I have read and heard of this problem and even encountered it myself. I've been gaming longer than some of you have been alive and I've run literally dozens of games. I want to share the epiphany moment I had while preparing to start a new fantasy game years ago.

I'd spent several weeks prepping for the campaign and even though we'd never heard the term Session Zero, we had a session where players discussed the party makeup and theme. It was a point-by system so there was no concern about rolling up a character that wouldn't work for some reason. We had the usual mix of character races and abilities and it looked like things were going to start off well.

And then the first session turned into a bar fight. I was doing the typical 'you all read handbills about someone hiring people to do dangerous work and meet at the inn on the edge of town' because I was being lazy and truth be told the players had already worked out a lot of the interactions while generating their characters last session so we all wanted to get right to it. Then one of the party members was randomly bumped by someone in the bar and a fight started. As it turned out it was a lot of fun and it was a good way to familiarize the players with the combat system.

Then came the important part. At the beginning of the second session, where the party actually left town and started the adventure, I let them know that the first adventure was the hook to get them all together. Rather than working up grand schemes to keep them together that might feel forced and contrived, I told them that THEY would have to work out why they stayed together. The adventure lasted three sessions and at the end of the adventure one player actually said that his character would leave. He felt that his character didn't fit as well as he would have liked and decided to make a new one. The system being pint-buy, he wouldn't be way behind the rest of the party in experience and power level and it worked out in the end.

I'm not sure why but before that moment when I realized that the players were going to have to meet me halfway, I'd never considered asking them to work with me on the reasons for the party staying together. I'd always thought that it was my job to do that and in retrospect, I can see several of my campaigns failing because of it.

Running an RPG is hard. It takes creativity and dedication on everyone's part. When it comes down to 'why would these disparate people stay together after they rescued the thing from the evil place?' the DM doesn't have to shoulder the weight alone. It's perfectly okay to tell the players 'It's your character...YOU figure out why they're there).

If your campaigns are anything like mine, you'll soon find that this adds to the enjoyment of all.

As a general rule, if nothing else, a character should have a reason to be an adventurer. Even if they lack a personality, backstory, flaws, or any form of roleplay, they should have a motive to work with the party and risk their life. This rule should also apply to sidekicks and companion NPCs; they are their own people with their own concerns and needs, so they ought to have a good reason to put their lives at stake.

Forgive my brashness, but if your character lacks a reason to work with or against the party or the BBEG, you made a crappy character.

Quote from Darkaiser >>

 

I'm not sure why but before that moment when I realized that the players were going to have to meet me halfway, I'd never considered asking them to work with me on the reasons for the party staying together. I'd always thought that it was my job to do that and in retrospect, I can see several of my campaigns failing because of it.

Running an RPG is hard. It takes creativity and dedication on everyone's part. When it comes down to 'why would these disparate people stay together after they rescued the thing from the evil place?' the DM doesn't have to shoulder the weight alone. It's perfectly okay to tell the players 'It's your character...YOU figure out why they're there).

 In my 30+ years of RPGing, the players have always made it the DMs job to bring the party together.

In the last few years I've decided that it should be the PLAYER's job to find reasons for their PCs to party together. The players don't do much other work outside of the actual game sessions, so they can at least work on this one detail that gets the campaign started.

I actually go a step further than this.  It is largely the Players' Job to tell the story.  As the DM, the primary focus is creating a world for them to interact with.  There are things going on in that world, and it is up to them to decide how they want to approach it.  

Agree we should shoulder the weight with players more often - be that in why characters stay adventuring, ideas for the next adventure or house rules.

However, I would argue that as the DM, while it is absolutely up to the players to make use of them, we do need to provide potential reasons for them to keep going. Enter Dagger Theory.

Dagger Theory (I forget who created it) states that as DM, we should be looking for a PC's hooks - be that their associates, likes, long-term desires - and finding a way to sink them daggers in. Your player looking to find their family? Get their family captured. Player with an inordinate like of fountains (true story)? Whack a fountain merchant in front of them. It then for the players to decide how they react - attack the killers, bribe the merchant, ignore them entirely. The more hooks the better.

Sounds obvious, but took me a good 2 years to grasp this, and made my prep as a DM much more enjoyable - instead of finding a random monster to field, I could try and tailor potential encounters to characters, which then helps drive their engagement. It may be the player's job to tell the story, but you need to give them enough to work with.

I give my players the following:

First up, their character must be motivated by money, a desire to do good in the world, or a desire for power/fame. One of those has to be true, though it can be nuanced (e.g. they want to send money to rebuild their home village, they seek to reclaim their birth right etc.). If they don't follow this, their character will not be suitable for a game in which the DM has no choice but to rely on the characters desiring one of these things. All of the failed/problem characters I've observed have the problem that they seem fine as a fantasy character but they have no business being an adventurer; if your only goal is to get revenge for your slain parents, then when you've done that then you retire and become a baker. That's not an adventurer. Adventurers need to be able to take plot hook after plot hook until they die (or the campaign ends and then they can settle down).

Additionally, I discuss the type of campaign the players want with them in session zero, and give them a list that varies from "You work for a necromancer and he wants to take over the world, you do missions for him" to "You have set up a private detective agency together in a city of corruption" to (my current one) "Something has been stolen from your homeland, and you've volunteered for the perilous mission to retrieve it." When the players select the premise they'll be following, they all get to build characters that want to be part of the plot and are personally invested - if you do this, you'll never have to worry about the characters choosing to stick together, because they already did at creation.

Quote from Sanvael >>

I give my players the following:

First up, their character must be motivated by money, a desire to do good in the world, or a desire for power/fame. One of those has to be true, though it can be nuanced (e.g. they want to send money to rebuild their home village, they seek to reclaim their birth right etc.). If they don't follow this, their character will not be suitable for a game in which the DM has no choice but to rely on the characters desiring one of these things. All of the failed/problem characters I've observed have the problem that they seem fine as a fantasy character but they have no business being an adventurer; if your only goal is to get revenge for your slain parents, then when you've done that then you retire and become a baker. That's not an adventurer. Adventurers need to be able to take plot hook after plot hook until they die (or the campaign ends and then they can settle down).

You do realize this completely ignores the possibility of character growth. The character just looking for revenge for their slain parents should have years of in-game time to discover new reasons to be out adventuring after they've gotten that revenge, or maybe even decide they don't want to get it after all because other things are now more important to them

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Sanvael >>

I give my players the following:

First up, their character must be motivated by money, a desire to do good in the world, or a desire for power/fame. One of those has to be true, though it can be nuanced (e.g. they want to send money to rebuild their home village, they seek to reclaim their birth right etc.). If they don't follow this, their character will not be suitable for a game in which the DM has no choice but to rely on the characters desiring one of these things. All of the failed/problem characters I've observed have the problem that they seem fine as a fantasy character but they have no business being an adventurer; if your only goal is to get revenge for your slain parents, then when you've done that then you retire and become a baker. That's not an adventurer. Adventurers need to be able to take plot hook after plot hook until they die (or the campaign ends and then they can settle down).

 

You do realize this completely ignores the possibility of character growth. The character just looking for revenge for their slain parents should have years of in-game time to discover new reasons to be out adventuring after they've gotten that revenge, or maybe even decide they don't want to get it after all because other things are now more important to them

 It doesn't ignore any possibility of character growth at all. They can grow and change as the campaign develops.

What it does is provide them a reason to accept basically anything that the DM propositions them with in the early stages of the campaign. A good DM is going to give the player the chance for revenge - it will be one of many plot arcs across the course of a 1-20 campaign. But it also means that the character does not have to be fixated on finding revenge for their dead parents at level 1, when they actually need to be clearing some goblins out of an old mine system to help an oppressed village, a thousand miles from where the target of their vengeance lives.

If a character has a non money/fame/power/good-doing motivation, then they only have their own backstory to drive them. D&D is a party based game; every character must be prepared to go down the other characters' roads, as well as follow the central campaign theme/plot.

I once ran a campaign where I had three characters whose motivation was:

• Find a home - literally impossible to motivate them to take on any adventures except by putting them in personal danger. No reason to stick with the group.
• Resurrect dead children - had nothing to do with any of the central themes. No reason to follow any DM suggested storylines.
• Escape from those hunting them - no reason for them to stick to the group. Best option was to take up farming and a new identity
• Wanted to be rich - easily led to adventure
• Sought glory and to make a great name - easily led to adventure
• Wanted to find more songs about dwarfs - tricky, because not every adventure would involve that

Quote from Sanvael >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Sanvael >>

I give my players the following:

First up, their character must be motivated by money, a desire to do good in the world, or a desire for power/fame. One of those has to be true, though it can be nuanced (e.g. they want to send money to rebuild their home village, they seek to reclaim their birth right etc.). If they don't follow this, their character will not be suitable for a game in which the DM has no choice but to rely on the characters desiring one of these things. All of the failed/problem characters I've observed have the problem that they seem fine as a fantasy character but they have no business being an adventurer; if your only goal is to get revenge for your slain parents, then when you've done that then you retire and become a baker. That's not an adventurer. Adventurers need to be able to take plot hook after plot hook until they die (or the campaign ends and then they can settle down).

 

You do realize this completely ignores the possibility of character growth. The character just looking for revenge for their slain parents should have years of in-game time to discover new reasons to be out adventuring after they've gotten that revenge, or maybe even decide they don't want to get it after all because other things are now more important to them

 It doesn't ignore any possibility of character growth at all. They can grow and change as the campaign develops.

What it does is provide them a reason to accept basically anything that the DM propositions them with in the early stages of the campaign. A good DM is going to give the player the chance for revenge - it will be one of many plot arcs across the course of a 1-20 campaign. But it also means that the character does not have to be fixated on finding revenge for their dead parents at level 1, when they actually need to be clearing some goblins out of an old mine system to help an oppressed village, a thousand miles from where the target of their vengeance lives.

If a character has a non money/fame/power/good-doing motivation, then they only have their own backstory to drive them. D&D is a party based game; every character must be prepared to go down the other characters' roads, as well as follow the central campaign theme/plot.

I once ran a campaign where I had three characters whose motivation was:

• Find a home - literally impossible to motivate them to take on any adventures except by putting them in personal danger. No reason to stick with the group.
• Resurrect dead children - had nothing to do with any of the central themes. No reason to follow any DM suggested storylines.
• Escape from those hunting them - no reason for them to stick to the group. Best option was to take up farming and a new identity
• Wanted to be rich - easily led to adventure
• Sought glory and to make a great name - easily led to adventure
• Wanted to find more songs about dwarfs - tricky, because not every adventure would involve that

If it works for you great, but it's not the only way to do things. It's limiting for players trying to come up with backstories they can sink their teeth into, and not to be mean about this, but the fact that you think settling on a farm and staying in one place makes more sense for a character "escaping those hunting them" than being mobile and on the run while still having a support network of friends with them is kind of... well, weird. Like, that seems like the easiest backstory route to an adventuring career ever -- every time the character gets remotely comfortable, just make them paranoid they've been found and they'll jump at the next quest out of town. Entire TV shows and epic comic book series have been built around the 'wandering hero(es) who must keep wandering' premise, and you can't get one campaign out of it?

As many other people here have said, players need to find their own reasons to have their characters remain a party. Forcing them to have really basic starting motivations doesn't solve that. If anything, it makes that job more difficult -- they'll have a much harder time getting deeply invested in seeing each other succeed at their goals, if those goals are just "get money/fame/afterlife brownie points" rather than something more personal

For that matter, it's not even really "wrong" to have one character start the campaign, have the player decide it isn't working for whatever reason, and then have that character exit stage left and introduce a different character. Parties can evolve, just like characters

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Sanvael >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Sanvael >>

I give my players the following:

First up, their character must be motivated by money, a desire to do good in the world, or a desire for power/fame. One of those has to be true, though it can be nuanced (e.g. they want to send money to rebuild their home village, they seek to reclaim their birth right etc.). If they don't follow this, their character will not be suitable for a game in which the DM has no choice but to rely on the characters desiring one of these things. All of the failed/problem characters I've observed have the problem that they seem fine as a fantasy character but they have no business being an adventurer; if your only goal is to get revenge for your slain parents, then when you've done that then you retire and become a baker. That's not an adventurer. Adventurers need to be able to take plot hook after plot hook until they die (or the campaign ends and then they can settle down).

 

You do realize this completely ignores the possibility of character growth. The character just looking for revenge for their slain parents should have years of in-game time to discover new reasons to be out adventuring after they've gotten that revenge, or maybe even decide they don't want to get it after all because other things are now more important to them

 It doesn't ignore any possibility of character growth at all. They can grow and change as the campaign develops.

What it does is provide them a reason to accept basically anything that the DM propositions them with in the early stages of the campaign. A good DM is going to give the player the chance for revenge - it will be one of many plot arcs across the course of a 1-20 campaign. But it also means that the character does not have to be fixated on finding revenge for their dead parents at level 1, when they actually need to be clearing some goblins out of an old mine system to help an oppressed village, a thousand miles from where the target of their vengeance lives.

If a character has a non money/fame/power/good-doing motivation, then they only have their own backstory to drive them. D&D is a party based game; every character must be prepared to go down the other characters' roads, as well as follow the central campaign theme/plot.

I once ran a campaign where I had three characters whose motivation was:

• Find a home - literally impossible to motivate them to take on any adventures except by putting them in personal danger. No reason to stick with the group.
• Resurrect dead children - had nothing to do with any of the central themes. No reason to follow any DM suggested storylines.
• Escape from those hunting them - no reason for them to stick to the group. Best option was to take up farming and a new identity
• Wanted to be rich - easily led to adventure
• Sought glory and to make a great name - easily led to adventure
• Wanted to find more songs about dwarfs - tricky, because not every adventure would involve that

 

If it works for you great, but it's not the only way to do things. It's limiting for players trying to come up with backstories they can sink their teeth into, and not to be mean about this, but the fact that you think settling on a farm and staying in one place makes more sense for a character "escaping those hunting them" than being mobile and on the run while still having a support network of friends with them is kind of... well, weird. Like, that seems like the easiest backstory route to an adventuring career ever -- every time the character gets remotely comfortable, just make them paranoid they've been found and they'll jump at the next quest out of town. Entire TV shows and epic comic book series have been built around the 'wandering hero(es) who must keep wandering' premise, and you can't get one campaign out of it?

As many other people here have said, players need to find their own reasons to have their characters remain a party. Forcing them to have really basic starting motivations doesn't solve that. If anything, it makes that job more difficult -- they'll have a much harder time getting deeply invested in seeing each other succeed at their goals, if those goals are just "get money/fame/afterlife brownie points" rather than something more personal

For that matter, it's not even really "wrong" to have one character start the campaign, have the player decide it isn't working for whatever reason, and then have that character exit stage left and introduce a different character. Parties can evolve, just like characters

 I think you're only seeing things from a very basic perspective, and one which doesn't take into account player agency, character evolution, or crafting characters with realistic goals and personalities. If you only go for very basic character design ("I am on the run, I must keep moving") then that still ignores the fact that being on the run gives a character absolutely no reason to accept plot hooks thrown out by the DM. When the first adventure design is "The townsfolk are in trouble, help them" and the character's goal is "I must escape notice" then either the character is acting against their own backstory, or won't go on the adventure. The absolute worst thing they can do is go on an adventure and be noticed.

A fully developed character needs a reason to go on deadly adventures and to put themselves in harms way over and over again, not just on the starting adventure but in each potential adventure thereafter. Money, fame, power or doing good: there are no other options that enable them to repeatedly throw themselves into storylines. And as I said, you can make those way more complex: the character who wants to make money so that they can rebuild the glory of their murdered noble house; the warrior who wants fame to bring honour to his clan, and see his people rise from the shadows; the character who wants to do good in the world to make up for the terrible failures of their past.

The DM can only motivate the characters as follows:

• The heroes choose to help because it's the right thing to do
• The heroes are being paid
• The heroes are in significant personal danger if they don't do the quests (this removes all agency)
• The heroes are intrinsically bound to the campaign's overarching goal (which requires building into character backstory from the very beginning, and functions the same as 'doing good in the world') 

Outside of these, the DM cannot offer the characters a reason to go and do the adventure they spent all that time preparing. There is a responsibility on the players to create characters who will want to do that, and as I said above, I've seen the impact when players don't.

The game is not about pursuing personal goals. They come up, and a good DM will blend them seamlessly into the larger plot. But you can't expect a DM to be able to provide separate motivations for 4+ unique personalities if the players aren't motivated by money/power/fame/doing good.

This isn't even a personal preference, it's a mechanical requirement of the roleplay aspect of the game.

Quote from Sanvael >>

The DM can only motivate the characters as follows:

• The heroes choose to help because it's the right thing to do
• The heroes are being paid
• The heroes are in significant personal danger if they don't do the quests (this removes all agency)
• The heroes are intrinsically bound to the campaign's overarching goal (which requires building into character backstory from the very beginning, and functions the same as 'doing good in the world') 

 

Nah, that's just incorrect

I have always been very upfront with all my players: the DM is not responsible for their motivation. Whenever I have a player ask me why they would go on an adventure I tell them, in these words: that's your job. If they want to play the game, they need to come up with a reason why their character would stay adventuring. They know they're playing a game and if they try to offload their homework on the DM? After the DM has done so much to run the game? Any time a player end up saying something like "I don't know why my character would do that" the answer is clearly : get a new character then. If someone can't figure out any way to make their character go along with an adventure... then they haven't thought hard enough about the game.

All I do as DM is create and adjudicate the world that the characters exist in ... It might start off simple with a bunch of random characters traveling on a ship having some common experiences. (or a bar, or a caravan, or a school, or a business/league/guild, or same home town etc)

However, it is always the responsibility of the players to figure out why their character is there. Why are they an adventurer? Why do they stay with this particular group of people? Do they have any longer term goals and if so what might they be?

The DM can't motivate characters to do good deeds or behave in a certain fashion. Those are player decisions and trying to make a player or group conform to a DMs vision often ends badly.

The DM provides the opportunities - it is up to the players to decide how the characters engage with those opportunities. The DM provides reasonable in game consequences for player character choices (this assumes that the players are playing in good faith - some players just like to be disruptive and the DM needs to chat with them out of character to resolve the situation - for anyone else role playing then the DM can resolve consequences in game.

Sometimes, a player creates a character that just isn't compatible with a party because of how the player chooses their personality. (e.g. a lawful good paladin wanting to enforce the law falling in with a group of rogues who like to steal stuff .. on the other hand, a chaotic or neutral good paladin who wants to help reform the rogues while discouraging but not preventing their activities might provide for some great role play opportunities - same character mechanically, different personality). In either case though, it isn't generally up to the DM to provide a reason why that paladin chooses to adventure with a bunch of rogues - that is squarely on the player (though there are some limited scope plot lines a DM could use that would force a group of random characters to work together in their own interests even if it doesn't make sense from a character perspective - in that case, the party might likely fall apart as soon as whatever external plot device the DM was using to keep them together ends).

Easiest way to unite a party is to introduce NPCs that can tie them together. Look at C1 of Critical Role... NPCs like Gilmore will quickly unite a party if he is a quest giver or if he is part of the quest (attacked).

This happened in my campaign (Players became attached the NPC's.)  I had already written the bit about their demise, so I then had to adjust it.  I intend for them to discover that the BBEG was behind their loss, driving them onward.  The interaction with "supposed to be pointless NPC's" ended up allowing some bonding of the party in RP which was great.  Get some random farm family o welcome the party in for the night, share some tales of hardship and dedication to keep on pushing and the party has some peasants to be guardians for.  My crew was attacked by, what is part of the storyline, monsters, which the party fought off.  Team building by sticking up for the little guy.