# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  How should 5.5 encourage ties to the world and the rest of the party?

## Anymage

Arguing in another thread has me realizing just how much smoother games play when the party has narrative cohesion, both to the other party members and to the world around them.  However, D&D still seems to run on the default of expecting every player to bring their own characters to the game (the introductory flavor text for building your character just mentions Bob/Bruenor working in a vacuum without even mentioning the DM or other players), and the new background rules are stripping away flavor text.  That feels backwards.

The previews are giving an idea what D&D is set to shape up as and I don't ever expect it to become a narratively focused rules light game.  But I'm wondering what might be good standards to keep in mind while writing the new PHB to hint that you should be conscious of the other players instead of just bringing a random adventurer.  Minor rules might be nice (just spitballing, but if characters had ties and once per game session if you played up your tie you could give the other character Inspiration is a small but present way of making the players see each other as teammates), but mostly just trying to think of writing practices it would be good to keep in mind.

----------


## Mastikator

Group patron, base building, NPC employees. Make the player characters organization a part of the world.

Beyond that it's the players and DMs job to write a backstory that ties with the environment, it's not something that WotC can do for you. Bonds and flaws that involve NPCs however are very helpful in inspiring players to do that. Something as basic as "I need to avenge my brother and find out who killed him" or "I learned everything I know from my mentor, an awful person who's probably in jail" (love that one) anchors the character's motivation with NPCs. NPCs are the gateway drug to having ties the world.

----------


## GooeyChewie

What I think they _should_ do and what I think they _will_ do are two different things. I suspect One D&D will continue to present character creation as a solo thing, for the sake of Adventurer's League. I would rather the character creation section encourage players to work with the other players and the DM. Session 0s are extremely useful and pretty common nowadays, and WotC should recognize that fact and encourage.

As for the backgrounds, I am hopeful that the One D&D PHB will provide some prompts for flavor. They tried to do so in the playtest Unearthed Arcana, but the way they formatted the document made those prompts look like full options rather than examples of how one could flavor their background.

Side note: Based on the most recent UA, they appear to have listened to the formatting feedback, because this time they made sure each new section starts on its own page. See Feats starting on page 11 instead of filling in page 10, for example.

----------


## Burley

I agree that players having their characters tied to the world (rather than a collections of ragtag anachronisms) makes the game better. Players are more focused on the campaign and are more likely to have a backstory that can be blended into the global narrative.

But, I think that's something that falls to the DM. It's not something the game itself can force. Like, it's not game design that you're calling for; its game management. 

During the switch from 3.5 to 4e, folks lost their minds because there weren't enough rules governing social interactions and roleplay. But, those things don't need the old complexities, because a social interaction playing out effectively hinges on the DM and player RPing well, not a series of rules and rolls. 

5e has all the components necessary to have a party of characters with narrative cohesion, as you say. But, the narrative is up to the DM to manage and the cohesion, likewise, is a product of the DM (and players) playing the game toward that goal.

----------


## JellyPooga

> But, I think that's something that falls to the DM. It's not something the game itself can force. Like, it's not game design that you're calling for; its game management.


I disagree wholeheartedly. Game design very much can and in D&D's case should, to an extent, encourage the interaction not only between player characters, but those characters (as a group and individually) and the world they're in.

Backgrounds (as written for 5e) are one way for individuals to tie themselves to the world and do a middling sort of job at it; they could be much improved by having greater impact and by not offering distinct "better choices" when taken in a vacuum, in my opinion, but it's a start. The "greater impact" doesn't all have to be at once either and can be dependent on the player achieving certain goals or milestones; e.g. maintaining good relations with an organisation. Expanding on this, Personality could also have offered greater impact than just Inspiration for playing into your traits, stipulating and emphasising that traits can and should change over the course of a campaign to reflect the character. Reputation as a stat can easily be tracked and used (other systems do, to one degree or another).

Steering away from extant rules, there is no reason part of character creation couldn't include a section on "Group Creation", detailing stats like Leadership, Morale/Cohesion, Teamwork in exactly the same way that PC's have Strength, Dexterity, HP and Proficiencies. A character sheet for the Group is not out of the question and could either be adjudicated by the teams nominated leader or by the GM. Nothing stops a group from having abilities or features or even something akin to a Character Class (e.g. Skirmishers, Scholars, etc.) that develops as the group does. Group stats could be determined independently and/or as a function of PC abilities/stats that are part of the group. Having such a Group "Character" Sheet could also introduce greater impact for character death; the group losing certain abilities ties to that character and having to readjust for any new character that steps in to replace them. The Group can also, like I mentioned for PC's, have relationships and reputation with the world, NPC's and organisations within it; even if every member of the group has changed, the _group_ can still maintain standing or a reputation long after the founding members are retired or dead.

----------


## Mastikator

> What I think they _should_ do and what I think they _will_ do are two different things. I suspect One D&D will continue to present character creation as a solo thing, for the sake of Adventurer's League. I would rather the character creation section encourage players to work with the other players and the DM. Session 0s are extremely useful and pretty common nowadays, and WotC should recognize that fact and encourage.
> 
> As for the backgrounds, I am hopeful that the One D&D PHB will provide some prompts for flavor. They tried to do so in the playtest Unearthed Arcana, but the way they formatted the document made those prompts look like full options rather than examples of how one could flavor their background.
> 
> Side note: Based on the most recent UA, they appear to have listened to the formatting feedback, because this time they made sure each new section starts on its own page. See Feats starting on page 11 instead of filling in page 10, for example.


JC mentioned in the survey review interview that the next core books will contain base building mechanics for players. Character creation will probably continue to be a solo thing, but campaign progression will have base building as an optional element available to the players, should they choose to upgrade from murderhobo to protectors of the realm  :Small Amused: 

Edit- Beyond that, *group patron* is already a thing. Players have the capacity to have a shared patron that is directly tied into the campaign setting. It will always, ultimately fall upon the players to rise above murderhoboism, but the mechanics that allow them to do that exist.

----------


## JonBeowulf

For me, it depends on what level the characters are going to start the campaign.  I don't need WotC helping out or dictating.

If level 1 or 2, then I prefer the characters are created in a vacuum.  They're just getting started, they don't know each other (unless backstory says otherwise... limited to two characters), and they have only the faintest of clues about the game world.

If higher, then I want them to collaborate with each other to make a party that makes sense.  They've had time to gel, and, more importantly, replace members who don't fit.  It drives me nuts when a group lets someone play some dumb-ass concept that's only fun for that player.  This is supposed to be a group of individuals out doing dangerous stuff.  You don't bring useless people along with you -- you bring people who will help you succeed.

----------


## Willie the Duck

Fundamentally this is one of those questions like what is the point/goal of 5e/ what is 5e 'about' (short answer: different things to different people); along with a healthy dose of the question of how much people want the game to adjudicate actions not related to generally quantifiable physical status/results like physical location, health, access to what's beyond the next door, etc. (short answer: some want nothing beyond Backgrounds or maybe TSR-style reaction chart and morale rules; others want complex social rules, narrative hook systems, domain management systems, and so on). 

Personally, so long as most everything is optional/capable of being dialed back to as non-interfering as _'I'm supposed to choose a character background, which suggests some skills and includes a minor ability/social benefit,'_ I'm all in favor of including added complexity on the social/narrative/character personal ties front. Coming from a TSR-era background and usually grabbing Fate/PbtA/a Monte Cook game/a Jenna Moran game when I want a complex narrative system, I want the option to play D&D as a beer&pretzels dungeon-crawler _or_ to do all the complex story stuff without concrete rules directing it; but I'm certainly not against their inclusion (and honestly want them present, for people who want that kind of thing but can't escape the D&D gravity well). 

As for the what to include: I think optional rules that could help might include:
Home town/starting location characteristicsCharacter existing relationships (with each other or established NPCs)Adventuring party qualities (reputation, social status, lifestyle expense, known relationships)Factions, sect, and government character sheets (relationships, relative power, focus, interest, etc.)Domain management rulesSome kind of abstract military rules for adjudicating battles, wars, or campaigns larger than one wants to play out as uber-battlemap combatsa couple of tiers of social rules (at least one being_ 'hey DM, why don't I just say what my character would say and you determine how people react?'_), hopefully encompassing both direct contests (deceptions, persuasions, battles of will), as well as negotiations, non-hostile/cooperative actions, multi-party situations, etc.

Most of these have been explored in either existing OGL/OSR products, or even earlier editions*. Others we've seen in narrative-focused games, but also in more trad systems like Traveller, Paranoia, and so forth. There are even some games like Worlds Without Number or Forbidden Lands which could be summed up as 'a D&D-alike, but with ____ [one or more of these subsystems brought to the fore].'
_*I can't search Youtube at work, but Matthew Colville has a video where he tries to describe what 5e is 'about' and comes up with 'no one thing.' He juxtaposes that with editions up to early 3e which he posits were all mostly dungeon-crawlers. I have to disagree. While the admixture for dungeoncrawling was higher, there's little in 5e that didn't show up in some form in AD&D and Basic-Classic by no later than 1984,5,6, what with the Dragonlance modules and Oriental Adventures social and background components and Companion Set domain rules and post-Thief-class skill systems and so on._

----------


## Anymage

> I agree that players having their characters tied to the world (rather than a collections of ragtag anachronisms) makes the game better. Players are more focused on the campaign and are more likely to have a backstory that can be blended into the global narrative.
> 
> But, I think that's something that falls to the DM. It's not something the game itself can force. Like, it's not game design that you're calling for; its game management.


Neither mechanics nor special pleading can really compel players.  In the first case we've seen Inspiration in vanilla 5e be a bit too nebulous and get largely overlooked, while the second never works out well.  And to be fair to D&D, the vast bulk of pages should be devoted to rules of one form or another (whether crunchy character options or the basic game engine) just because that's what the average customer looks for.

However, lots of best practices have been figured out for how to make a table enjoyable for everybody.  And flavor text blurbs can help set people's expectations.  Going back to the Bob/Bruenor character building exercise, just mentioning the party talking about setting, theme, and having people discuss their character ideas for a well-rounded party instead of all coming in separately can help set a standard while adding very little to overall page count.  Just little things like that to help set better expectations for any new players who pick up the book.

----------


## Yakk

I'd like some play-tested Faction mechanics.  Not just "approval PCs have with a faction", but resolving the faction trying to do something (possibly against opposition).

Mechanical heft to bonds.  Of the personality stuff, I think bonds are the most interesting, as they are explicitly connections to the world.

Imagine if you could invoke a bond or a benefit (a reroll or something else), but doing so gave the DM explicit permission to do things with the bond.  (This is FATE-esque).

So instead of Bonds being (to some people) liabilities (here are hooks your DM has on your PC!), they become resources you can tap on, in exchange for a price later (bwahahahah).

----------


## kazaryu

beyond the abstract, i don't actually think its necessary to think of any of the other PC's at all as you build your character. I don't even think it necessarily adds to the cohesiveness of play. Now, as i said, you do need to consider the other characters in an abstract way. i.e. 'i know im going to be playing with others, that potentially have their own goal. so i can't give my PC a trait that says 'will not embark on a mission that isn't directly related to avenging their father's death'. things like that. you have to consider that your character is going to be part of a group, and that groups activities aren't always going to be about your character. beyond that including the other PC's in your backstory is (IMO) mostly just a style choice. a lack of group cohesion is usually caused either by the players (i.e. players disagreeing about what to do, not characters) or by creating a PC without considering that they'll be in a party while choosing their overall personality. 

so...that. ideally if there were a blurb that said something along those lines thats what i'd hope for.

----------


## Anymage

> I'd like some play-tested Faction mechanics.  Not just "approval PCs have with a faction", but resolving the faction trying to do something (possibly against opposition).
> 
> Mechanical heft to bonds.  Of the personality stuff, I think bonds are the most interesting, as they are explicitly connections to the world.
> 
> Imagine if you could invoke a bond or a benefit (a reroll or something else), but doing so gave the DM explicit permission to do things with the bond.  (This is FATE-esque).
> 
> So instead of Bonds being (to some people) liabilities (here are hooks your DM has on your PC!), they become resources you can tap on, in exchange for a price later (bwahahahah).


FATE point inspiration (you can carry multiple, but you primarily gain them from taking on a hardship in the name of one of your ties and you can only spend them if you explain how it's relevant to a tie) would be a really nice suggested alternate rule in the DMG.  Compare how many ideas the Gritty Realism and Slow Natural Healing variants inspired for relatively little word count.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I agree that players having their characters tied to the world (rather than a collections of ragtag anachronisms) makes the game better. Players are more focused on the campaign and are more likely to have a backstory that can be blended into the global narrative.


 I think it works better that way. 



> Like, it's not game design that you're calling for; its game management.


 True, so maybe improve the coverage of this in the DMG.  



> ... a product of the DM (and players) playing the game toward that goal.


 Yes. 



> Steering away from extant rules, there is no reason part of character creation couldn't include a section on "Group Creation", detailing stats like Leadership, Morale/Cohesion, Teamwork in exactly the same way that PC's have Strength, Dexterity, HP and Proficiencies.


 _Blades in the Dark_ does something like this. 
Each PC has a character sheet with stuff. 
The Crew also has it's own sheet with certain things on it.

----------


## Burley

> _Blades in the Dark_ does something like this. 
> Each PC has a character sheet with stuff. 
> The Crew also has it's own sheet with certain things on it.


I was just about to mention Blades, in response to Yakk. Maybe, if there is a mechanical need to tie the party together, it should be like Blades' Crew Sheet, with abilities, traits and drawbacks (?) that affect the party and their hideout/base of operations.

----------


## Xervous

Id prefer D&D to stay separate from PbtA and FATE styled stuff. Ive never wanted narrative mechanics or narrative focus from D&D.

----------

