As a GM, it’s hard to build a compelling story around a group of selfish, murder hobos with nine different alignments.

These groups have the mentality of attack, loot, and then find someone new to attack and loot. When they meet an NPC, if they don’t immediately give the information they want it is “kill them.” And while it is not impossible to have a story through-line, it is like building on sand.

On the other side, there is a new breed of actor-players. Influenced by Critical Role, they want a “role-playing” style of campaign. Unfortunately, their idea of role-playing is to act out every mundane event. Hours of performing trivial moments like what they eat for lunch, flirting with barmaids, and throwing pine-cones at each other. It is like pulling teeth to get them to leave the tavern. Also, not exciting stuff.

I think the game is at its best when the players are performing heroic deeds while making tough in-character choices. For me, that is the heart of role-playing. The best adventures have rising stakes, difficult crossroads to navigate, and conflicting goals. The story is best when the Hero’s actions are steering it. Toss in some occasional character acting, and I have the perfect game.

The above isn’t easy to pull off, but it should be the goal. And having a goal always makes it easier to get to where you want to be.

Whatever your vision of the perfect type of game, I would think we can all agree an RPG story works best when the heroes are onboard. Too many GM try to force the issue. This is the classic Railroading situation. When the GM is forcing the story onto the players.

The best way I have found to get players to go along with a story is by restricting who and what they can play during Hero creation.

While players and GM might at first be reluctant, the hero creation restrictions creates freedom. I find the limitations of the most critical aspect of starting a new campaign.

The idea behind the limitations is there so the players make characters (who I always call the heroes) that are will to take part in my planned adventure arc. It doesn’t matter what type of story; war, religion, save the world, or local hero. Whatever it is, the restriction makes each Hero have an alliance with the overall theme.

In the last several years, here are some examples of the restraints I placed during Hero creation.

The Heroes comes from an economic depression area and are seeking to reach the city of Pea’dock in hopes of a better life.

The Heroes survived the Orc stacking of Kansas City. They lost friends and family and are looking for retribution.

The Heroes were members of an oppressive regime devoted to the god Anubis who in their banishment plot their return to power.

The Heroes comes from the Mayway Valley region. You have strong ties to your community, no desire to leave, and wish to protect it.

In this way, everyone knows what the story needs from them. But these restraints are not so binding as to prevent character diversity.

In the journey to Pea’dock, I would expect by the second or third session they would reach there. On the road, they will have some encounters and an adventure waiting for them. When that planned adventure finishes, if they wish to continue as a sandbox-style game then that is great. By then, the party will have taken shape, have some bonds, and be better as a collective. So this restriction is mild and only serves to start the heroes off on equal footing and a shared destination.

In the Orc survival story, this story arc lasted six months of real life gaming. The Heroes started in the military until the restriction of that organization was delaying their plans. The whole campaign was them dealing with the Orc War. It has a wide range of adventures, locations, and plot lines. They fought Orc Champions, Giants, and mutant horrors. Near the end, ,it morphed into a more political story line. At no time, was their problem with party coherence or motivations.

In the Anubite running, we were playing the surviving members of the fallen ruling class of a civil war. We were an evil party, devoted to the return of the death god Anubis to the throne. As outcasts, we were plotting and in a sand-box of trying to restore ourselves to glory. And while we never did return, we were united in our hate of the new pharaoh, religion, and our desire to rule again.

In the Mayway Valley, it was about the rise of dark cult who summons a demon to terrorize the community. At no point was the party, “let’s just leave.” With their motivation set, it was easy to allow them to sandbox their solutions on how to destroy this more powerful foe.

My next running might be about an Elf War.

If I were to run this campaign, I would right away say, “No Elves, play a Hero that hates the elves.” Then I might pick an area of the world and ask the players to have bonded to that region. Unless I decided this was a global war, then I wouldn’t place that limitation on the party.

There is no doubt that some people will suddenly want to play an elf. Put your foot down! Elves are the enemies. There is no need to have someone with ambivalent motivations in the party. Where we are going, those guys will get left behind.

Now as GM, I can write up all sorts of stories and encounters involving the war with the elves. In no way do I need to railroad the party. It can be a sandbox-style running within the confines of this world event. The restrictions allow me the GM to better prepare and it gives the Heroes the ability to build a story.

Basically, I am saying to the players; you can do whatever you want as long as it is about the Elf Wars. Let’s see where this takes us.

If you are not putting restrictions on your players during Hero creation, consider it. Doing so will improve your gaming experience.