In answer to your first question, seeing as you're a new DM I would strongly recommend that the party be allies in some capacity. They can still meet up in a tavern, they can still be strangers to one-another, but I wouldn't have any player characters (PCs) that have any animosity toward each other. This would be good to establish in 'Session Zero,' the session where you and your players talk tone, expectations and any house rules you may have.
I've already had one player play two aloof, distant and mistrusting characters in a campaign, and the first time was enough, and it got old very quickly. On the other hand, the campaign I'm currently in has an imposter who's going along with the party's quest solely for their own survival, but he pulls his weight and helps out others in a pinch. Allies, accomplices... it's all the same as long as everyone's having fun.
So to sum up my answer for the first question: they should be. An adventuring party must have a reason to go adventuring and be a party. Nobody has time to plead and beg a player at the table's character to join in the adventure they've sat down to play.
Regarding your second question, in terms of the party meeting up, again I would recommend they all start in the same location. While there is merit to how Critical Role's Campaigns Two & Three did things of the characters starting in different locations and meeting up (this isn't an original idea but it's the one that comes to mind), it is by default far more cumbersome than everyone starting in one place, especially when you're a new DM. In terms of splitting the party, that's up to the players: if they think they can achieve two goals by splitting up, let them... and they can suffer the consequences of it, if there are any. Don't throw anything new in to spite them, rather run things as you would if they were a full party. If they die, that's what happens to adventurers who go off and do their own thing. If they live, commend their ingenuity. You can discourage splitting up if you add some growling noises down darkened corridors or having encounters where someone in particular shines and the party can be glad to have had them along for an otherwise deadly fight. If splitting up requires two different sessions or splitting hours of a session between the two, maybe reconsider.
You'll eventually find what you can and can't do, what you can improve on and where the next opportunity to do so will come, so don't take my advice as written in stone. There's always room for improvement, and you may simply reach the point where you and your players are perfectly content. Don't be afraid to try new things, and don't be afraid to say when things don't work. 'No' is a complete sentence, and if you can't say no, it's better to nip the consequences in the bud sooner rather than later if things go pear shaped.
I wish you the very best of luck, but I'm sure you won't need it. The fact you're asking questions tells me you'll do fine.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
The answer for the game as a whole is that you can do what you like.
Since you are a new DM, my answer for you personally is an emphatic - don't even consider it.
Your latter suggestion is not so problematic, but still comes with challenges. Trying to get the party to do what you want it to do can be like shepherding cats at times, and you don't want that happening before you've even started proper. You're doubtless going to start with focusing in one player and then adding each to the narrative - while Player 1 is playing, Players 2-5 are getting bored waiting to be invited to play. Things also go terribly wrong.
I actually did a similar thing. I started with one character, the Ranger, being accosted. I knew the Paladin would intervene, so had him enter the scene and, sure enough, intervened. They got into a scrap, and I had the third character, Druid, enter in, who I knew was looking for people to team up with for protection. I knew she'd see the fight, decide that these were handy in scrap, and the party would be formed. Easy peasy, right?
Those freaking dice. The Paladin and the Ranger barely survived. I had to call in the Town Guard to cause the bullies to flee and arrested the hapless duo for disturbing the peace. The Druid, quite, quite naturally, decided that these weren't the protection she was looking for, and slipped away. That added twenty minutes of seat-of-my-pants DMing while I tried to find another way to bring them together. I succeeded, but I decided that from then on, we start with the party already together. It's up to the players to come up with a story as ti why they're together.
Midgame shenanigans like that are fun and form the core of a great D&D experience in my opinion. They often open up new storylines that you hadn't considered as you introduce more and more factors into the mix to have the world react to them. You don't want them when you have a fixed goal that must happen - like the party forming in the first place. Rather than trusting the herd of cats or the dice gods to be predictable, just have it happen "off screen", as it were. I let the players come up with the reason they're together. I let them know that's the expectation at character creation - when they know it's on them ti create characters that will work in the party and they are the ones that have to do the hard work of overcoming the challenges their characters would have with that, all of a sudden their characters, for some unknown reason, receive personalities that are more conducive to party play.
The first problem is similar in nature. If you split the party, you can only really advance the narrative of one subparty at a time. The other subparty[ies] are just sitting there watching someone else play D&D. That's a whole load less fun, and if that's what they want to do, they can get better and more interesting acting by watching Critical Role. It's manageable for short periods, but any longer and it takes a lot of skill to keep things good for everyone - the kind of level of skill many DMs think they have and think they're doing well because they are having fun, but everyone else is just waiting for it to end.
If it's a momentary split - one group is scaling the castle walls to let the rest of the party in, for example - that's fine (and is inevitable, it will happen sooner or later), but make sure that the party doesn't split for any longer than necessary. The last thing you want to be doing is having to juggle what is effectively two parties at the same time.
So, yes, you can split the party, but I'd strongly recommend you avoid doing so unnecessarily, and only for short periods (a few minutes at most). Yes, you can start with a party divided and then have them come together, but it's inviting disaster and there's not a lot to be gained. Just get the players to come up with that story, and start the game after they've all met. It's much easier and safer.
Edit: I forgot the allies part. They don't necessarily have to be allies...but it's much, much easier if they are. They need something to keep them together. Either they decide they want to be together...or you're going to have to provide an external stimulus that persuades them to stay together. It's easy enough to do for a single session, just provide stakes that give them common(ish) goals. However, the longer your try, the harder it will be to do without seeming contrived.
If you watch Stargate SG-1, sometimes SG-1 will team up with the Goa'uld, their primary antagonists, to one reason or another. At the end of the episode, one always ends up betraying the other. This is because relationships between enemies are always unstable (plus, I guess, cheap drama) and as DM, you'll constantly be having to invent new reasons as to why they're sticking around. That's a distraction you don't want while starting off.
Honestly, just keep things simple for now. The party are all friends, the players invent a reason as to why they're together, and off you go. You can experiment with different ways of playing once you're used to playing the game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Generally, I would say the party should be “allies” but that does not mean they need to be all on the same page. Allies, after all, refers to a group working toward the same end, but does not always mean the members are friendly with one another. For the classic example, in the Second World War, England and America could be said to have been friendly - they both fought for the same basic ideals, their leadership had a close, personal relationship, and shared a great level of trust in terms of information and intelligence sharing. Both countries were also aligned with the Soviets - a nation with very different ideals. It was an alliance, but an alliance of necessity, and little love was lost between the western members and their eastern counterparts.
D&D can be similar - if the DM presents an existential threat large enough to force opposites into allies, that party can work out, and can make for a good narrative. However, allied by necessity are fairly fragile - continuing with the historical example, pretty much the second the threat keeping the WWII alliance ended, we ended up in the Cold War between the recent allies.
For this to work, you really need a group that can make it work. That means characters who are capable of working with opposites - the sycophantically lawful good paladin or recalcitrant murder hobo are boring characters in any campaign, but are particularly problematic in campaigns with diverse alignments. You also need players who are capable of divorcing the conflicts from their characters from their real world selves - this is a skill I am always surprised some players lack. Finally, you need a DM who can handle this kind of game. That means keeping the pressure of the existential threat forcing the party together in a way that keeps the party engaged and together, as well as carefully monitoring both the character-level and player-level dynamics, and making adjustments to the game before problems get out of hand.
When all the pieces come together, you can get a really fun, dynamic campaign with interesting characters who develop and grow out of exposure to their foils. When it doesn’t, the campaign can implode completely. Which side you’ll end up on is going to depend on the specific party and its members, so whether you want to give this a go in your group is a decision only you can make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wanna start playing dnd but I need some guidance.
I wanna ask, does the party have to be allies? And can they be located at different locations?
In answer to your first question, seeing as you're a new DM I would strongly recommend that the party be allies in some capacity. They can still meet up in a tavern, they can still be strangers to one-another, but I wouldn't have any player characters (PCs) that have any animosity toward each other. This would be good to establish in 'Session Zero,' the session where you and your players talk tone, expectations and any house rules you may have.
I've already had one player play two aloof, distant and mistrusting characters in a campaign, and the first time was enough, and it got old very quickly. On the other hand, the campaign I'm currently in has an imposter who's going along with the party's quest solely for their own survival, but he pulls his weight and helps out others in a pinch. Allies, accomplices... it's all the same as long as everyone's having fun.
So to sum up my answer for the first question: they should be. An adventuring party must have a reason to go adventuring and be a party. Nobody has time to plead and beg a player at the table's character to join in the adventure they've sat down to play.
Regarding your second question, in terms of the party meeting up, again I would recommend they all start in the same location. While there is merit to how Critical Role's Campaigns Two & Three did things of the characters starting in different locations and meeting up (this isn't an original idea but it's the one that comes to mind), it is by default far more cumbersome than everyone starting in one place, especially when you're a new DM. In terms of splitting the party, that's up to the players: if they think they can achieve two goals by splitting up, let them... and they can suffer the consequences of it, if there are any. Don't throw anything new in to spite them, rather run things as you would if they were a full party. If they die, that's what happens to adventurers who go off and do their own thing. If they live, commend their ingenuity. You can discourage splitting up if you add some growling noises down darkened corridors or having encounters where someone in particular shines and the party can be glad to have had them along for an otherwise deadly fight. If splitting up requires two different sessions or splitting hours of a session between the two, maybe reconsider.
You'll eventually find what you can and can't do, what you can improve on and where the next opportunity to do so will come, so don't take my advice as written in stone. There's always room for improvement, and you may simply reach the point where you and your players are perfectly content. Don't be afraid to try new things, and don't be afraid to say when things don't work. 'No' is a complete sentence, and if you can't say no, it's better to nip the consequences in the bud sooner rather than later if things go pear shaped.
I wish you the very best of luck, but I'm sure you won't need it. The fact you're asking questions tells me you'll do fine.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
The answer for the game as a whole is that you can do what you like.
Since you are a new DM, my answer for you personally is an emphatic - don't even consider it.
Your latter suggestion is not so problematic, but still comes with challenges. Trying to get the party to do what you want it to do can be like shepherding cats at times, and you don't want that happening before you've even started proper. You're doubtless going to start with focusing in one player and then adding each to the narrative - while Player 1 is playing, Players 2-5 are getting bored waiting to be invited to play. Things also go terribly wrong.
I actually did a similar thing. I started with one character, the Ranger, being accosted. I knew the Paladin would intervene, so had him enter the scene and, sure enough, intervened. They got into a scrap, and I had the third character, Druid, enter in, who I knew was looking for people to team up with for protection. I knew she'd see the fight, decide that these were handy in scrap, and the party would be formed. Easy peasy, right?
Those freaking dice. The Paladin and the Ranger barely survived. I had to call in the Town Guard to cause the bullies to flee and arrested the hapless duo for disturbing the peace. The Druid, quite, quite naturally, decided that these weren't the protection she was looking for, and slipped away. That added twenty minutes of seat-of-my-pants DMing while I tried to find another way to bring them together. I succeeded, but I decided that from then on, we start with the party already together. It's up to the players to come up with a story as ti why they're together.
Midgame shenanigans like that are fun and form the core of a great D&D experience in my opinion. They often open up new storylines that you hadn't considered as you introduce more and more factors into the mix to have the world react to them. You don't want them when you have a fixed goal that must happen - like the party forming in the first place. Rather than trusting the herd of cats or the dice gods to be predictable, just have it happen "off screen", as it were. I let the players come up with the reason they're together. I let them know that's the expectation at character creation - when they know it's on them ti create characters that will work in the party and they are the ones that have to do the hard work of overcoming the challenges their characters would have with that, all of a sudden their characters, for some unknown reason, receive personalities that are more conducive to party play.
The first problem is similar in nature. If you split the party, you can only really advance the narrative of one subparty at a time. The other subparty[ies] are just sitting there watching someone else play D&D. That's a whole load less fun, and if that's what they want to do, they can get better and more interesting acting by watching Critical Role. It's manageable for short periods, but any longer and it takes a lot of skill to keep things good for everyone - the kind of level of skill many DMs think they have and think they're doing well because they are having fun, but everyone else is just waiting for it to end.
If it's a momentary split - one group is scaling the castle walls to let the rest of the party in, for example - that's fine (and is inevitable, it will happen sooner or later), but make sure that the party doesn't split for any longer than necessary. The last thing you want to be doing is having to juggle what is effectively two parties at the same time.
So, yes, you can split the party, but I'd strongly recommend you avoid doing so unnecessarily, and only for short periods (a few minutes at most). Yes, you can start with a party divided and then have them come together, but it's inviting disaster and there's not a lot to be gained. Just get the players to come up with that story, and start the game after they've all met. It's much easier and safer.
Edit: I forgot the allies part. They don't necessarily have to be allies...but it's much, much easier if they are. They need something to keep them together. Either they decide they want to be together...or you're going to have to provide an external stimulus that persuades them to stay together. It's easy enough to do for a single session, just provide stakes that give them common(ish) goals. However, the longer your try, the harder it will be to do without seeming contrived.
If you watch Stargate SG-1, sometimes SG-1 will team up with the Goa'uld, their primary antagonists, to one reason or another. At the end of the episode, one always ends up betraying the other. This is because relationships between enemies are always unstable (plus, I guess, cheap drama) and as DM, you'll constantly be having to invent new reasons as to why they're sticking around. That's a distraction you don't want while starting off.
Honestly, just keep things simple for now. The party are all friends, the players invent a reason as to why they're together, and off you go. You can experiment with different ways of playing once you're used to playing the game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Generally, I would say the party should be “allies” but that does not mean they need to be all on the same page. Allies, after all, refers to a group working toward the same end, but does not always mean the members are friendly with one another. For the classic example, in the Second World War, England and America could be said to have been friendly - they both fought for the same basic ideals, their leadership had a close, personal relationship, and shared a great level of trust in terms of information and intelligence sharing. Both countries were also aligned with the Soviets - a nation with very different ideals. It was an alliance, but an alliance of necessity, and little love was lost between the western members and their eastern counterparts.
D&D can be similar - if the DM presents an existential threat large enough to force opposites into allies, that party can work out, and can make for a good narrative. However, allied by necessity are fairly fragile - continuing with the historical example, pretty much the second the threat keeping the WWII alliance ended, we ended up in the Cold War between the recent allies.
For this to work, you really need a group that can make it work. That means characters who are capable of working with opposites - the sycophantically lawful good paladin or recalcitrant murder hobo are boring characters in any campaign, but are particularly problematic in campaigns with diverse alignments. You also need players who are capable of divorcing the conflicts from their characters from their real world selves - this is a skill I am always surprised some players lack. Finally, you need a DM who can handle this kind of game. That means keeping the pressure of the existential threat forcing the party together in a way that keeps the party engaged and together, as well as carefully monitoring both the character-level and player-level dynamics, and making adjustments to the game before problems get out of hand.
When all the pieces come together, you can get a really fun, dynamic campaign with interesting characters who develop and grow out of exposure to their foils. When it doesn’t, the campaign can implode completely. Which side you’ll end up on is going to depend on the specific party and its members, so whether you want to give this a go in your group is a decision only you can make.