Sticky situation

File: group template1.png (97KB, 900x947px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x947px

>not having a session 0 where everybody makes characters together that all either already know each other or will at the very least work with each other for a common goal

Ya messed up.

Talk to the players and find a solution that everyone is OK with. Encourage creativity.

>>54964333
...what, really?

Barbarians and Druids are rather close, in general; they're both wilderness-types. The elf/orc thing might be a problem, depending on both players views of things... but really, for a standard D&D game, you should still be okay. They're adventurers; regardless of their personal alignments or beliefs, the goal is to murderhobo their way through a bunch of enemies and acquire loot.

File: group template2.png (56KB, 820x944px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 820x944px

>>54964395
cont

You don't have to use the template obviously, just think about the ideas presented therein.

Here's some quick ideas for getting a group to work together:

Shared mortal peril. The group is together only because of circumstance. Once the mortal peril stops being an issue, the group has little reason to stick together. Everybody gets a disease and the cure is in some dungeon, and the group meets there. The bar everybody happens to be at is attacked and these guys are the only ones who can do something about it. Avoid this one, it generally sucks.

Common enemy. You'll get more mileage out of this, but don't expect the group to really want to work together. They might at best tolerate each other but they will probably fracture apart at the first sign of dire straits.

Common goal. OK, now you're getting somewhere. The group is together because they all want to get paid. They might trust each other a little bit. The group is together because they are all traveling in the same direction. You can start here, but usually this isn't enough by itself.

Acquaintances. Some of the characters already know each other and they share some goal, some enemy, or have some other reason to be working together. The characters had the same teacher, they went to the same academy, they were childhood friends, one of them bailed the other out. These groups tend to stick together even when the going gets rough, and the players have some reason to take detours only for one character's reasons. Hey, they already know each other, right? It's OK to help out the Cleric pro bono because the Cleric is going to help me out later, because we're pals.

Family members, close friends. Everybody knows each other, and would die for each other. You can basically put the group into any situation and they'd work things out. Aim for this, at least by halfway in the campaign.

>>54964333
Talk with the players about how they know each other and why they're working together. If the three of you (or however many people there are in the group) can't work it out, then there needs to be a character change somewhere. Basically, the price of admission into the game is that you have to be able to rationalize a reason why your character is working with the rest of the group.

>>54964333
Thankfully, it's not your job to figure out how the player's characters will interact with one another. That is something for the players to decide.

Also, druid is in the wilderness. Barbarian is in the wilderness. They hang out together. Jobs done.

>>54964411
Except having backstory, setting and all that shit...

Fucking numbercrunchers...

>>54964333
Important feature of the barbarian's land (forest, fauna, weather) is dying/going out of control and even the barbarian's shaman can't do shit. Barbarian is desperately looking for a druid who could, hopefully, fix it so his tribe won't die next winter.

>playing 5e
End your life.