|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 26, 2015 15:50:37 GMT -5
How do you handle splitting the party? Bitd it was a extremely rare event; however, over the last several years I had a young player who only had MMO experience before playing OD&D. He started playing at 16 (now 22 and off at school) and he would split the party by going off on his own from time to time. I asked him once why he did it when often it did not go so well and he replied that he did it because such interesting things happened when he did it. Once of the last ones he was around for, he was on guard duty after they had just went through a portal and he decided to go off exploring without letting anyone know.
So we play his part of it out with everyone listening (I was really vague about what direction he went (it was after dark on a strange world and he got lost really fast). About a half hour into it the other guard realized he was gone and woke up someone else to pull guard duty and they were not too concerned. So he blundered into the edge of a village, ended up running for his life and got caught in a trap hanging upside down by his feet. The rest of the group were rolling as he kept going from bad to worse. At dawn the rest of the group decided he had been gone too long and they had a debate about whether or not they should look for him. Then I sent him out of the room while the debate was going on. They finally decided to go look for him and sent the dragon (one PC was a dragon) up to look for him. Meanwhile he was being held suspended upside down in the hot sun with ropes attached to all four limbs. Every now and then the ropes would be tightened and wood was being gathered and stacked beneath him. (I gave him updates on his situation periodically) They eventually located him, defeated his captors and put out the fire. Then they stood there (he was back in the room by now) and debated whether to cut him down or leave him and if they cut him down whether or not to heal his wounds. They eventually did but made him sweat and he was gagged the whole time so he could not even plead his case.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 26, 2015 16:00:36 GMT -5
I had a situation where the party got split because a thief, acting in his role as a "scout" really did need to go ahead and scout something out. I went on a bit longer than I was comfortable, so I just checked in with the group: are you guys bored, are you okay with this? They all said, no, it was cool, they were happy he could figure this stuff out for them and keep them safe. He returned as quickly as he could and they all set off together again. In general, "don't split the party" is pretty sacrosanct for me because I just don't want to have to run two games at once and I don't want half the party bored. That said, I have noticed that splitting the party is almost no problem at all with on-line games. I learned this from makofan. He has no problem with this and does a great job. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 1, 2015 2:37:31 GMT -5
I have seldom played games in which the party didn't habitually split and I've noticed that it's only dungeoneering games which really seem to make a big deal of this. I cut my teeth on Call of Cthulhu and Vampire in which it was the norm for investigators to divide their time among avenues or for characters to have their own mysterious business to do.
The trick, I've found, is a mastery of the cinematic cut or chapter break. Without wishing to brag, I'm pretty good at timing a hop to what other players are up to so that the player who's been doing their solo thing for twenty minutes remains invested in it while waiting for someone else to take their turn.
It's worth noting that I don't play RPGs with people who get bored listening to other people; most of my friends and players find watching the theatricals of others' roleplaying to be entertainment in itself. Those who doze off during others' two-minute turns in a combat round and pay no attention between fights (yes, I've known one) are encouraged to come along to board game night instead and play some Talisman or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 1, 2015 15:36:54 GMT -5
I would add that bitd we did the thief acting as scout thing on a regular basis, but those where usually not really long excursions most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 2, 2015 10:45:40 GMT -5
It's never a problem for long.  |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Oct 13, 2018 15:59:10 GMT -5
No,No, No
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 13, 2018 16:21:50 GMT -5
Which post are you responding too? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Oct 13, 2018 16:25:27 GMT -5
Which post are you responding too? OP |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 13, 2018 16:28:44 GMT -5
Which post are you responding too? OP Are you objecting to the ref or the player or both? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Oct 13, 2018 16:33:36 GMT -5
Are you objecting to the ref or the player or both? I am totally rejecting the idea of splitting up the party |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 13, 2018 16:38:15 GMT -5
Are you objecting to the ref or the player or both? I am totally rejecting the idea of splitting up the party Some players just insist for no good reason, but sometimes there are good reasons. Scouting is one of them, where just going off on your own with no purpose or goal in mind is IMO not a good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by simonw on Oct 16, 2018 9:36:05 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with it. Some of the most dramatic moments can come when the party is split up. That's why it happens a lot in movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Oct 16, 2018 20:50:28 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance).
|
|
|
|
Post by simonw on Oct 17, 2018 4:22:35 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). But if that's what they want to do then you shouldn't "punish" them just because its hard to handle. Much better to make a positive reason for them to stay together (if it bothers you that they have split up) than a negative reason for them splitting up. Its a table top role playing game after all (and player/character choice is associated with that), not a board or computer game. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 17, 2018 6:35:13 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). I wouldn't penalize them for it beyond the effects the decision has on things. But there are things beyond the scouting function that are good reasons to split up. It can often be good tactics to send a group to flank the opponent when you are the aggressor and it can help to force a surrender. Since my players are not murderhobo's monster are willing to surrender and if captured the players may be ransomed or have to perform a task. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Oct 17, 2018 18:43:35 GMT -5
In the OP, this player sounds like an attention hog and may be taking time away from the rest of the players, intentionally or otherwise. Typically I allow the action but ignore the player and focus on the group, but there are times when this is a declared action, be it strategy, tactics, or it was caused by the setting itself. When it happens it requires some fancy DMing! I try to take more of a narrative approach, treating it like quick, fast-paced chapters in a book. I want it to be interesting to listen too, and limit the time that the other group or groups are just sitting there.
I really pick up the pace, doing my best to keep things exciting and there are little tricks that I've picked up over the years. I either end each short with a decision for the players to make, or end the scene on a cliff-hanger. I will take some liberties with players, the dialog must be fast so I try to limit unnecessary decisions and red-herrings and may railroad both parties for a bit. Split scenes, I feel, should be as organized and as tight as I can possibly get them. In a way, this tells the players that they have lost some control, but that is a good thing since we prefer the group stays together and it is their goal to join up with the others as soon as possible.
Sometimes, if the small group does end up running into something bad, such as an enemy party, I'll have the group not in the scene play the bad guys and run key NPCs. You would think that the players would hold back, but it has been my experience that they don't. Even if the scene is just one of dialog, the participants enjoy playing badguys for short periods of time, one can see a Braunstein influence as I do give them an objective and the players who are helping me out will be rewarded for RP and if they are able to achieve their temporary goal.
A good player will be polite and just watch the other group play, but it is important that they know that their turn will be coming up soon. Play should be focused and structured. If someone tries to slow down the pace, switch groups and don't let them unless you can figure out a way to get everyone involved. Involvement is key, this will give them some time to figure out some pretty advanced tactics! This style of play can be a lot of fun once you get the hang of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Oct 17, 2018 20:26:16 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). I wouldn't penalize them for it beyond the effects the decision has on things. But there are things beyond the scouting function that are good reasons to split up. It can often be good tactics to send a group to flank the opponent when you are the aggressor and it can help to force a surrender. Since my players are not murderhobo's monster are willing to surrender and if captured the players may be ransomed or have to perform a task. Something quick like this perfectly acceptable. But you can't ignore those that want to split the party because they think they are hilarious/clever/special and deserve an hour or two of solo spot-light time to play their personal adventure because "its what my character would do". That is typically what a DM is getting at when they ask for advice on handling split parties. The scenario you present is kind of a non-issue, and your players come off as reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Oct 17, 2018 20:34:56 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). But if that's what they want to do then you shouldn't "punish" them just because its hard to handle. Much better to make a positive reason for them to stay together (if it bothers you that they have split up) than a negative reason for them splitting up. Its a table top role playing game after all (and player/character choice is associated with that), not a board or computer game. I think we said the same thing using different words. I mentioned making it suck (a negative), and you recommended making a negative reason. So, I agree with you wholeheartedly! As I mentioned to someone else, I assume (maybe wrongly) that when someone is asking for advice on split parties then it is because one or two players are being pains in the ass. The type that do not care one bit that there are a handful of other adults sitting at the table with them that only get to game once every few months, and feel the need to split the party to have their own fun and exclude the other players. All because "Its what my character would do!". Anyway, I do love RP, but I want it tempered to adjust to the reality of the situation to some degree. Wandering monster checks are great for parties that split. It reinforces the need for team work. The original post mentioned someone wandering off while on watch and not telling any other players. This happened to me at Gary Con 2018. Some kid decided to wander off and do his own thing for 45 minutes while 12 other players sat there. So, given that situation, make it suck when players want to split the party. Don't make it suck if they are making reasonable, tactical, decisions to aid the party. Reads like OP did a good job at it. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 17, 2018 21:53:53 GMT -5
But if that's what they want to do then you shouldn't "punish" them just because its hard to handle. Much better to make a positive reason for them to stay together (if it bothers you that they have split up) than a negative reason for them splitting up. Its a table top role playing game after all (and player/character choice is associated with that), not a board or computer game. I think we said the same thing using different words. I mentioned making it suck (a negative), and you recommended making a negative reason. So, I agree with you wholeheartedly! As I mentioned to someone else, I assume (maybe wrongly) that when someone is asking for advice on split parties then it is because one or two players are being pains in the fanny. The type that do not care one bit that there are a handful of other adults sitting at the table with them that only get to game once every few months, and feel the need to split the party to have their own fun and exclude the other players. All because "Its what my character would do!". Anyway, I do love RP, but I want it tempered to adjust to the reality of the situation to some degree. Wandering monster checks are great for parties that split. It reinforces the need for team work. The original post mentioned someone wandering off while on watch and not telling any other players. This happened to me at Gary Con 2018. Some kid decided to wander off and do his own thing for 45 minutes while 12 other players sat there. So, given that situation, make it suck when players want to split the party. Don't make it suck if they are making reasonable, tactical, decisions to aid the party. Reads like OP did a good job at it. TPD had fun with it and it sounds like the other players were in on it to with the debate at the end with the player gagged and sweating it out. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Nov 9, 2018 15:38:50 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). Honestly is this not one of the reasons for both a "caller" and random encounters? I've come to a personal realization that, in a way, D&D is a parallel to computer adventure games prior to the advent of affordable personal computers and adventure games. The DM is the game algorithm and CPU. The players, through their adventurers, have to overcome the challenges presented by the DM algorithm. Cooperatively the players stand a better chance of success. Some players don't get it or just don't care. Mine have taught me that they (or at least some) don't get that attached to their characters likely due to their computer gaming experience. I don't actively punish party splitters but through random encounters I do make the activity a form of negative reinforcement. I've also instituted a form of non combat initiative to give everyone and opportunity to state an action (searching, etc) to cut down on meta gaming and one player grand standing non combat activity. Sine they refuse the idea of a caller I've resorted to other measures. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Nov 10, 2018 12:03:39 GMT -5
Make it suck so that they don't do it (unless the thief is doing a quick reconnaissance). Honestly is this not one of the reasons for both a "caller" and random encounters? I've come to a personal realization that, in a way, D&D is a parallel to computer adventure games prior to the advent of affordable personal computers and adventure games. The DM is the game algorithm and CPU. The players, through their adventurers, have to overcome the challenges presented by the DM algorithm. Cooperatively the players stand a better chance of success. Some players don't get it or just don't care. Mine have taught me that they (or at least some) don't get that attached to their characters likely due to their computer gaming experience. I don't actively punish party splitters but through random encounters I do make the activity a form of negative reinforcement. I've also instituted a form of non combat initiative to give everyone and opportunity to state an action (searching, etc) to cut down on meta gaming and one player grand standing non combat activity. Sine they refuse the idea of a caller I've resorted to other measures. Re: The part I put in bold, I would like to hear more about what you are doing. I like your analogy of the DM as the game algorithm. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Nov 10, 2018 14:26:48 GMT -5
I've also instituted a form of non combat initiative to give everyone and opportunity to state an action (searching, etc) to cut down on meta gaming and one player grand standing non combat activity. Sine they refuse the idea of a caller I've resorted to other measures. Re: The part I put in bold, I would like to hear more about what you are doing. I like your analogy of the DM as the game algorithm. - It's an experiment in progress. I had each player average their characters Int and Wis and give me the number. In the case of a tie I asked for them to compare another attribute (arbitrarily chosen by me.) I then listed the scores in descending order and use that as a guide. I go around the table and ask each player in descending order what their character is doing during the non combat phase of the game/at that moment of non combat time. Helps me to "herd the cats." I have a larger group with typically 6 - 9 players at a time. Some have more aggressive/forceful personalities than others and might capitalize my time overshadowing the others. Work in progress but seems to have some promise. Also avoids jumping in and stealing another players thunder because they weren't paying attention (such as navel gazing at their smartphone) when another player stated they were doing something and then jumping in to state the same action. |
|
