Starting the Adventure

[Drakevarg]

Lately I've been studying published campaign modules (Red Hand of Doom and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, in particular) as a way to better understand campaign planning. Before now I've always had broad-stokes plans but rarely actually worked on any material beyond the next session. This was usually because I've just sort of grown to assume that players would somehow derail my plans. To be fair, it's been some time since the players have done anything truly unexpected beyond take three sessions to complete a scenario I expected to conclude in just one.

Anyway, one difficulty I've been having in these studies is figuring out how to begin. In basically all the modules I've checked, the party is assumed to be a cohesive unit with the necessary reputation to be called upon for aid. Even the ones that are designed to begin at first level work this way, assuming that promises of loot or cries for help will make the adventure the party's problem by default. Now personally, this has never made sense. The last times I've played in a campaign where that worked the party was either literally raised by a retired adventurer (in which case that's just an obvious lifestyle to them), or was lead by a paladin (in which case a call for help, especially one backed by coin to keep the others along, would inevitably be answered). Most of the other campaigns I've been in have either not been particularly party-focused or turned into what was essentially setpiece-tourism.

For my own part, I've repeatedly fallen back on the "you all wake up in a room far from home with no memory of how you got there" trick many times. It works, but it's a bit hackneyed. Other tricks I've tried include:
- You're all from the same small village, which is overrun by the undead.
- Party member has a personal interest in the supernatural, and triggers a disaster while investigating a local legend.
- Party decides to attempt conquest of the region they live in.
- You're all travelling along the same road for your own reasons, but as you roll into town you're brought before the local lord who asks you to investigate the source of some recent weirdness, because you look capable and his own guards are busy defending against said weirdness. (My least favorite start.)

Ultimately the question that I always come back to when trying to plan out a campaign is "how is this the party's problem?" Maybe I'm out of step with the expectations of D&D, but the bland conceit of "good heroes who do good because there is good that needs doing" has never felt sufficient for me. Nor has the presumption that the clink of coin will automatically garner the party's interest (this in particular stems from one of my early campaigns in which the party flatly ignored my attempted plot hooks until a wildly disproportional bounty was offered). As a result, every adventure I write is designed in consideration for the possibility that the party might just completely refuse to get involved unless circumstances demand it.

Once a storyline is begun it's easier to script because the party's interest is already established, but getting things started is hard. Why can't the local guard handle this? Why would someone request the aid of these 3-6 weirdos in particular? I've picked up the habit of, at the CharGen step, requiring every PC to answer the question of "what is stopping you from just going home at the earliest opportunity?" Maybe they're after a particular MacGuffin, maybe they're mercenaries by trade, whatever. They need a reason to go out and do stuff. But that doesn't really guarantee they'll be interested in the thing put in front of them in particular.

So I guess to bring this to some sort of point, what's your approach? There's a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the players to engage with the content before them rather than force the DM to narrate them hanging out at a bar for four hours, but actual investment is preferable to passive witnesses to your script.

[Mike Miller]

2 campaigns ago, I just told my group they were starting on the way to a town to fulfill an obligation to their guild. Easy peasy

The last campaign I started with everyone being a resident of the city and dangled various plot hooks until they picked one. Less straightforward

[Kyrell1978]

It depends. Did the players take the time and effort to give me a decent back story. If yes then I will try to incorporate something of that into the motivation to do the campaign I'm planning. If I am left to my own devices I try to pick something that makes sense based on each individual character. The church could send a paladin or cleric to investigate an increase in x activity, the thieves' guild that the rogue owes money to could call in a favor to clear the debt, the wizard could have hear rumor of a power mages spell book hidden in the area, etc. Sometimes, if its more of a short one(ish) shot, then you have all been called by the baron,duke, earl, king of xxxxxx works just as well.

[Phhase]

They're getting paid and there's implicit loot to boot.

Ex: The guard is hiring a party to go out and find the source that is arming goblin attacks on the city with seemingly hodgepodge magical weapons and armor (usually cursed). They're getting paid AND they're defending the innocent AND there's an implicit promise of a magical forge/uncursed magical items.

[Drakevarg]

They're getting paid and there's implicit loot to boot.

Ex: The guard is hiring a party to go out and find the source that is arming goblin attacks on the city with seemingly hodgepodge magical weapons and armor (usually cursed). They're getting paid AND they're defending the innocent AND there's an implicit promise of a magical forge/uncursed magical items.

But why the party specifically? Why this particular handful of weirdos? Not every campaign can start with the assumption that the party are the only combat-capable people in a tiny hamlet.

That's kind of my big stumbling block. If the story isn't implicitly personal - someone is out to kill them or their loved ones, specifically, for example - then why does the party have to deal with it and not someone else? "Because they're the player characters" feels like backwards reasoning to me. I suppose if the party has already selected their collective backstory as "mercenary team," that makes things much easier, but I don't really see that as a default assumption, at least not nearly as much as published modules seem to.

[JoeJ]

You can start the campaign with the party on the road to Borderland Keep because they heard that the lord commander is paying bounties on bandits.

[Tobtor]

I feel the same way as you. I also feel the "party-creation" often feels forced. Of course the answer depends on the campaign, the setting, the players etc. But here is a couple of ways I have handled it in the past.

A: delegate
A1. I once had a group of mixed players, where some had played maybe 2-4 campaigns, while there was also a very experienced player. I talked to that player and had him make a character concept I could work with. He wanted to be a fighter/knight type (not DnD-system, but change accordingly), so I had him be the 'trigger' of the adventure. He made a young man who had just been appointed knight by the king, and send on a messenger mission to "somewhere". He just needed to recruit a few helpers (the other players). Remember that even in DnD a level 1 fighter is one with training or experience, not a "random" guy. Thus a messenger mission works well for start characters: not complicated or requires an "already hero", but still something that you might not trust to commoners. Thus, on the mission it could develop into something more complex (start with a few obstacles to shake the party together and give them another level or so, then let them discover some clues about your main plot).

A2. Have the players figure out a reason some or all of them know each other beforehand. This is the cheap and easy solution, but does only work with players who makes concepts that fit somewhat together (all member of the same guild, from the same village, all traveling with the same caravan, all crew members of the same ship etc.).

B: Interact with the players backstories

This is more case dependent, and requires you to compromise more. But I have with some succes tried to mixed "my plot" with the characters back stories. One might be looking for some family heirloom (have that be in the hands of the villain), some ´might have lost a mother/father etc, have the murderer be the villain, someone might be looking for rare spells (let them discover the villain have some). Thus each player should have a reason to go on the mission on their own, but will not be strong enough individually, so forming a group might happen by itself.

But still it is difficult and I would also like to know how other people handle it.

[Yora]

I always start with all the PCs being an existing party that already has a commitment. Players have to create characters that are part of this party and have signed up for the job. There are of course countless people in the game world that don't fit these criteria, but this campaign is not about them.

With the campaign I am preparing right now, the characters start as a party that failed its last job and was kicked out of the castle even though it wasn't their fault. And while they are traveling on the road to the next town for a new start, they come into possession of a magically sealed box with an adress on it. It's sandbox from there.

[Pelle]

You can try giving the players the initial hook or the premise for the adventure before they start making their characters. That way, you can encourage that they make someone who wants to get going. No guarantees for that the players succeeding though, in that case, let the players know they have failed to make an appropriate character for the game. In can also be a good idea to make the players decide on a common unifying theme (like childhood friends, knightly order, mercenaries, pirates, private investigators etc) before they start making the characters. Then at least you can tailor a hook (or campaign) to fit that.

[Zhorn]

B: Interact with the players backstories

This is the method I'm currently setting up for.
Just got a party of 6, some have played a few games previously, a couple others this is their first d&d game.
For backstories I request a couple of sentences from the players (emphasizing depth is entirely optional) that cover 3 key questions:

• Where did they come from? (nebulous answers like "the local city, "a noble family", "was in the army" are all solid picks)
• Why they became an adventurer? (revenge, greed, glory, rescue a loved one, etc)
• What do they want to achieve? (This can be a meta answer where the player can say what they want to do with the character, or a narrative answer of what the character's big dream is)

Then tack on a sentence or two of my own to tie the character's goals in the direction of the first few sessions.
Example: LMoP, player wants to rescue their mother. Tack on a comment that Phandalin was the last known point of contact.
This isn't the full picture, it's just the mechanism to get them there.
Part 2 is to take the character with the vaguest motivations for adventuring (ie: "I want treasure" or "wanderlust") and have them with the work contract for the main quest hook *cough*working for Gundren*cough*, and their little personal quest I put in the backstory is they are on their way to a nearby town (say... Neverwinter) to hire a group for the job.
Part 3 is just something I've learned from a great many DM's online, start session 0 in an encounter with dice rolling. In this specific case; an inn at Port Llast caught of fire while everyone is asleep, our heroes (not knowing each other) were all at the inn and must band together to get everyone out alive. Start them with a teamwork moment, and then the cooperative team building role play feels a little more natural afterwards.
"Where you headed?"
"Wow, I'm heading roughly that way too?"
"I was going to find a work crew in the next town for a job, but we seem to make a good team! Wanna make some coin while going where you're already headed?"

[TrashTrash]

In a half-baked and partially finished campaign I'm attempting to write, I'm having the first 2-3 players meet at an inn, with additional players being picked up around the area until the full party is assembled.

I like using the "existing party hiring new members" trick. It allows for new players joining the group, for a new group forming, or for lower-level characters joining higher-level ones, like if the campaign I'm in now merged with the other group our DM oversees.

It also makes it easy to establish a "party leader" by essentially picking the best leader in the group and going, "You know what? You're already a good leader of your small party, why don't you scale it up a little bit? You'd be able to do better quests and get better loot for it, and you'd make new connections."

[doctor doughnut]

So I guess to bring this to some sort of point, what's your approach? There's a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the players to engage with the content before them rather than force the DM to narrate them hanging out at a bar for four hours, but actual investment is preferable to passive witnesses to your script.

Yes. I'm a big fan of 'here is the adventure', if you don't like it leave and never come back.

The typical published adventure does stick with Generic Cold Openings, but they have to. The whole point is anyone can pick up the book and use it.

The whole bit where players make massive back stories full of demands and then the DM back flips for each player and makes the world thier own personal playground is just not my style. I know some peole like the whole world to revolve around the players like a Soap Opera, but not me.

[Yora]

In my experience, most players don't care about backstories either.

[Drakevarg]

So then getting a party to form up is relatively easy - all you really need to do is make it part of the basic campaign premise. "You're all from the same small town and grew up together." "You're all on the same pirate crew." "You're a team of mercenaries." Et cetera.

But once that's done, what are some good ways to get them moving? If you were writing a superhero story, all you'd need to do is have Peril strike somewhere within their field of vision and next thing you know they're tugging on masks and leaping into action. But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.

Obviously this is a "tailor it to the party" things, but in the broadest strokes what are some techniques to make the Inciting Incident the party's problem?

[JoeJ]

If the PCs are supposed to be an established team, then simply declare that they are. Tell the players to create characters who are on the same police task force, or special ops. team, or starship crew, or city watch squad, or whatever they need to be. Then the campaign starts something like this:

GM: "You're all in the locker room getting ready for your shift. The captain appears on the monitor and says, 'as soon as you're changed come to my office. I've got an assignment for you.'"

The answer to the question of why these particular characters are involved in this adventure is that it is explicitly their job.

[Pelle]

But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.

Let the players know about the murder in the alleyway before they make their characters, and make them answer why their new character will get involved in the case.

[Yora]

But once that's done, what are some good ways to get them moving? If you were writing a superhero story, all you'd need to do is have Peril strike somewhere within their field of vision and next thing you know they're tugging on masks and leaping into action. But unless it's a personal threat (or just one that threatens everyone at once, like a raging fire or a zombie infestation), not all parties are going to respond to it by default. A murder in an alleyway isn't necessarily the party's problem unless they know the victim or are crime investigators, for example.

I see. I think here we are getting to the heart of the problem.

It appears you assume the players are "a group of adventurers" and that the story of the campaign will be "heroes save the kingdom". Here's the thing: Those two assumptions come from two different ways of playing fantasy RPGs, and I don't think they are compatible.

I struggled with exactly this problem for several years. Just the other way around. I tried to plan a campaign about "a group of heroic defenders" who "go on adventures". I think this simply doesn't work.

If you have a group of roaming adventurers, they will roam around looking for excitement and making seemingly easy cash.
If you have a group of virtuous heroes who want to protect the world from evil, they will dedicate themselves to seeking out evil and defending people in danger.

Those are two quite different things. Think of any fantasy stories that are about heroes who oppose great evils in a heroic struggle. Almost none of them, if any, are about random passer-bys acting out of compassion and a sense of duty. There are a couple of stories about a lone vagrant standing up to thugs, but I don't think those work for playing RPGs as a group.

[Drakevarg]

I see. I think here we are getting to the heart of the problem.

It appears you assume the players are "a group of adventurers" and that the story of the campaign will be "heroes save the kingdom". Here's the thing: Those two assumptions come from two different ways of playing fantasy RPGs, and I don't think they are compatible.

I struggled with exactly this problem for several years. Just the other way around. I tried to plan a campaign about "a group of heroic defenders" who "go on adventures". I think this simply doesn't work.

If you have a group of roaming adventurers, they will roam around looking for excitement and making seemingly easy cash.
If you have a group of virtuous heroes who want to protect the world from evil, they will dedicate themselves to seeking out evil and defending people in danger.

Those are two quite different things. Think of any fantasy stories that are about heroes who oppose great evils in a heroic struggle. Almost none of them, if any, are about random passer-bys acting out of compassion and a sense of duty. There are a couple of stories about a lone vagrant standing up to thugs, but I don't think those work for playing RPGs as a group.

I think I'm looking at it more like "group of capable people living relatively normal lives for their profession until [inciting incident] makes their lives more exciting." Sorta the Die Hard scenario of being presented with a perilous scenario that you're in a position to resolve and not really in a position to ignore. I think this mostly stems from a dislike of the basic conceit of a "professional adventurer" in the sense of the wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie.

But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. When I try to think of good examples in fiction for this sort of thing, then either then inciting incident happens to the protagonists specifically (the One Ring wasn't found in the possession of Frodo's neighbor), happened to everyone (zombie apocalypses aren't opt-out), or were specifically triggered by the protagonists (if Furiosa never turns left, Fury Road just doesn't happen).

So awareness and incentive are not sufficient as plot triggers, it needs to be worked out to involve the party directly.

[JoeJ]

I think I'm looking at it more like "group of capable people living relatively normal lives for their profession until [inciting incident] makes their lives more exciting." Sorta the Die Hard scenario of being presented with a perilous scenario that you're in a position to resolve and not really in a position to ignore. I think this mostly stems from a dislike of the basic conceit of a "professional adventurer" in the sense of the wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie.

But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. When I try to think of good examples in fiction for this sort of thing, then either then inciting incident happens to the protagonists specifically (the One Ring wasn't found in the possession of Frodo's neighbor), happened to everyone (zombie apocalypses aren't opt-out), or were specifically triggered by the protagonists (if Furiosa never turns left, Fury Road just doesn't happen).

So awareness and incentive are not sufficient as plot triggers, it needs to be worked out to involve the party directly.

In one very large chunk of the fiction, adventures happen to knights errant who are out specifically looking for them, either alone or as a small group.

[Drakevarg]

In one very large chunk of the fiction, adventures happen to knights errant who are out specifically looking for them, either alone or as a small group.

While true, knights errant are a fairly specific trope tied to a fairly specific context. Which isn't to say that it can't be adapted outside of those circumstances, but it's not a concept that can really be applied to all or even the majority of parties.

[doctor doughnut]

But I do agree I think I'm looking at it in the wrong way. y directly.

I think so too.

Anyone with even a single level in a Player Character Class is already an elite 'special' person, even at 1st level. To become a Player Character Class is a big decision and it's no accident. That person has spent a LOT of time learning things way, way, way, way beyond the common average folk.

A 1st level PC is equivalent to a modern special forces solder, a scientist, a doctor or a FBI agent. So by default D&D, you would not find say a 1st cleric washing dishes at the Piggly Wiggly Tavern(that would be a 1st level commoner).

The wandering morally upright adrenaline junkie IS the bases of the D&D party. This trope is well documented...well, forever. Starting with the heroes of myth like Hercules or Thor, John Carter(of Mars), Conan, Paladin(the Western-"Have gun will travel reads the card of a man"), Kane(Kung Fu), Michael Knight(Knight Rider) and more.

The A-Team and Supernatural are both perfect fits.

Die Hard is not a very good example for what your talking about. John Mcklaine is already an experienced cop when the movie starts. Sure he is a normal average everyman, but that still makes him like a Warrior 2/Expert(investigator)1...maybe even Fighter 1/Rogue 1.

The Spy Who Dumpped Me is a MUCH better example of a every woman, commoner 2, who gets swept up in an adventure. Or the TV show Chuck. Or Sliders.

The thing is, you do what the PCs to be heroes...so they need skills and abilities to be able to do things. Sure the ''commoner game" is a thing, but that is one set style.

[geppetto]

I ask players not to write backstories specifically to make this easier. First talk to the players and make sure they know its their job to play along and group up. Buy in is essential.

After that I've done
1. Your all from the same village/small town and are the ones with an adventuring mindset and some kind of training so naturally people expect you to handle the problem.
2. Bigger town. You are all part of a group who all answered a call for work on the bounty board. NPC describes the problem to whole group, it sounds too tough for 1 or 2 people so of course it makes sense to form groups and your PC's just sort of congregate together. Make them tell you why they choose each other. Make sure there are other groups too. Give them a little early competition.
3. They are all either guards or passengers in a merchant wagon train heading to somewhere far, far away for reasons. Its attacked the PC's defend themselves naturally and identify each other as other capable souls and start to chat.

In most of these situations I also toss a few red shirts in with the party who will die horribly throughout the first session or two leaving the PC's the only ones left and with a little opportunity for loot.

[geppetto]

But why the party specifically? Why this particular handful of weirdos? Not every campaign can start with the assumption that the party are the only combat-capable people in a tiny hamlet.

That's kind of my big stumbling block. If the story isn't implicitly personal - someone is out to kill them or their loved ones, specifically, for example - then why does the party have to deal with it and not someone else? "Because they're the player characters" feels like backwards reasoning to me. I suppose if the party has already selected their collective backstory as "mercenary team," that makes things much easier, but I don't really see that as a default assumption, at least not nearly as much as published modules seem to.

The thing is "mercenary/treasure hunter" absolutely IS the default assumption. They made it when they chose a character class instead of NPC class expert-blacksmith or farmer.

That character explicitly decided to spend years training in a job that was really only good for killing people and stealing stuff and traveling unknown areas instead of something that a useful village homebody would do. Its their choice to leave home and adventure and they made it years before the first session of your campaign.

[JoeJ]

While true, knights errant are a fairly specific trope tied to a fairly specific context. Which isn't to say that it can't be adapted outside of those circumstances, but it's not a concept that can really be applied to all or even the majority of parties.

It doesn't need to be applied to the majority of parties. There is no universal answer to your question, nor is there any need for one. All that's required is an answer that works for the one campaign you're starting.

That said, if you look past the specific title of knight errant, there's a more general principle of having the PCs already working in whatever job will get them going into the adventure when the campaign begins.

[Drakevarg]

Anyone with even a single level in a Player Character Class is already an elite 'special' person, even at 1st level. To become a Player Character Class is a big decision and it's no accident. That person has spent a LOT of time learning things way, way, way, way beyond the common average folk.

A 1st level PC is equivalent to a modern special forces solder, a scientist, a doctor or a FBI agent.

The thing is "mercenary/treasure hunter" absolutely IS the default assumption. They made it when they chose a character class instead of NPC class expert-blacksmith or farmer.

That character explicitly decided to spend years training in a job that was really only good for killing people and stealing stuff and traveling unknown areas instead of something that a useful village homebody would do. Its their choice to leave home and adventure and they made it years before the first session of your campaign.

This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time. If anyone has advice not based on this assumption I'll listen, but if it's the view held by the community at large then I'm simply not going to find any actionable input here and will have to bow out of the thread.

[geppetto]

This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time. If anyone has advice not based on this assumption I'll listen, but if it's the view held by the community at large then I'm simply not going to find any actionable input here and will have to bow out of the thread.

I'm curious why its incompatible? It seems obvious that a character class training is a serious investment of time and resources for a character. What possible reason could there be for a barbarian who actually wants to work as a pig farmer or a cleric whose career plan is waitress, a wizard who wants to work as a turnip farmer?

I can see some classes, sorcerer, psychic classes, probably a few others depending on system where your powers are naturally inborn and your just learning to deal with them where maybe they werent planning a career as an adventurer. But other then those whats the justification for the wasted investment of time and resources?

[doctor doughnut]

This sentiment is one so utterly incompatible with my outlook that any attempt to discuss the matter would simply be a waste of everyone's time.

How so? Why is it so incompatable you can't even talk about it?

If your saying you don't ''like" the idea that PCs are powerful elite "mercenary/treasure hunter", that is fine.

If you want to change the game, and do the commoner type game, that is fine. Give each player a Commoner 1 type character, and come up with some way for them to 'suddenly' take a Player Class.

It's fine if you want to change the game and home brew things, just let everyone know your game is not default D&D.

[Drakevarg]

How so? Why is it so incompatable you can't even talk about it?

You do understand the irony in even asking that question, yes?

If you want to change the game, and do the commoner type game, that is fine. Give each player a Commoner 1 type character, and come up with some way for them to 'suddenly' take a Player Class.

I'm curious why its incompatible? It seems obvious that a character class training is a serious investment of time and resources for a character. What possible reason could there be for a barbarian who actually wants to work as a pig farmer or a cleric whose career plan is waitress, a wizard who wants to work as a turnip farmer?

I can see some classes, sorcerer, psychic classes, probably a few others depending on system where your powers are naturally inborn and your just learning to deal with them where maybe they werent planning a career as an adventurer. But other then those whats the justification for the wasted investment of time and resources?

You've got it wrong. The part I'm rejecting is the basic concept that player classes are special, and that anyone who has one has extensive training. Any argument you make beginning with that conceit is going to fall on deaf ears.

[doctor doughnut]

You've got it wrong. The part I'm rejecting is the basic concept that player classes are special, and that anyone who has one has extensive training. Any argument you make beginning with that conceit is going to fall on deaf ears.

Well, the rules DO say that Player Classes are special and the characters have taken long times to train to be what they are.

Again, if you want to change that and say people are born with class abilities, that is fine for your game.

I don't get you you'd be so ''deaf'' to it. You do grasp the concept that to do really anything you need training and practice? It's a very basic concept.

I do wonder what your thinking: so how is a Player Class Character, that is at least two or three times more powerful then all the common NPC folks, not special and elite?

[Drakevarg]

Well, the rules DO say that Player Classes are special and the characters have taken long times to train to be what they are.

The rules say a lot of things. Many of them stupid.

I do wonder what your thinking: so how is a Player Class Character, that is at least two or three times more powerful then all the common NPC folks, not special and elite?

Simple. By giving player classes to literally anyone who isn't a total noncombatant. If you can wield a sword without hurting yourself, or have literally any talents that aren't covered in the skill list, you have a class level. Commoner 1 is RHD for races without any. You couldn't pay me to use NPC classes in one of my games.