I have a bit of an issue which I don't exactly know how to handle. I know the eventual answer is 'Talk to your players' but my issue is that I do not know how to start the conversation.
So the situation is as follows. I run D&D (almost) weekly for a group of 5 players. I have done so since 2021 and my group is currently level 13. I have discussed with them if they are interested in running this campaign out to level 20 and we all seem to be very eager to run this game all the way through its story and to have played a legit level 1 to 20 campaign. I have told them it would probably take about 2 more years to finish the campaign considering the frequency at which we cancel as well as the absence of a player for half a year soon when they leave the country for an internship. We have all decided to not play for half a year and do some filler oneshots and short campaigns to fill the space.
The Idea of ending this campaign had me spooked before because I wasn't sure if all members of the party would be interested in starting a new one. I feared that when it would conclude one or more players would leave and would likely become a good friend that I would start seeing a whole lot less. When I brought up this fear to my party they said they were all looking forward to starting the process all over again when this campaign finished which settled my doubts pretty well. Some of them even went as far as to state that they already had ideas of what to play in the next campaign. When that happened I told them I had a few campaign Ideas that I would pitch them in the session 0 of that campaign. Im planning on making a whole day out of it. All rolling up our characters together and then maybe take them all out to dinner or something. I also mentioned that it's cool that they already have an idea of what they wanted to do, but they should wait to hash out the details until I had pitched them the campaign settings I wanted to run.
Instead what happened is something Im not a huge fan of. 3 of my 5 players have in the time between sessions and without me knowing about it, made their characters already. (Im not sure if they have stats yet or anything, but at least they have made some decisions when it comes to race, class, likely subclass, background, ect). I don't have much of an issue that they already made their characters, but the issue lies in the fact they have made them together. These three players have already written their backstories and started to figure out their characters relationship to eachother. These three players have a connected backstory mentioning how they already know eachother before the campaign starts and how they all have an issue with the same evil entity. All of this without any input from me or any of the other players.
The problem I have with these are the following:
1. I fear very much that the other two players will feel excluded. They haven't been asked to join in on this Idea or anything. I fear that these three players, were I to allow them to play these exact characters, would commandeer the entire game. Not only would these players have the majority of the vote when I would suggest the 4 or so campaign settings, but they would also outnumber the others in the party when it would come to in-game decisions. I fear these three players would simply pick the campaign setting best fitting to their collective backstory, making the votes of the other players inconsequential. And once we would be in game, they could completely hijack the campaign if there would be a hint of their backstory. Making it so that automatically the majority of the party would want to go do things that pertain to their backstory and the two other players would have little say in what the party would do.
2. I am not that interested in running a game for these characters. I have had no influence over the world in which these characters exist because they know nothing of the campaign settings that I want to run. Because I haven't presented them yet. The bad guy in their backstory is an entity that would be very ill-fitting to any of the campaign settings I have in mind. Also, some of these characters have NPC's in their backstory that I would feel very uncomfortable portraying. (Think abusive or neglectful people). I have no issue playing horribly evil npc's or even more gray ones. But the npc's in some of these backstories blur the line between a fantasy game and real life struggles a little too much for me and I would not want to have to RP them. But it would also suck for the players if these essential people to never appear in the campaign.
3. The fact they all have the same bad guy in their backstory makes me feel like they are dictating what the campaign should be about. Regardless of what I want to run. Its a little hard to explain, but imagine that more than half your party writes that the cult of the dragon and Tiamat are important parts of all of their lives. But I wanted to run Wild Beyond the Witchlight. I now kinda feel like I should run Tyranny of Dragons for them because that is what their backstory eludes to. But I don't want to run that, I wanna run the game I want to run. But I also don't want to make them feel like I'm completely neglecting their wishes. I hope that explains it?
I am absolutely thrilled that they are THIS excited about the future of this gaming group. But I would have just wished they waited a bit more and had taken the game I wish to run into account a little more. I am a big fan of a party being a group of found family that get to know each other over the course of the campaign. I don't mind maybe two of them knowing each other already, but I don't like the idea of half the party being a collective already.
So how do I start the conversation I should OBVIOUSLY be having with my players? It feels kinda weird adressing this already because the campaign would be 2 years away. But on the other hand I feel like it would be a bad Idea to let them have the Idealized picture already of what they think the next campaign is going to look like for two years just to tell them right before we would start that I would want them to reconsider their characters.
Any tips or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated.
Try to get to them as early as possible. The longer you let them fantasise about their characters, the harder it will be to try to exclude the backstory from the campaign. Mention to them the idea of the campaign you are planning on running, dropping hints for potential characters in stuff. If they mention how they wanted their characters to fit somewhere else, discuss how they should have waited for session 0 so you could coordinate this together. Hopefully, they should understand. As a compromise, maybe run a one-shot featuring their 'Tiamat' characters, so they still have a chance to play them.
Im thinking of offering them to run a short campaign for these characters specifically during the half year of downtime we would have before we can finish this campaign. But I would want them to include the one player of the 2 that isn't currently included. (Considering the other one would be gone for half a year and is the reason we take the break in the first place)
But doing this would allow all players to be on the same wavelength without making me change the campaign I want to run to fit their narratieve.
Well, there a lot going on here. First, as a mostly player myself, I really love making characters, so I can’t fault them there. However, I keep in the back of my head that the backstory will likely change to fit the setting. These players should likely have done that, too. Did they, maybe? Was this just a thought experiment for them? Would they be willing to meet you part way?
I’m really of two minds about addressing it at all. Extremely vicious mockery could be right about these characters really burrowing into their minds. But also, two years is a long time. There will be likely dozens of new options out by then, and the players might want to go for one of the new shiny choices. I guess the question is, what kind of people are they? Will they get attached over time, or just move on to the next?
Some of the other concerns, I have to say, are rubbing me wrong. Sure, you should run the campaign you want, but also, they should play in the campaign they want. It’s got to be a 2-way street. And if the party knows each other, that’s another thing to work out. Like, you may prefer a party that gets to know each other, but maybe they want to try something else out. I’m not saying either the players or you are right or wrong, more, don’t rule out player options out of hand because you think they won’t be fun for you. Maybe give it a shot for a campaign and see if you do like it, or at least if you can live with it. As a DM, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of main character syndrome. I’m not trying to say you are with this little detail, just it’s something to be cautious of.
I think the other, bigger question to ask is, are you sure everyone wants to go ahead with this 1-20 thing. It seems like you all are doing it for the sake of doing it, which is a perfectly valid reason, of course. But if that results in dragging things out just so you can hit 20, the story will suffer. Because it really seems like the players are excited about trying something different, and this campaign seems to be taking a long time. Personally, I like to keep campaigns to a maximum of 2 years real world time. By then, players are usually itching for new characters. And I find that’s independent of how often we play. Ideally, we keep playing in the same world, so players can see the results of their actions over time, but that’s a different topic.
Also, while it’s certainly possible, few campaigns can survive a six month hiatus. The players, and possibly you, will forget many plot details, and momentum is really hard to bring back once it’s lost. To me, the plan could be wrap this one up when the person leaves, and start the new one upon their return. Or wrap it up, then fast forward and bring the characters back for a 2-5 session arc at level 20 to wrap things up.
I am somewhat shooting from the hip because my main three players basically just show up to play. It works out fine, as I can fill in details on their characters as needed. We all like this arrangement. We are also very close friends and see the world similarly.
IMO, a DM runs the world. If players want to run a certain class or race that is not in your world, I won't allow it. I may explain why, but I still won't allow it. Reasons for refusing may be that it causes an unbalanced game, focuses the spotlight on one PC, etc. I spend 3-5 hours prepping for every hour of game time so I get the final say.
In a similar fashion, if the story they are pushing is too dark or bleak, that has to change. Anytime an idea makes the DM or the players skin crawl, it needs to go. Notice how this cuts both way. For example, child or sexual abuse is absolutely not allowed in my game. I don't put things like that in my dungeons and I won't allow a player to put it into their character's story. If you have dealt with these things (and they are far more common than you might think) you understand why. If you haven't (and/or you don't have kids) you won't understand. Other taboo topics include ****, infanticide, genocide, etc.
You may take a different approach but this is how I run things. Best of luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Its entirely possible that would be willing to redo their backstories to fit the setting. Thats something I want to bring up when I do finally have that conversation. Im just looking for the right way to say that doesnt make it sound like "i dont like your thing, change it to fit my thing" even though thats not what I would intend for them to think.
Its also very possible we dont end up playing 5e in the next campaign. We may, for example, switch to "One D&D" or something. Which would obviously change the characters. Mechanically at least. Thats also why it feels werid adressing it so far ahead of time. I do think that these players would be the type to hang on to this idea for so long tho. Especially as a collective.
You mentioned "just giving it a shot for that campaign". But this group is quite solid. If we start a new long-form campaign, its unlikely to be a short endevour, unless thats the entire point. Its the reason im so cautious about this character creation stuff.
I have questioned their willingness to continue this game to level 20 before, but they all insist that its what they want. I have thought about wrapping it up earlier but that idea was shot down by the players as they have grown quite attatched to their current characters and they have many quests still ahead of them. Including the reconquering of a dwarven kingdom and the prophecy of one of their births coming to the forefront. If I were to wrap things up at a lower level just to fo a big time skip, i wouldnt be making many friends.
The six month hiatus is going to be a challenge, but im sure we will manage. This group survived the pandamic, me moving to another countey for a year, an inter-player breakup, a few fights and a few other struggles.
If anything, we all look forward to the half year break as a way to try new things. We will be doing oneshots and short campaigns in that time all in anticipation to start up Tier 4 of play when the one player returns.
I am considering offering to run a game for those 3 characters in that period. Focussing completely on that bad guy and that story. Ofcourse, I would want them to include the 4th player into it as well so were all working together. That feels like a good compromise to me. But these players may be imagining that they will be playing these characters for 3-4 years as they have theyr current characters. Which may be the only reason they wouldnt want to do this idea.
I think you need to have the world building chat with the players. The DM builds the world, the characters adventure in it. The players should contribute lots of ideas to their backstory, what the character is like and who they might know but ask them to leave specific NPCs, incidents, or major bad guys nebulous. These details can then later be filled in to fit the world that the characters will adventure in. Keep the excitement but tone down the details.
Sooner rather than later, you want to chat to the whole table and set up the "ground rules" for creating characters for the new campaign. If you have any species, class or similar restrictions in mind, let them know. Also, ask the folks that haven't been involved in the character building so far what they would like to do and ask the three players that have started if there is an opportunity to have a cohesive story for the whole group such that they may have known each other in some way before the adventure starts. Its quite possible that some of the players would like the mystery of not being known to the other party members.
You should also be a bit specific in some of your comments and suggestions ...
1) "Your concept for a BBEG is very cool but it doesn't really fit with the game world I've been putting together."
2) "I'm really not comfortable roleplaying some of the NPCs you have included as part of your backstory which would make it tough for me to run it." (Pointing this out is extremely important since the players need to be aware of why some of their backstory is really an issue for you).
3) "Is there a way to include everyone in the backstory concepts if they are interested?"
4) "I'm all in favor of you getting into the characters and their background but they also need to be fitted into the world I am putting together. Having general ideas or concepts for some of the major influences in the character's life is great but we will likely need to change some elements up to fit the stories and world I have in mind."
However, try not to feel possessive of your game world or the story - both of these are a product of the interaction of the DM and players with both sides contributing to how the world and story evolve - so it is OK for the players to incorporate some story elements as long as they can be fitted into the over-arching narrative that exists in the background and which only you, at least to start with, is aware of ...
Its entirely possible that would be willing to redo their backstories to fit the setting. Thats something I want to bring up when I do finally have that conversation. Im just looking for the right way to say that doesnt make it sound like "i dont like your thing, change it to fit my thing" even though thats not what I would intend for them to think.
Its also very possible we dont end up playing 5e in the next campaign. We may, for example, switch to "One D&D" or something. Which would obviously change the characters. Mechanically at least. Thats also why it feels werid adressing it so far ahead of time. I do think that these players would be the type to hang on to this idea for so long tho. Especially as a collective.
You mentioned "just giving it a shot for that campaign". But this group is quite solid. If we start a new long-form campaign, its unlikely to be a short endevour, unless thats the entire point. Its the reason im so cautious about this character creation stuff.
I have questioned their willingness to continue this game to level 20 before, but they all insist that its what they want. I have thought about wrapping it up earlier but that idea was shot down by the players as they have grown quite attatched to their current characters and they have many quests still ahead of them. Including the reconquering of a dwarven kingdom and the prophecy of one of their births coming to the forefront. If I were to wrap things up at a lower level just to fo a big time skip, i wouldnt be making many friends.
The six month hiatus is going to be a challenge, but im sure we will manage. This group survived the pandamic, me moving to another countey for a year, an inter-player breakup, a few fights and a few other struggles.
If anything, we all look forward to the half year break as a way to try new things. We will be doing oneshots and short campaigns in that time all in anticipation to start up Tier 4 of play when the one player returns.
I am considering offering to run a game for those 3 characters in that period. Focussing completely on that bad guy and that story. Ofcourse, I would want them to include the 4th player into it as well so were all working together. That feels like a good compromise to me. But these players may be imagining that they will be playing these characters for 3-4 years as they have theyr current characters. Which may be the only reason they wouldnt want to do this idea.
I realize I never took a shot at your actual question about how to start the discussion. It seems like you all have been together for a while, so maybe that’s earned you some credibility to be a bit blunt and they’ll know you’re not trying to hurt their feelings. And also, I think you’d want to get information, not make assumptions and accusations. So you could go with something like “Hey, I heard you guys had come up with some ideas for characters for a different campaign. Can you tell me about them?”
From there, maybe just try to keep an open mind. Maybe they’ve hit on something really cool that could be fun for you, too. Maybe it something you can work with. Maybe the common villain is a different one than they proposed. Maybe it’s some local street thug you deal with when they’re level 2 or 3, and then you move on. And I’d also say don’t commit to anything one way or the other. Let the idea simmer for a bit. And if you can’t make it work, that’s where the blunt comes in and you tell them, sorry everyone, I just can’t think of a good story to be able to work with what we discussed. Let’s think of something else. Maybe their characters knowing each other is the compromise. That really seems like the kind of thing the players should be able to decide for themselves. You want to ban some races or classes as an above poster mentioned, that’s definitely within DM jurisdiction, but if they build the characters to fit the world, and want them to know each other, that feels like something the players should be able to work out. I know you said you enjoy the part where they get to know each other, but maybe they don’t. (To me it always felt a little silly. Either you act suspicious, knowing full well you’re going to team up so it’s just really perfunctory — no one’s going to say, my character think the bard is just too horny. Red flag, they walk away. Or if you don’t go the suspicious route, you just say, well I guess we’re friends now, let’s go. Neither is very satisfying, but that’s just one person’s opinion.)
And I’m still going to throw out there the campaign may be taking too long. Especially when you say things like you’re excited to try new things. I get resolving personal backstories, but maybe they leave other stories for other characters. You don’t need a new world for each campaign. Unresolved plot points in this one become world-building history for the next. Maybe they don’t reclaim the dwarven kingdom. Time jump 20 years, and present them with those consequences, and leave it to the next party to figure out.
Though it could also be the whole 1-20 thing is a pet peeve of mine. Because while it’s a cool idea, it rarely works. It’s like when a TV series needs to be 22 or 23 episodes, but there’s only 5-8 of actual story so the rest end up as just filler.Then you end up changing the pace of leveling to match the goal of level 20, instead of matching the character’s in game actions.
I could not really help you from a DM standpoint, but maybe more for a player one. If you have a group of 4/5 and 3 of them are so collective maybe you can work with those other players and give them a special role. Perhaps being the 'mole' within the group, for example, this player starts by helping the bad guy but can later choose to betray his boss. This way you give the other players a chance to write/play themselves in the backstory of the party.
Again, I don't know if this would work with your group or for you as a DM, the whole secret thing, but it may be an option without the other players feeling excluded.
Also maybe talk with others of the group, maybe they know a way to start te conversation. But I think it's best to do it now then wait, and just be honest and tell your feelings about it. You should have fun too, you have to deal with it and make it fun for the players. So give yourself that luxury too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dear Dungeon Masters,
I have a bit of an issue which I don't exactly know how to handle. I know the eventual answer is 'Talk to your players' but my issue is that I do not know how to start the conversation.
So the situation is as follows. I run D&D (almost) weekly for a group of 5 players. I have done so since 2021 and my group is currently level 13. I have discussed with them if they are interested in running this campaign out to level 20 and we all seem to be very eager to run this game all the way through its story and to have played a legit level 1 to 20 campaign. I have told them it would probably take about 2 more years to finish the campaign considering the frequency at which we cancel as well as the absence of a player for half a year soon when they leave the country for an internship. We have all decided to not play for half a year and do some filler oneshots and short campaigns to fill the space.
The Idea of ending this campaign had me spooked before because I wasn't sure if all members of the party would be interested in starting a new one. I feared that when it would conclude one or more players would leave and would likely become a good friend that I would start seeing a whole lot less. When I brought up this fear to my party they said they were all looking forward to starting the process all over again when this campaign finished which settled my doubts pretty well. Some of them even went as far as to state that they already had ideas of what to play in the next campaign.
When that happened I told them I had a few campaign Ideas that I would pitch them in the session 0 of that campaign. Im planning on making a whole day out of it. All rolling up our characters together and then maybe take them all out to dinner or something. I also mentioned that it's cool that they already have an idea of what they wanted to do, but they should wait to hash out the details until I had pitched them the campaign settings I wanted to run.
Instead what happened is something Im not a huge fan of. 3 of my 5 players have in the time between sessions and without me knowing about it, made their characters already. (Im not sure if they have stats yet or anything, but at least they have made some decisions when it comes to race, class, likely subclass, background, ect). I don't have much of an issue that they already made their characters, but the issue lies in the fact they have made them together. These three players have already written their backstories and started to figure out their characters relationship to eachother. These three players have a connected backstory mentioning how they already know eachother before the campaign starts and how they all have an issue with the same evil entity.
All of this without any input from me or any of the other players.
The problem I have with these are the following:
1. I fear very much that the other two players will feel excluded. They haven't been asked to join in on this Idea or anything. I fear that these three players, were I to allow them to play these exact characters, would commandeer the entire game. Not only would these players have the majority of the vote when I would suggest the 4 or so campaign settings, but they would also outnumber the others in the party when it would come to in-game decisions. I fear these three players would simply pick the campaign setting best fitting to their collective backstory, making the votes of the other players inconsequential. And once we would be in game, they could completely hijack the campaign if there would be a hint of their backstory. Making it so that automatically the majority of the party would want to go do things that pertain to their backstory and the two other players would have little say in what the party would do.
2. I am not that interested in running a game for these characters. I have had no influence over the world in which these characters exist because they know nothing of the campaign settings that I want to run. Because I haven't presented them yet. The bad guy in their backstory is an entity that would be very ill-fitting to any of the campaign settings I have in mind. Also, some of these characters have NPC's in their backstory that I would feel very uncomfortable portraying. (Think abusive or neglectful people). I have no issue playing horribly evil npc's or even more gray ones. But the npc's in some of these backstories blur the line between a fantasy game and real life struggles a little too much for me and I would not want to have to RP them. But it would also suck for the players if these essential people to never appear in the campaign.
3. The fact they all have the same bad guy in their backstory makes me feel like they are dictating what the campaign should be about. Regardless of what I want to run. Its a little hard to explain, but imagine that more than half your party writes that the cult of the dragon and Tiamat are important parts of all of their lives. But I wanted to run Wild Beyond the Witchlight. I now kinda feel like I should run Tyranny of Dragons for them because that is what their backstory eludes to. But I don't want to run that, I wanna run the game I want to run. But I also don't want to make them feel like I'm completely neglecting their wishes. I hope that explains it?
I am absolutely thrilled that they are THIS excited about the future of this gaming group. But I would have just wished they waited a bit more and had taken the game I wish to run into account a little more. I am a big fan of a party being a group of found family that get to know each other over the course of the campaign. I don't mind maybe two of them knowing each other already, but I don't like the idea of half the party being a collective already.
So how do I start the conversation I should OBVIOUSLY be having with my players? It feels kinda weird adressing this already because the campaign would be 2 years away. But on the other hand I feel like it would be a bad Idea to let them have the Idealized picture already of what they think the next campaign is going to look like for two years just to tell them right before we would start that I would want them to reconsider their characters.
Any tips or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated.
Try to get to them as early as possible. The longer you let them fantasise about their characters, the harder it will be to try to exclude the backstory from the campaign. Mention to them the idea of the campaign you are planning on running, dropping hints for potential characters in stuff. If they mention how they wanted their characters to fit somewhere else, discuss how they should have waited for session 0 so you could coordinate this together. Hopefully, they should understand. As a compromise, maybe run a one-shot featuring their 'Tiamat' characters, so they still have a chance to play them.
Hope this helped, I would love updates.
Studded Leather: He does exactly what I do
Natural Armor: But better
Im thinking of offering them to run a short campaign for these characters specifically during the half year of downtime we would have before we can finish this campaign. But I would want them to include the one player of the 2 that isn't currently included. (Considering the other one would be gone for half a year and is the reason we take the break in the first place)
But doing this would allow all players to be on the same wavelength without making me change the campaign I want to run to fit their narratieve.
Well, there a lot going on here.
First, as a mostly player myself, I really love making characters, so I can’t fault them there. However, I keep in the back of my head that the backstory will likely change to fit the setting. These players should likely have done that, too. Did they, maybe? Was this just a thought experiment for them? Would they be willing to meet you part way?
I’m really of two minds about addressing it at all. Extremely vicious mockery could be right about these characters really burrowing into their minds. But also, two years is a long time. There will be likely dozens of new options out by then, and the players might want to go for one of the new shiny choices. I guess the question is, what kind of people are they? Will they get attached over time, or just move on to the next?
Some of the other concerns, I have to say, are rubbing me wrong. Sure, you should run the campaign you want, but also, they should play in the campaign they want. It’s got to be a 2-way street. And if the party knows each other, that’s another thing to work out. Like, you may prefer a party that gets to know each other, but maybe they want to try something else out. I’m not saying either the players or you are right or wrong, more, don’t rule out player options out of hand because you think they won’t be fun for you. Maybe give it a shot for a campaign and see if you do like it, or at least if you can live with it. As a DM, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of main character syndrome. I’m not trying to say you are with this little detail, just it’s something to be cautious of.
I think the other, bigger question to ask is, are you sure everyone wants to go ahead with this 1-20 thing. It seems like you all are doing it for the sake of doing it, which is a perfectly valid reason, of course. But if that results in dragging things out just so you can hit 20, the story will suffer. Because it really seems like the players are excited about trying something different, and this campaign seems to be taking a long time. Personally, I like to keep campaigns to a maximum of 2 years real world time. By then, players are usually itching for new characters. And I find that’s independent of how often we play. Ideally, we keep playing in the same world, so players can see the results of their actions over time, but that’s a different topic.
Also, while it’s certainly possible, few campaigns can survive a six month hiatus. The players, and possibly you, will forget many plot details, and momentum is really hard to bring back once it’s lost. To me, the plan could be wrap this one up when the person leaves, and start the new one upon their return. Or wrap it up, then fast forward and bring the characters back for a 2-5 session arc at level 20 to wrap things up.
Ok, see the part of your post where you write "The problem I have with these are the following:" and then you have a list of three things?
That's how you start the conversation. Have fun!
I am somewhat shooting from the hip because my main three players basically just show up to play. It works out fine, as I can fill in details on their characters as needed. We all like this arrangement. We are also very close friends and see the world similarly.
IMO, a DM runs the world. If players want to run a certain class or race that is not in your world, I won't allow it. I may explain why, but I still won't allow it. Reasons for refusing may be that it causes an unbalanced game, focuses the spotlight on one PC, etc. I spend 3-5 hours prepping for every hour of game time so I get the final say.
In a similar fashion, if the story they are pushing is too dark or bleak, that has to change. Anytime an idea makes the DM or the players skin crawl, it needs to go. Notice how this cuts both way. For example, child or sexual abuse is absolutely not allowed in my game. I don't put things like that in my dungeons and I won't allow a player to put it into their character's story. If you have dealt with these things (and they are far more common than you might think) you understand why. If you haven't (and/or you don't have kids) you won't understand. Other taboo topics include ****, infanticide, genocide, etc.
You may take a different approach but this is how I run things. Best of luck.
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
(Responding to Xalthu)
Its entirely possible that would be willing to redo their backstories to fit the setting. Thats something I want to bring up when I do finally have that conversation. Im just looking for the right way to say that doesnt make it sound like "i dont like your thing, change it to fit my thing" even though thats not what I would intend for them to think.
Its also very possible we dont end up playing 5e in the next campaign. We may, for example, switch to "One D&D" or something. Which would obviously change the characters. Mechanically at least. Thats also why it feels werid adressing it so far ahead of time. I do think that these players would be the type to hang on to this idea for so long tho. Especially as a collective.
You mentioned "just giving it a shot for that campaign". But this group is quite solid. If we start a new long-form campaign, its unlikely to be a short endevour, unless thats the entire point. Its the reason im so cautious about this character creation stuff.
I have questioned their willingness to continue this game to level 20 before, but they all insist that its what they want. I have thought about wrapping it up earlier but that idea was shot down by the players as they have grown quite attatched to their current characters and they have many quests still ahead of them. Including the reconquering of a dwarven kingdom and the prophecy of one of their births coming to the forefront. If I were to wrap things up at a lower level just to fo a big time skip, i wouldnt be making many friends.
The six month hiatus is going to be a challenge, but im sure we will manage. This group survived the pandamic, me moving to another countey for a year, an inter-player breakup, a few fights and a few other struggles.
If anything, we all look forward to the half year break as a way to try new things. We will be doing oneshots and short campaigns in that time all in anticipation to start up Tier 4 of play when the one player returns.
I am considering offering to run a game for those 3 characters in that period. Focussing completely on that bad guy and that story. Ofcourse, I would want them to include the 4th player into it as well so were all working together. That feels like a good compromise to me. But these players may be imagining that they will be playing these characters for 3-4 years as they have theyr current characters. Which may be the only reason they wouldnt want to do this idea.
I think you need to have the world building chat with the players. The DM builds the world, the characters adventure in it. The players should contribute lots of ideas to their backstory, what the character is like and who they might know but ask them to leave specific NPCs, incidents, or major bad guys nebulous. These details can then later be filled in to fit the world that the characters will adventure in. Keep the excitement but tone down the details.
Sooner rather than later, you want to chat to the whole table and set up the "ground rules" for creating characters for the new campaign. If you have any species, class or similar restrictions in mind, let them know. Also, ask the folks that haven't been involved in the character building so far what they would like to do and ask the three players that have started if there is an opportunity to have a cohesive story for the whole group such that they may have known each other in some way before the adventure starts. Its quite possible that some of the players would like the mystery of not being known to the other party members.
You should also be a bit specific in some of your comments and suggestions ...
1) "Your concept for a BBEG is very cool but it doesn't really fit with the game world I've been putting together."
2) "I'm really not comfortable roleplaying some of the NPCs you have included as part of your backstory which would make it tough for me to run it." (Pointing this out is extremely important since the players need to be aware of why some of their backstory is really an issue for you).
3) "Is there a way to include everyone in the backstory concepts if they are interested?"
4) "I'm all in favor of you getting into the characters and their background but they also need to be fitted into the world I am putting together. Having general ideas or concepts for some of the major influences in the character's life is great but we will likely need to change some elements up to fit the stories and world I have in mind."
However, try not to feel possessive of your game world or the story - both of these are a product of the interaction of the DM and players with both sides contributing to how the world and story evolve - so it is OK for the players to incorporate some story elements as long as they can be fitted into the over-arching narrative that exists in the background and which only you, at least to start with, is aware of ...
I realize I never took a shot at your actual question about how to start the discussion. It seems like you all have been together for a while, so maybe that’s earned you some credibility to be a bit blunt and they’ll know you’re not trying to hurt their feelings. And also, I think you’d want to get information, not make assumptions and accusations. So you could go with something like “Hey, I heard you guys had come up with some ideas for characters for a different campaign. Can you tell me about them?”
From there, maybe just try to keep an open mind. Maybe they’ve hit on something really cool that could be fun for you, too. Maybe it something you can work with. Maybe the common villain is a different one than they proposed. Maybe it’s some local street thug you deal with when they’re level 2 or 3, and then you move on. And I’d also say don’t commit to anything one way or the other. Let the idea simmer for a bit. And if you can’t make it work, that’s where the blunt comes in and you tell them, sorry everyone, I just can’t think of a good story to be able to work with what we discussed. Let’s think of something else.
Maybe their characters knowing each other is the compromise. That really seems like the kind of thing the players should be able to decide for themselves. You want to ban some races or classes as an above poster mentioned, that’s definitely within DM jurisdiction, but if they build the characters to fit the world, and want them to know each other, that feels like something the players should be able to work out. I know you said you enjoy the part where they get to know each other, but maybe they don’t. (To me it always felt a little silly. Either you act suspicious, knowing full well you’re going to team up so it’s just really perfunctory — no one’s going to say, my character think the bard is just too horny. Red flag, they walk away. Or if you don’t go the suspicious route, you just say, well I guess we’re friends now, let’s go. Neither is very satisfying, but that’s just one person’s opinion.)
And I’m still going to throw out there the campaign may be taking too long. Especially when you say things like you’re excited to try new things. I get resolving personal backstories, but maybe they leave other stories for other characters. You don’t need a new world for each campaign. Unresolved plot points in this one become world-building history for the next. Maybe they don’t reclaim the dwarven kingdom. Time jump 20 years, and present them with those consequences, and leave it to the next party to figure out.
Though it could also be the whole 1-20 thing is a pet peeve of mine. Because while it’s a cool idea, it rarely works. It’s like when a TV series needs to be 22 or 23 episodes, but there’s only 5-8 of actual story so the rest end up as just filler.Then you end up changing the pace of leveling to match the goal of level 20, instead of matching the character’s in game actions.
I could not really help you from a DM standpoint, but maybe more for a player one. If you have a group of 4/5 and 3 of them are so collective maybe you can work with those other players and give them a special role. Perhaps being the 'mole' within the group, for example, this player starts by helping the bad guy but can later choose to betray his boss. This way you give the other players a chance to write/play themselves in the backstory of the party.
Again, I don't know if this would work with your group or for you as a DM, the whole secret thing, but it may be an option without the other players feeling excluded.
Also maybe talk with others of the group, maybe they know a way to start te conversation. But I think it's best to do it now then wait, and just be honest and tell your feelings about it. You should have fun too, you have to deal with it and make it fun for the players. So give yourself that luxury too.