a player, I show up willing to play characters that will work with a group, even if they don't trust them. Trust isn't necessary to work together.

As a DM I remind all players of that fact before they roll one up. If they don't have an idea on how their character would manage that, I'll give them ideas.

Yeah, you'll run into players that just don't get that not every character has to have the same motivation to work with others, or just refuse to play different characters (instead, they try to play the same character with different names). But those are rare. And, so far, I've yet to run into a player that wouldn't take the "look, you don't have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?" talk and give it a fair try.

I've also never had a player quit because of the game not being engaging and fun.

look, you don't have to keep playing with us, but give it a try my way and see how it goes, yeah?
I've heard of players refusing to adjust their play to meet the party where they're at but I've never seen it happen. I've played with a player who did that intentionally, but their in real life stated goal was to ruin the game and ensure no one else had any fun. I don't play with that person anymore.
None of the kids you're talking to on this site have friends, much less play actual D&D, they probably just read the manuals and imagine running campaigns based on how they interact with other loners online.
As a game, it's a purely social experience that even the rules are far less important than the narratives and shared storytelling experience, most adults know this and it's why they play these kinds of games, not to "win" or be some champion of self-expression.
I am ranting about it because there is a wild disconnect between the kinds of people who use sites like this and reality. I don't think a lot of people who comment about things online have healthy, balanced lives. I mean, I know I don't, but I also know that many others have totally different kinds of issues that pulls them into the comment sections of sites like Lemmy or Reddit.

Alone and vulnerable, you are murdered by thieves. Make a new guy for the next game.

Lots of other good points already made, but I'll add my own two cents.

When I run a game, I always require players to make characters together. No "go off and make a character in isolation". That's just a recipe for disaster. You can have some ideas already in mind, but nothing is canon until the whole group agrees.

Second, everyone needs to have buy-in to whatever the hook is. If the scenario is "you're starting a courier business at the edge of civilization", there are lots of good options. Guy on the run from the law. Lady studying local wild life. Intelligent, local, wildlife. Don't play "guy who doesn't want to be here and is a total killjoy"

Third, it's better when characters have connections to each other. You can play the "we just met and we're forming a relationship!" arc, but like "what if we play ourselves in a fantasy world??" it has been done.

Honestly, everyone should read Fate's "Phase Trio" https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/phase-trio and the rest of character creation.

There's a few ways I have approached this as a GM. I'll go from least to most effective (and, I feel, mature).

The first is to put a shared enemy in front of the party, so that even if the characters do split up, they're working towards the same goal. The character who has "no reason" to trust the party also has reason to recognize the effectiveness of sticking with allies in a world full of enemies. If the player wants them to go off on their own, fine, but as GM, the game stays with the party - oh, and have the player who left roll on a random injury table because they were outnumbered.

Second is to invoke the "Wolverine Approach". Wolverine in Marvel Comics always goes on and on about not being a team player, being a bad person, being a loner, etc. - and he certainly has had his fair share of solo adventures. At the same time, there was at least one month where nearly every major Marvel title had Wolverine in it - Avengers, West Coast Avengers, X-Men, the Defenders, Spider-Man, Marvel Team-Up, Alpha Flight, etc.. And because it was in the era where She-Hulk was part of the F4, he had a cameo there because of the WCA. Wolverine might claim to not be a team player, and he might be a pain in the rear end, but he's always there if there's a villain to be thwarted or a fight to be had. You have a right to have your character complain. Just stick in or near the party. I don't care if you sleep in a different hotel or a separate camp. Be there in the important scenes.

Third, "Take it or leave it". I'm not ashamed of myself for this one - I have told people, this is the game we're playing. if you want to play this game, I want to have you. If you don't want to play what we're playing under the terms we're all in agreement on, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out. It's effective, but I don't think it's the most mature method in my arsenal because of the all-or-nothing nature.

Fourth is an open and frank discussion. Explain that the concept of the game is cooperative. Make sure you get buyin from everyone, not just the loner. Express the expectation I have of both players and characters for the game in play. Paranoia, for instance, has a very different set of expectations and goals than Shadowrun or Spirit of the Century / Dresden / Fate. I have GMed for a loner character in a Fate game who never showed up with the other players, but because the system is so narratively driven, they were helpful by setting up Aspects with free tags because the character could realistically be "doing his own thing" and still contribute. So I've learned to be open and clear with my goals and intentions. I don't care if your character is going to be a pain - I care whether or not you as a player will contribute positively to everyone's experience in a fair way.

The more we are clear about goals and intentions, and the more we can apply nuance and understanding to the situation, the better our games will be.

If your character has no reason to stay either the plothook was insufficient or you made a bad character. Both should be adressed ooc.

Create a new character that does have a reason to stick around. *Session 0 should be the creation of the story of how the group met, they should not meet in session 1.
- they should not meet in session 1.
  Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks.
  And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative enough to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.
- The DM came up with the plot hook and the players agreed to play, so the players need to put some effort into finding a reason to go along with the plot hook.
  Suggestions on making the hook more engaging is an option too!
Or third option: the person is operating independent of Table expectations or their character. Some folks just don’t get it and frankly I wonder why they want to play the game. It’s incredibly rare, but I have seen it.
You don’t have to put on a voice in a costume and write 20 pages of lore, but if you’re going to play at my table, I expect you to remain in character unless you have a question for me more or less. I expect you to take it seriously and use basic social etiquette. I’ve never played with somebody who was incapable of realizing that they are not being fun/funny, or considerate. They just get main character syndrome and stop listening to people for some reason.
It’s all about listening. If you’re capable of being at a table with a few people in life, then you’re capable of playing D&D!
For me, as a DM, real shit always happens on session 1, you swim together or fucking die.

If the person playing is hellbent on being a lone wolf, they shouldn't have entered the game. Roleplaying a character who has trust issues but is willing to give the party a chance to convince them they're trustworthy is very reasonable, though - realistic, even.

That's why it's pretty common in Shadowrun to just have everyone be kidnapped and fitted with a bomb in their skull.

If their character doesn't want to cooperate, you activate the player's brain bomb.

You mean the player character's bomb, right?
Also, Cortex bombs are lame and lazy plot- & storywriting.
- GM with 20 years experience
- You mean the player character's bomb, right?
  No. 😈
- Mac and cheese for dinner is lame and lazy too, but also fucking delicious. TTRPGS are something your friends put together for you out of love, not necessarily some clinically perfect professional product. And to extend the metaphor, if you go to a dinner party and start bitching about your friend not plating the food like a Michelin star place, you're an asshole.
That's not common in Shadowrun... 30+ years playing and running that game, and I've never encountered it!
- I've seen it once...it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group.
  He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!
What are we, some sort of Shadowrun?
One day I'll play Shadowrun... I'm too lazy to learn it well enough to DM it.
DCC/MCC likes character funnels for similar reasons

I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party.

It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing.

I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.

My fix has always been: that's fine! They go off on their own adventures. Now please roll a character that's going to play the game we're running here tonight.

I just don't DM for people like that anymore.
Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.
- I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that "I'm such a rebel" phase where they think they're bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say "no" the first time you ask them to do something.
  He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said "okay, you can stay at the inn if you want" and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him.
  He's 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we're all being mean to him. Apparently "he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to" wasn't a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him "rejoin" at the next town/session.
  He doesn't pull that shit anymore though, when he's playing he's playing or he gets shut out again.
  Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?
- I recently tried to DM for my son and his friends. One of his friends insisted he wanted to be a DM. I tried to gently encourage him to allow me to DM for them, and he would have much more fun as a player. Nope, he insisted, and like a good DM, I let him discover for himself why he was wrong. It was fun to be a player character, and they all learned a lot about running a game, so wins all around.
- I GM public games and games at conventions, so sometimes it still crops up. People don't always make it readily apparent ahead of game time that they're going to pull shenanigans like this.
- Everybody's gotta learn some time

I'm a big fan of "you all wake up in loincloths sitting in a wagon, hands bound" and as long as someone at the table can roll higher than a 1, they can break free.

Or something attacks them while they're all in a tavern

Basically I'm a fan of "you could ignore having your shit kicked in, but will you?" since so many players would stop at nothing.

Fallout NV had the right idea. "Where's that little fucker who shot me in the head?!"

Hey, you. You’re finally awake. You were trying to cross the border, right?

I learned as a GM to set expectations.

"I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"

I have found it productive to make part of the character creation prompt a motivation for the main plot. Like tell me your class and backstory and all that, and then also tell me why you want to be on this adventure
- This is a great idea
100% this. Have a conversation about expectations before you begin. DnD is a little bit game, a little bit therapy. The DM isn't your Unity Engine. Make sure everyone is on board for the same experience and you'll be fine.
This is a good take. I remind players all the time that even though I'm GMing I'm a player too. I'm just playing a slightly different game. I'm here to have fun and enjoy myself, not babysit.
I absolutely used to be that "my character is a quiet rogue-ish type that definitely wasn't modeled after Aragorn when he was introduced at the Prancing Pony mixed with Robin hood" who always "had to be convinced" to join, and nobody ever called me out for it. I honestly wish they had because that's annoying as fuck and you miss out on playing an actually fully developed character.
Nowadays I tend to be less tactful that you are, but essentially tell people the same thing, or literally beat their characters over the head with ambushes.

Gotta build those connections and relationships into the party during session zero. I like to model mine after the game fiasco where players are linked by relationships, locations, objects or needs. For DnD I think the dragon slayer classic playset works best, you can find it under the downloads section

I have been a Dungeon Master for over 25 years. I am also a longtime anarchist, and many of my regular players are not.

I have three rules if im going to DM: 1) I pick the game system. Sorry, non-negotiable. I'll play 5e (if I have to) but I won't run it. Luckily, I also don't have to run the same game my players are playing. Yall can use Worlds Without Number, Into The Odd, the Rules Cyclopedia, Mork Borg... what goes on on my end is my own thing (and involves plenty of the RC) 2) Party resources are communal. However you wanna work that out is up to you, but if you steal from The Party, The Gods will Curse You. And 3) You have to be willing to work in a group. This isn't Skyrim, its a party game. The whole point is social problem solving. If you're not up for that, its cool, I won't make you talk or anything - but you gotta be a part of the team. Part of that is on me to make the initial hook good enough, but part of it is on you not to run a counterproductive pain in my ass.

I almost never have any problems if I do my job right and make all this clear and understood off the bat.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
- See my other reply re: "no rules"
  Also, just read the first chapter or two of this. It's very, very accessible https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
- I've got a second tho so I'll try:
  it means "no rulers", from Greek. Not no rules. You can't have more than 2 people without some rules, we just want to all be able to agree with them. Anarchists by and large are opposed to hierarchy, that's the focus. We tend to like direct democracy and communal organizational structures.
  The stories I tell don't have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who's responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right?
  Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who've done it very successfully. But that's not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I'm an anarchist because my soul is anarchist and always has been. I also think its what we need to do if we're going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.
- Communal resources seems to go against that
  Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association.
  In other words: if the PCs don't like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.
- Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.

The whole We play a game so you have to cooperate together even if role-play wise it makes no sense is a bad practice, May-be not at the point you'll leave the table but definitely a serious sign that the table doesn't function properly.

Luckily, there is a very easy fix Do a session zero, and build a coherent party ab initio, it include in game reason for the party to work together, coherent goals (because when player A wants to abolish the reign of the emperor, and player B wants to defend the emperor you'll have a PvP fight within 3 session) and a meta discussion to have a pallet of skills matching the party's goal (At least in more epic game where you don't want to feel powerless). Almost every RPG published in the last 10-15 years contains an extensive session zero guide and tons of tips to build a relevant party.

If someone wants to play a law priest in a pirate campaign or any other character not fitting the campaign theme or opposing other PCs, it's perfectly OK to tell the no. Obviously if everybody is aligned on some PvP and betrayal the answer may be different, but it's again something to address in session zero.

Nobody in here is saying "even if rp wise it makes no sense". We're saying exactly what you are - the DM and the players set boundaries as to what kind of game they wanna play and are willing to, and then you make PCs.
Don't be an edgelord Rogue who's too cool to work with anyone else. Go play Skyrim.

Compleatly understandable. Roll three d20... unfortunelty, your character died from sevear case of buzz kill. Go ahead an roll out n new one that is exactly like this one but more trusty toward people exactly like those in the party.

In game punishments are the worst for these kinds of issues, just talk to each other.
- That's a much better advice. Much worse joke though.