How Did Your Party Meet?

In the plethora of games and stories we have at our disposal, the very intro itself can be a monumental tone-setter for the campaign, or it can be just another scene. Some games incorporate the party into character creation; some have party creation rules; some leave it to your own devices.

As a GM: What is your favorite way of getting the party together? Do you have a process? Do you have rules? Do you let the players make characters separately, then say 'and now kith'? Do you like your parties to know each other prior, or get to know each other in the game?

As a PC: What are some good experiences you've had in the formation of a party? What are some techniques you've seen that you liked? Do you mind hand-waving the meeting and getting right to the action?

As a Solo: 'Sup?

As a GM, I enjoy dropping them in media res, getting right into the action. Nothing gets a player's interest better than the words, "Roll for initiative." I start with the characters in a lightweight battle, nothing they can't handle fairly easily, and refuse to provide any details until the battle is complete. Then I brief them on what has brought them to this point. I find that it really hooks the players and whets their appetite for what is to come. After the battle and the briefing, we have a quick retro scene where they explain how they met.

As a player, I have been subjected to every trope from the ubiquitous meeting in a tavern to being captured and thrown into a cell together. I even played a scenario where all the characters were dead (it wasn't permanent)!

Solo? I usually just assume that they all know one another somehow.

Depends on the campaign premise, but is usually tied to it. Some examples that happened included: a Sabbat pack tasked with infiltrating a city's Elysium; an isekai'd party (long before that word became known to me); a group of children with psionics extracted by an ambiguous organisation; a group of buddies unified by a dream of obtaining a spaceship and going to work in space; a group of investigators blackmailed into working for a secretive conspiracy with ambiguous goals; a party of residents of a newly-built town tasked with reducing the tensions between local groups. Upcoming: a small band of spirits awakened in the forest for the first time; a bunch of people with various divine gifts and mundane talents for various reasons invited to work in a small office of a world-spanning organisation with a predominately public but very lengthy set of goals (think League of Nations+Ghostbusters+WHO+ISO+other organisations rolled into one).
I like parties either united around a professional party, or around some ongoing (indefinite) group of goals. A party built around friendship seems also viable but requires much more coordination regarding personalities and other aspects of PCs than a professional/goal-oriented party.
*Blank stare*.

I guess I'm not the target audience. To me the problem with media res is exactly that it leaves me with a blank gap where the answer to some of the hook-questions would be, like 'why do I care about this scene enough to get into a fight and stay in a fight?', 'what are the stakes?', 'what is the broader motivation?', 'was there a safer solution?', 'what preparations did I do in pursuit of my goals, what of those worked out and what did not?', 'should I continue this fight or should I try to fall back and bail out? Should my allies? Do I even trust my allies?'.

Lots of stuff like that makes or breaks interest in a campaign/adventure.

Here's an example of an in media res opening I once used for a Conan 2d20 game. This was the very first post, with no discussion of party conversion before this:



It really worked well. The party created the story they wanted and we went from there.

Well the whole meet in a tavern is a tried and true troupe. Ot prison...

I did something a bit different. Each player fought in a unwin able fight. They each died their own death somewhere in time. At the moment of death they where pulled to a summoning circle. Then they had a choice. Serve a patron for a disclosed amount of time or return to their deaths. A second chance at life. If course they had to do the patrons bidding. This gave them purpose right away. Jobs to do. Loyalty to maintain or die. They were all strangers thrown together for a singular purpose. Serve until you are released into freedom. It has worked out pretty good. They have lost 3 characters so far. And new heroes get summoned from the dead to replace them. Campaign has been going 3 years now. They have reached 12th level. Yay them...

By now I think I've done it all. Start off with all PCs captured. In media res as Qralloq and WhtKnt suggest. Hired by an employer to do a thing. Told by their mutual boss to do a thing. Gathered at a dying friend / relative's bedside. All applying for the same superteam. On the run from enemy forces. Waking in a lab without knowing who or where they are. At a party before the grand expedition. Guarding a caravan headed into unknown territory. In a bar. Returning from another adventure. First day of school. En route to the mission via plane / train / car. In solo scenes at home before they all get 'the call.'

Really depends on the game, the mission / adventure, the vibe of the game. Not a fan of everyone meeting for the first time and having no reason to stay together, certainly...

My choices range from "you are all part of the same family" and "you all had the same childhood friend who died" to "you are all on the same train as it's being attacked by aliens, and you need to act fast". I reveal the reason for characters to be there during recruitment, and then allow my players to incorporate that reason into their story however they need.

A thing I avoid, though, is placing characters in captivity at the start. Or ever. Starting in captivity feels like telling a player: "You were dumb enough to let your character get captured in a cutscene." For the same reason I avoid starting with "you all died and were resurrected by GMPC" and "you took a loan from a mobster and now you owe him". Some of these might work in a movie or a book, but that is because the entire story is written by the same author. GMs, however, aren't the authors of PC's.
My best experiences usually include either solo-prologues, in which I eventually get to roleplay how my character meets another character; or in media res starts, where everyone gets to shine immediately and then that becomes the foundation for future character interactions ("Hey, thanks for that heal back then. What magic was that?").

I also think that under no circumstances should GM describe PC's actions or decisions at any point of the game, including the introduction. Even if the game begins in the middle of things, the opening scene should be ambiguous enough to let players keep their full agency. "You killed them all" in Qralloq's example is one such problematic description. "Around you there are six dead men. Killed." would be much better.
I agree with vicky_molokh on this one. While I like in media res starts, this would be an example of how not to do it. And I suspect I'll state an unpopular opinion, but "roll for initiative" phrase actually makes me yawn. So when you say "Nothing gets a player's interest better…" I'd like to point out that not all players are the same, and starts like that can push some people away immediately. But it's much worse if players didn't know what sort of game they were getting into and then have to deal with an unexpected, unexplained, and unappealing opening scene that was based on assumptions of what they want.

I'm a fan of the in media res approach as well. While the players may be uncertain of many details, having an immediate problem to solve keeps the momentum rolling from character creation right into the game. The context and circumstances can always be fleshed out after the PCs manage to find solid footing.

Of course, it won't suit every kind of story, but it's certainly an approach I like a lot.

One of my recent games had a sort of "video name" intro, in I narrated the players slowly making their way from their bunk in a ship to a mirror to their chest to etc etc, and in each step they revealed a little of their character (generating on the spot). It was good fun, and right after I told them about how they had spent some time together and were all on the run from an evil wizard. It seemed to build a quick rapport. Granted, the players were (are) also of the highest caliber.

I've always wanted to do the "Start by rolling initiative" scenario, but it hasn't come up. One of the ideas in the OSR is that your character is defined by their actions, not their last; so, too, is the party. I do enjoy giving a simple explanation of "You are working together now, for whatever reason you decide" or "Dreams have brought you to this place, and you have like goals."

One of my favorite character bonding systems comes from Fate of the Norns, in which the players draw runes together (their form of dice rolling) to find ties. Stuff like being related, owing a debt, running away from danger together, etc. It fit the narrative well.

One thing I don't worry about is playing around with player agency before the game starts. I'm not here to do anything drastic, but I know the setting and story better than anyone else at the table and ask for a little trust.

Tried almost everything possible so far, I think. My favorite way is giving each character a reason movin towards a goal, letting them meet at a crossroads, a tavern or other place of gathering, giving them possibilities to realize they have the same path for some time. After reaching some intermediate goals, they'll know each other and how they can work together. After that, it's on their own to stick together.
What I don't like is the "you are trusted friends"-trope for some spontaneous play, but I'm fine with it if this trope is made clear with the character building. I like most the "family"- or "professional team"-approach.

To each their own. I have used this approach on no less than a dozen occasions with nary a complaint. A problem with the tavern trope is why are they coming together? Why would this group of dissimilar people bond?

That's a false dichotomy. "You all meet in a tavern" and "Roll initiative" aren't the only two ways to start a game. And the problem of your provided example isn't even what was chosen, it is how it was delivered. The reason why I even commented on this is that since I happen to play role-playing games, happen to like in media res starts, and you directly said "Nothing gets a player's interest better", I merely wanted to give some feedback on your particular example and assumptions.

---

Speaking of the "tavern trope problem", though. Despite being entirely unrelated to my previous post, it's still a topic worthy of some discussion, and as it happens I actually have a few thoughts on that as well. Since I already know that They Don't Read Very Well, I'll underscore the two main points.

The main main point will be this: there's always a story to be told.

In the tavern trope it's the players' collective responsibility to tell the story of how they met and why they were drawn to each other in that tavern. "My character liked how that ninja was dressed: I wanted to ask her if it's cold wearing only a fishnet suit so far in the North" or "That priest seemed rich, I thought that maybe he'll be a good mark for my rogue to rob, but it turned out he's also a great comedian and knows his drinks".

What I personally find problematic in these starts are players (not just their characters) who refuse to engage.

Those "strong, silent types" are a problem in general, but especially a problem for social setting starts, including a tavern. The truth is that most people wouldn't even approach a table of such a person, much less attempt a polite conversation. A party that consists entirely of PCs like that isn't really fun to be role-playing in, unless you want to tell a story of how you are completely ignored by everyone and then kill them one-by-one because of the psychological trauma it caused you. But I presume a party like that is great for reason-less combat against weak foes, if that's your cup of tea.

Big takeway here seems to be that different tables enjoy different styles, and that neither table is wrong.

Online isn't a table, though. It's fine when a game only has players from an established group. But when GMs of different styles make the same exact pitches, a player who is looking for a group will always end up guessing, and if they don't fit the assumptions of their chosen GM, then they'll end up in a bad spot. That's wrong no matter how you look at it.

A lot of these situations can be avoided by doing two things: not making assumptions about what the players want and giving enough information during recruitment on what the GM's style is. That's in fact why we are making these threads lately, isn't it?

"I make games for people who can dive into action from the get go without any explanations, players like S.F. and vicky_molokh aren't expected in my games." That's a line that would be informative enough so everybody wins, including S.F. and vicky_molokh. On the other hand, "I start in media res and know what everyone needs" would be less so.

The reason we're starting these conversations on the site is because it was pointed out that not everyone is on the Discord server, and so half the community (number pulled from my butt) was not as engaged with the community. This was a discussion that we had, and the Questions of the Day are the result.

I disagree the "Online isn't a table." None of the issues discussed are unique to physical tables or digital venues. Your table is your game, whether that's in a game store, your basement, on Mars, in your dreams, or online. Regardless of where you are, communication is key in pitching your game.

How you pitch games is a different discussion. We're here to discuss how you get your party together.

Actually, I agree with this statement. An open recruitment is nothing like an established group, regardless of whether it's online or offline, while communication is equally relevant for both. But the communication is clearly lacking at least online, which is a problem many refuse to address. Quite possibly because of Discord, which has a fitting name, I must say. A hub for gossip and post-skimming.
You get a party by pitching a game.

Would you mind being less dismissive of a platform others enjoy? We have a good community in the GamersPlane server, and many successful game recruiting efforts take place there. Your experience is not universal.
Around here you also get a party by paying your internet bill, but I would hope we can both agree that neither is what the thread is asking about.

… It’s the best platform for TTRPG discussion on the internet. So…. Yeah maybe no?
No, that’s how you get applicants. You get a party by choosing among them.

Listen, there is no magical way to ensure in advance that you will be compatible with a GM or another player. And calling out specific people or styles as unwelcome ain’t the way either.

Sure, give your pitch, make it fairly clear what the genre and tone are. But don’t expect perfect matching. If you want something formal, use C.A.TS.

https://proleary.com/games/the-cats-method/

PS please don’t use Grok to argue with me. I refuse to engage with mecha-H****r.

@Drgwen, what are your favorite ways of introducing a party?

session 0! During a session 0, topics like genre, tone, lines and veils, setting, a starting premise if there is one, etc should all be discussed.

Now how you introduce the characters into a party structure inside the game once you’ve begun is a different topic. Do you have them all meet in a tavern? Do you drop them in media res? Do you have them thrown together through chance? Lots of room to experiment there and, for me, that is very much dependent on what kind of game I’m running. Horror games generally have a slow burn intro. Action games might start in the middle of it. And so on.

Finally, there’s a question of how you select players for the session 0. And that is where you just need a clear pitch and perhaps a short conversation with applicants and then you just accept that there may be a weeding out process, or some attrition, etc.