Hey, I said my two cents: I don't like splitting up, for the reasons stated above (Set's reasons included). YMMV, of course.
Err... YMMV?
Your Mileage May Vary...hogarth is basically saying, we may disagree...and that's okay.
Your Mileage May Vary? Never heard that one before! Thanks for the explanation mate.
No problem. Those ranks in Linguistics paid off, I guess. :-D
One thing I have noted is that splitting the party is a tactic only to be considered if:
- You know you are safe.
- The DM tells you in metagame it's safe and you do it to get things moving along
- There is something that only certain members of the party can do (scouting, performing, infiltration, etc.) and everyone else would only get in the way
- You're bored. Really bored.
You lost me with this one. Doesn't splitting up the party usually increase the boredom? (Since by necessity you have to have some posts saying
- You're bored. Really bored.
- "I'm walking back towards the rest of the party."
- "Tum te dum. Noo-ny noo-ny noo. Clip clop."
- "There, I'm back now!"
|
You lost me with this one. Doesn't splitting up the party usually increase the boredom?
- You're bored. Really bored.
He means the kind of bored where the Rogue player decides to pickpocket a fellow PC, or intentionally trigger a trap, to 'liven things up.' Splitting up, in this case, to increase the chances of random encounters (since, back in 1st edition, you would roll for each group, potentially doubling the number of beasties encountered).
Doesn't splitting up the party usually increase the boredom?
I've found the opposite to be true. It allows two stories to be told at the same time and develop plot threads that cross between them. It also gives more opportunities to explore the individual dynamics between smaller grouping of PCs which might otherwise never get examined when 5 or 6 people all try to respond to the exact same situation at once. Personally, I think it's cool that Akorian and Raven get to talk about stuff away from the others for a small bit of time. It quickly gets us in-character and bouncing ideas off one another that we can use further down the line.
Also, while the pace of a PbP game goes more slowly than tabletop games, it actually makes for easier side-by-side play of two separate groups because of that slower pace. So, side-treks are generally sped up by PbP play. Not slowed down. It also allows more of the story/game to be told/experienced by widening it out into a less linear approach. We can collect in-game information at twice the rate sometimes. And none of that's boring, because we get to do further in-party character development when we gather again to pool that information.
For instance, would it have made things that much more interesting (i.e., less boring) if Akorian and Raven had been there when you encountered the strange jellyfish? I don't think so. And again, did the "escort duty" performed by Akorian and Raven prove boring to the players involved in that scene? F.Caster might feel differently, but for me, that opportunity to interact with the enemy Hellknight commander just made this game far more interesting. Meanwhile, whatever develops with you guys and the jellyfish-things should prove interesting for your PCs as well. And when we get back together, half the fun is describing what the others learned or experienced while they were away from one another.
Lastly, to address the concern about party elements being overwhelmed by the CR of the adventure when they split up, I think we'll be okay. First, we're a 6-member party going through an adventure whose encounters were designed for a party of 4. In addition, you've also got Janiven and Morosino traveling with you. So you're still a party of 6, technically. You're in the least amount of danger of anyone. You won't even miss the party cleric now that you have such a slew of healing potions. ;-)
As for Raven and Akorian going off alone, we're just escorting 4 tied-up and heavily-wounded guards through the sewers to the first exit we find. That shouldn't take too long or prove too taxing unless the GM is particularly fiendish in over-challenging the PCs. As I've said, I've gamed with Tim before. He excels in handling these types of situations. I trust him completely. And splitting the party (at times when it makes sense) can really enhance the game.
That's how I see it, as least. But, as you said, YMMV... ;-)
--Neil
|
I remember one classic split the party moment when one of our younger players in Temple of Elemental Evil decided to wander down to the next level having purloined the wand of wonder from the party..he meet the trolls..and died horribly after conjuring a cloud of butterflies...we then had to mount a raid into the level to recover the wand.
Later on with same wand we conjured a rhino in a 10' x 10' room...that was one pissed off rhino
You lost me with this one. Doesn't splitting up the party usually increase the boredom? (Since by necessity you have to have some posts saying
- You're bored. Really bored.
and meanwhile, a week has passed in the real world...)
- "I'm walking back towards the rest of the party."
- "Tum te dum. Noo-ny noo-ny noo. Clip clop."
- "There, I'm back now!"
I'm thinking more along the lines of:
"Guys, the Bad Guys aren't going to touch us while we're all together. If we split up they might think they have a chance."
or
"The DM is waiting for us to split up to ambush us one by one. Let's give him what he wants so we can get on with the plot."
Also, while the pace of a PbP game goes more slowly than tabletop games, it actually makes for easier side-by-side play because of that slower pace. So, side treks are generally sped up by PbP play. Not slowed down. It also allows more of the story/game to be told/experienced by widening it out into a less linear approach.
Here's my recent experience with splitting up the party in PbP games:
- In game #1, the party was heading towards a crisis and one player decided to take an alternate route. The rest of the party encountered some bad guys and the combat lasted for about a week and a half. During that time, the other player posted a few comments about walking.
- In game #2, the party rescued an NPC. One or two PCs stayed to talk to the NPC, one or two PCs went upstairs and encountered another enemy, and the rest of the PCs stood around going: "Huh? Where's my character? Do I hear the fight? Is this all happening at the same time?"
- In game #3, the party split into a bunch of directions while in a town. Most of the PCs finished their business quickly, but then they had to wait for the last PC who decided to haggle with a shopkeeper. By the time the haggling was done (slowly, of course, with one player posting followed by the DM posting followed by the player posting, etc.), several of the players had lost interest in the game.
It's good to know that your experiences have been more positive! Maybe I'm just a jinx. :-)
I'm thinking more along the lines of:
"Guys, the Bad Guys aren't going to touch us while we're all together. If we split up they might think they have a chance."
or
"The DM is waiting for us to split up to ambush us one by one. Let's give him what he wants so we can get on with the plot."
Ah! Then I agree with the second bit -- sometimes someone has to step up and be the alpha dog!
I think splitting up can be quite interesting under the right circumstances, and by right circumstances I mean not having a DM who is out to annihilate the poor lil' PCs first chance he gets and not having players who take the splitting up too far and are incapable of exercising a bit of self-control. Hogarth's example of the PC haggling just a tad too much is such an example of something taken too far.
As the player, I find splitting up from the main group anything from worrisome to downright frightening. I rather like my characters spending as much time in the land of the living as possible. As the character, however, I can justify not having the whole party backtrack in order to see the captured knights to safety, but have a couple of the members do that while the rest move on, even though there might be some risk involved. And I rather enjoyed -and continue to enjoy- the exchange between Akorian and Raven, since such little things make the already fantasy novel-like PbP even more so, at least in my mind; I had not expected their having worked together before until Neil went with it and I am only too happy to follow in his wake. And yes, I also liked the Hellknight's not-so-subtle threat towards the 'elf' and the 'Wiscrani'. Always nice to have some loose end come and bite you in the posterior at some point later on. Heh...
Here's my recent experience with splitting up the party in PbP games...
Sounds painful. So I can understand your aversion, certainly. Why don't I give you my recent experience with splitting from the party:
- In game #1, the GM started off with the premise that three of the party's members set off to explore and reclaim an ancient dwarven stronghold. They were gone for such a long time without any word coming back that the other 4 party members set off as part of a second expedition to find out what happened to them...and to rescue them, if need be. We went back and forth in two separate game threads, encountering many of the same NPCs (although separately) and generally having a blast discovering what each of the other groups had been up to. In addition, we eventually did meet up and then split again...trading some PCs from one party to the other as we set off in different directions to accomplish new, separate objectives. And again, the ramifications of our decisions and actions in each separate group enhanced the story...as NPCs and monsters we encountered or bargained with showed up to encounter the other group as well.
- In game #2, Tim (aka, therealthom) GM'ed my Shoanti barbarian priestess of Pharasma through her own personal crypt-crawl to rid the Dead Warrens of some troublemakers digging holes in the cemetery. She got to discover the source of these problems and even eliminate one of the monstrous enemies, taking it back to her superiors for interrogation via speak with dead before she ever joined up with the other party members. But, because she had this side-trek, she had a wealth of information to impart to them about the Dead Warrens when the entire group was asked to retrieve a dead body taken by a necromancer into those same tunnels. It actually served as one of the best introductions of a new PC into a party that I've ever experienced. So, kudos to Tim in how he involved and (appropriately) challenged my PC while she was off on her own. None of it bogged down the game or story of either party. He juggled both as if they were two separate PbP games until the appropriate moment to blend them together. And the same thing can be achieved by occasionally splitting and rejoining within a single game, too.
- In game #3, I ran a mercenary fighter with a troubled past through Rise of the Runelords and everytime we went back to Sandpoint (the local town), he had all kinds of NPC (and PC) interactions separate from the rest of the party. It served as the best possible vehicle to widen the story and make the town come alive. But it also provided some of the best PC-to-PC interaction opportunties as my character shared important aspects about his background with someone else in the party he trusted far more than the others. And those two characters developed a deeper understanding of one another and trust that served them well the further they went into the adventure. Stuff like that doesn't happen as easily if the party is together all the time.
It's good to know that your experiences have been more positive! Maybe I'm just a jinx. :-)
LOL! No worries, man. I totally get where you're coming from. And I think you understand what I'm saying, too. I've always enjoyed PbP games because of how much more detail you can get into in this format vs. the face-to-face tabletop games. Because, I've experienced the scenarios you and Set laid out, too. Everything from the boring wait while the party's decker does a VR side-trek in a ShadowRun game to individual party members getting in over their head because they voluntarily split off from the party in the middle of a really hard D&D dungeon crawl.
Really, I see things differently in this particular case because of the beauty of our entire setup. We've got a really well-prepared and experienced GM who's not going to take advantage of party members just because they go off to accomplish something important separate from everyone else. And, we've got a large party-size in comparison to the CR level of the adventure's designed encounters. And, more importantly, judging by the information everyone shared on how long we've been gaming, etc...we've clearly got a lot of mature, experienced gamers in this group. So I think we'll not only be "okay." I think we'll actually excel and make the game infinitely better by occasionally splitting up when it makes sense and serves the "story" of the adventure itself.
Much respect, :-)
--Neil
Oh, I have no problem with a DM running two related games in parallel in different threads. That sounds like a neat idea. Note that we didn't do that in this case, though.
|
|
Because, I've experienced the scenarios you and Set laid out, too. Everything from the boring wait while the party's decker does a VR side-trek in a ShadowRun game
Shadowrun and it's deckers are the most common reference point there, but psionics based games were one character goes astrally projecting (or telepathically enters a dreamscape) or games that involve vehicles of some sort (again, Shadowrun and it's 'riggers') create situations where one player characters specialty removes them from the rest of the party, and leaves them standing around holding their cheese. I consider that a game design failure. If the game has a 'decker' or a 'rigger' or whatever, the mechanics should give the other players something to do (much like in Wraith: the Oblivion, when a Wraith suffers a Harrowing, the other players get to play the parts of his psyche that turn against him).
In D&D, scouts (as well as flying and aquatic races) can turn into this as well. The 'scout' goes on ahead, and four fifths of their party is left exploring their noseholes for interestingly-shaped boogers until sneaky guy comes back from his solo-quest.
Oh, I have no problem with a DM running two related games in parallel in different threads. That sounds like a neat idea. Note that we didn't do that in this case, though.
I don't think it's that far off, though. My third example, for instance, wasn't running two related games in parallel...and I'd say it was the most beneficial use of "splitting the party" because it led to much deeper character development among the PCs as well as the NPCs in the adventure. So, I think the same technique can apply here as well. I'd recommend you give it a chance and see if you still feel the same way afterward. Maybe you've just never seen it work in a good way before?
...games that...create situations where one player characters specialty removes them from the rest of the party, and leaves them standing around holding their cheese. I consider that a game design failure.
I completely agree.
Hey Guys, I'll be traveling on business the remainder of this week and combining it with a trip to see my parents and drive them out to the east coast. I will definitely get at least one more post in tomorrow, but I may not be able to post regularly after that. Next week, expect reduced posts while my parents visit.
I'll be back to normal beginning Tuesday October 13th.
Sorry I didn't post today. Work was crazy, preparing for the trip.
Hey Neil how are things going with the Fellnight Queen hope we aren't holding you back from a deadline or something.
I have to admit that the word "Fellnight" reminds me of this comic...
;-)
Hey Neil how are things going with the Fellnight Queen hope we aren't holding you back from a deadline or something.
I already turned over Fellnight Queen for development. So my work is done on that, unless Sean needs me to come back and clarify something. I have a new assignment and a new deadline now. And about 2 months to meet it, even though it's half-again as long as my FQ manuscript. So, yeah. My posting may not be as frequent in these next couple of months.
I have to admit that the word "Fellnight" reminds me of this comic...;-)
Yes. I believe you made a similar point in the adventure's product discussion thread. :-)
--Neil
You've got a good memory. ;-)
FYI: There's a new dice-rolling tag on the forums!
E.g.
Now that is long overdue!
Been waiting to see how things play. If Waifrin appears under-powered, we'll work out a freebie. If not, we won't.
Not a problem!
My posting will still be irregular, although I'm beginning to get quite antsy over the overall slowdown in posts. I hope we're all in top form when I'm back to speed next week.
One suggestion: in battle, sometimes I need a reminder of who has yet to act in the turn. I get confused easily...
You're not the only one. And I'm supposed to be running this circus. ~shakes head~
Seems to be working so far, though.
I do try to to post initiative and positions (even if wrong) at the beginning of each round. So that should help a little.
In another PbP, we ended our posts with who was up next in initiative, but that DM wanted us to post strictly in order.
We do things similarly in Wellard's game, he posts up initiative order, we post our actions and he sorts out the order in which they occur and narrates the results. Only reason I'm hanging around with Waifrin is because she acts after the torbles (slower than a bunch of slugs, for heaven's sake!) I need to see what they do before I can declare what I do.
Heading for a wedding this weekend. Net access unclear. I'll post if possible.
Didn't you say that you wanted to discuss AoOs? Personally, I'd be delighted to have you roll them for us.
It's cool by me if you do. Obviously if people can keep an eye on which AoOs are likely to come up and include in their posts which they would be inclined to take, that will help Thom immensely.
Didn't you say that you wanted to discuss AoOs? Personally, I'd be delighted to have you roll them for us.
That's a dynamite idea. In my other PbP game, I found that AoOs really slow things down because of they interrupt posted actions and you've got to wait while they're resolved. I was going to whine ad infinitum about it , but if hogarth's idea is acceptable to most of you, that's how we'll roll.
Next, grappling. We need to nerf it. Mother V is driving me nuts. Just kidding. About nerfing. She is driving me nuts.
Another note. This endless combat upon combat is not my usual style, but that's how the sewer chase seemed to be written to me. Personally, I find running combat end to end like this boring. You guys have been doing great with the banter to keep it interesting though. You're breezing through the monsters. Just a few more encounters and I'll let you out.
Dabbler:
Next, grappling. We need to nerf it. Mother V is driving me nuts. Just kidding. About nerfing. She is driving me nuts.
I should point out one thing: if someone's grappled, they can still attack with a one-handed or light weapon. So a Hellknight doesn't have to try to escape; he can stab Mother with a sword instead (with a -2 penalty, but Mother has a -2 penalty to AC while grappling so it cancels out).
Next, grappling. We need to nerf it. Mother V is driving me nuts. Just kidding. About nerfing. She is driving me nuts.I should point out one thing: if someone's grappled, they can still attack with a one-handed or light weapon. So a Hellknight doesn't have to try to escape; he can stab Mother with a sword instead (with a -2 penalty, but Mother has a -2 penalty to AC while grappling so it cancels out).
The first guy you grappled tried that. No luck.
Hogarth's idea concerning AoOs is acceptable to yours truly. Yours truly has spoken. That will be all. Carry on now.
Something like this, Thom? Let me know if I need to adjust it, I just found a lovely freeware photoshop clone ...
On another theme, we're a pretty tough party for these Armigers to take on, and by and large they have played to our strengths. They are medium-sized, without reach weapons, and we are fighting in confined spaces. They run slap into our two front-rank fighters, and stall. More foes, larger foes and open spaces would enable them to cause us many more problems.
|
|
Personally Marius is finding the "dont kill the hellknights" strictures very wearing... if we take over the revolution things will be changing dramatically.
You get Zarabeta's vote. She's is going to start killing folk real soon now.TM
It's a darned revolution! We're not here to hug it out with the devil-worshippers who want to torture us to death, sell our souls to outsiders and animate our corpses to work the mines.
The citizens of the city are not being dragged from their homes and 'disappeared' to the Bahamas for a free spa treatment administered by Playboy bunnies!
Plus these last two encounters are a direct result of the unbelievable decision to release the first set of Hellknights *and then escort them to safety.* It's like someone in the party *wants* us to be captured... (Hmm, Zarabeta's paranoia is infecting me!)
Perfect, Dabbler.
Set, how's this a result of the first HK combat?
We're not here to hug it out with the devil-worshippers who want to torture us to death, sell our souls to outsiders and animate our corpses to work the mines.
I think Mother Vangelis is ...
But seriously, I think these guys would have found us regardless. Even Waifrin (in her calmer moments, rare though they are) will concede that letting these guys live is sensible to a point. If they live, they were spineless, incompetent fools who couldn't catch a cold let alone half-a-dozen agitators. If they are all killed, they are martyrs brutally butchered by blood-thirsty traitors to the crown. In short, the authorities will take us much more seriously if we kill.
Edit: Please note, this is not Waifrin being particularly nice ... she has a pretty good ideas that these guys will be dishonoured and on latrine cleaning duty for a few months if they surrender, assuming they aren't drummed out, executed or whatever for dereliction of duty.
Thom, I'll update that map with a grid then!
Edit: Map updated!
|
|
Set, how's this a result of the first HK combat?
Because we stood around waiting for the party to get back in one place, until the torbles finally woke up, and then when they did return, they had a second Hellknight patrol with them.
Even if the torbles would have woken up when we passed them (which is hard to tell, since we did dither there for awhile it seemed, and they were totally dormant, even with Mother Vangelis poking them with her boot), the second Hellknight patrol was definitely a result of the party separation.
And yeah, I know that encounters are supposed to happen, in a meta-game / OOC sense, and 'unavoidable' if we were intended to run into them anyway, but it doesn't change the fact that in-game, the characters made some bad decisions that handed us these fights we should have been able to avoid.
In-character, it all makes perfect sense. We're a bunch of bumbling neophytes in our first hour as secret revolutionaries. It's a tribute to how Cheliax isn't gonna fall anytime soon, with enemies like us. :)
So it's total schizophrenia. In-character, Zarabeta is embarassed to be in this situation, but understands that not everyone is as smart or practical as she is (and by 'smart and practical' she's avoiding the truer terms 'cold-blooded and hungry for vengeance,' she may be convinced of the righteousness of her anger, but I've deliberately put her on a slippery slope because I'm cruel to my characters that way). Out-of-character, I'm amused at our keystone cops routine and accept that we'll get whatever encounters we get, and just hope that the DM doesn't have to make any kludgy DM fiat decisions to save us from our characters mistakes.
For instance, unless the Hellknights we released got killed by Goblins, or ran into an Otyugh (which is entirely possible, and we should hope for) Mother Vangelis' family is pretty much guaranteed to be rounded up for interrogation in the near future. We may not have killed the Hellknights, but we might as well have cut the throats of her husband and children, who, given the local 'justice,' won't die nearly as quickly or cleanly as we would have finished off the Hellknights.
With any luck, we'll get clear, and she'll be able to pass a message to her family to get the heck out of Dodge, before the Order of the Gate comes crashing in the door, looking for rebel scum.
I think we overestimate their ability to track people in this kind of society. There are no photographs, no census, no land registry. Finding anyone who's direct address you do not know is not easy - they will have to put the word out, and wait for it to filter back to them. If Ma V gets word to her kids to scram, they should be able to get out of town before the Hellknights manage to figure out who they might be. Especially if Vangelis is a common name (and in a city of 120,000 plus almost any name can be common). Will they figure that she is actually from out of town? Unlikely.
So first, they round up all the "Mother Vangelis'" they can find and see if they can identify the one seen in the sewers in bad light ... and if they cannot identify her, they end up with just a description.
Waifrin is actually in more direct danger, as her combination of white hair with Chellish features is more unique, and her work as a dancer gives her far more public exposure. If she goes back to performing, she may have to dye her hair first!
HK: "We are looking for rebels - one of them was called 'Mother Vangelis' by the others!"
Informant: "Er, would that be Mother Vangelis from Boothe Street? Or how about Mother Vangeelis from the Bakery? Oh, now I think about it, there's one fences stolen goods in the Shambles ..."
HK: "All right - another was a young woman with silver hair."
Informant: "Oh ... hey, I saw a really hot dancer in the Trumpet & Fish the other night, she had silver hair! Only one I've seen in fact ..."
I agree that we are going to need more reasons to stick together after this, though. I suspect that we may have to lie low together for a while, and that other events may overtake us ...
Things crashing at work. Will post as soon as I can. maybe at lunch. maybe not til tomorrow.