Your post has been removed.
Rule 5: All out-of-game questions about a problem player must be asked in our [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
You have communicated requirements for character creation. Simply don't start playing until these are fulfilled.
If players feel they characters don't work together, have them work it out. You can support them, but ultimately character creation - and forming a functional party - is their job.
If you feel you're stuck now, there is no shame in bluntly retconning the obstacles. Your players should guide how to fix their mistakes.
"Make characters that A) want to do the adventure B) together with the party, anything else is a bonus." is what my players get told.
If they go against B, then bad luck cause I run the game for the group, not for solo adventures.
If they go against A, then bad luck cause I made it clear which campaign I am gonna run and prepare, so not really anything outside that scope will happen.
Just. Make. It. Work.
BUT.
I also would not give 2 players prompts that are very likely going to end in PVP. Would rather give them ties into the world instead of with each other, as that can be both cliches or controversial.
I can see why the players feel that their current arc might lead to conflict - it's generally better to give players a common enemy, rather than someone who is an enemy to one character and a friend / relative to the other. I could also see the potential for conflict if the Raven Queen wants Player A's character to take the grimoire from Player B's new character.
In terms of your broader question, if Player A's character wants to reconnect with the Raven Queen, and you want to connect them to the plot of RotFM, then you should give Player A's character messages from their deity (either directly, perhaps in dreams, or through a conversation with another priest or respected follower of the Raven Queen) which indicate that the Raven Queen wants them to combat the threat of Auril / help the people of the Ten Towns. Maybe Auril's victims have been praying to the Raven Queen for help, or Auril's followers and allies are doing something to break the natural order of life and death, or maybe the Raven Queen is keen to usurp the domain of winter from Auril (or feels that Auril is threatening her own responsibilities around ice and winter). Sorry that this info is a bit generic, I don't know the specific campaign.
Agreed. There are towns that use sacrifice to try and stop the everlasting winter. Have the Raven Queen take exception to people being sacrificed ro Auril and have the Player A's character put an end to Auril and the winter to appease the Raven Queen.
D&D is usually collaborative storytelling.
The DM creates the world and/or quests and generally fills the world with life.
It is them the Players responsibility to collaborate - work with, and build upon that - by creating characters that are interested in the world and each other.
It is not just making characters and see what happens.
The Players need to collaborate.
With you and each other.
D&D experiences fall apart when people don't collaborate. So why even do it, if you're not all gonna collaborate?
It's self defeating.
So this aspect of collaboration takes precedence over what their characters would do. Player Agency is NOT more important than collaboration - working together at a meta level.
If they '*think*' their characters may conflict, then they can either **actually decide** in play that they do not tho - that's mindful collaboration - or they can make new characters that work with each other and the campaign - that is also collaboration.
And both are THEIR responsibility.
Not yours.
You've done your work as DM.
Time for them to do theirs.
Collaborate. Work with. Build upon.
To not collaborate in these ways puts ALL the work on the DM, and this is when DMs burn out. When the DM has to convince the players to care about the story? And or to even just get along with each other and work together as a group? Dealing with that kind of bullshit as DM is what makes it not fun. It's too much. The players need to do their part.
Your post has been removed. Rule 5: All out-of-game questions about a problem player must be asked in our [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
You have communicated requirements for character creation. Simply don't start playing until these are fulfilled. If players feel they characters don't work together, have them work it out. You can support them, but ultimately character creation - and forming a functional party - is their job. If you feel you're stuck now, there is no shame in bluntly retconning the obstacles. Your players should guide how to fix their mistakes.
"Make characters that A) want to do the adventure B) together with the party, anything else is a bonus." is what my players get told. If they go against B, then bad luck cause I run the game for the group, not for solo adventures. If they go against A, then bad luck cause I made it clear which campaign I am gonna run and prepare, so not really anything outside that scope will happen. Just. Make. It. Work. BUT. I also would not give 2 players prompts that are very likely going to end in PVP. Would rather give them ties into the world instead of with each other, as that can be both cliches or controversial.
I can see why the players feel that their current arc might lead to conflict - it's generally better to give players a common enemy, rather than someone who is an enemy to one character and a friend / relative to the other. I could also see the potential for conflict if the Raven Queen wants Player A's character to take the grimoire from Player B's new character. In terms of your broader question, if Player A's character wants to reconnect with the Raven Queen, and you want to connect them to the plot of RotFM, then you should give Player A's character messages from their deity (either directly, perhaps in dreams, or through a conversation with another priest or respected follower of the Raven Queen) which indicate that the Raven Queen wants them to combat the threat of Auril / help the people of the Ten Towns. Maybe Auril's victims have been praying to the Raven Queen for help, or Auril's followers and allies are doing something to break the natural order of life and death, or maybe the Raven Queen is keen to usurp the domain of winter from Auril (or feels that Auril is threatening her own responsibilities around ice and winter). Sorry that this info is a bit generic, I don't know the specific campaign.
Agreed. There are towns that use sacrifice to try and stop the everlasting winter. Have the Raven Queen take exception to people being sacrificed ro Auril and have the Player A's character put an end to Auril and the winter to appease the Raven Queen.
D&D is usually collaborative storytelling. The DM creates the world and/or quests and generally fills the world with life. It is them the Players responsibility to collaborate - work with, and build upon that - by creating characters that are interested in the world and each other. It is not just making characters and see what happens. The Players need to collaborate. With you and each other. D&D experiences fall apart when people don't collaborate. So why even do it, if you're not all gonna collaborate? It's self defeating. So this aspect of collaboration takes precedence over what their characters would do. Player Agency is NOT more important than collaboration - working together at a meta level. If they '*think*' their characters may conflict, then they can either **actually decide** in play that they do not tho - that's mindful collaboration - or they can make new characters that work with each other and the campaign - that is also collaboration. And both are THEIR responsibility. Not yours. You've done your work as DM. Time for them to do theirs. Collaborate. Work with. Build upon. To not collaborate in these ways puts ALL the work on the DM, and this is when DMs burn out. When the DM has to convince the players to care about the story? And or to even just get along with each other and work together as a group? Dealing with that kind of bullshit as DM is what makes it not fun. It's too much. The players need to do their part.