RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, I'm good friends with this guy I'll call "Matt", and he's writing a series of LiveJournal posts about things he likes and dislikes in his gaming. So far, he's started with some innocuous positions.
LIKE: A REASON TO GO ON THE ADVENTURE
Maybe it's a pack of dwarves on your doorstep. Maybe it's a family heirloom with a sinister past. Whatever it is, it's a lot more fun than just walking into a dungeon because your GM told you that's where you were going.This is especially important to me when I'm the one running the game. It's important to me that the PCs have good reasons to do whatever they're about to do - revenge, curiosity, obligation, etc. It's best when these things come from the characters themselves; my favorite adventures are the ones that come from the characters' ambitions. Failing that, I like having a framing device - an organization that the PCs belong to (such as a superteam), or perhaps a collection of nine brave souls who are walking from here to the big volcano.
As is often the case, this is about immersion. I find it much easier to suspend my disbelief if the adventure grows organically from things that have come before. Shadows from the past, if you will.
DISLIKE; SPLITTING UP
Seriously, people. Don't split up. Stick together.My "a-ha" moment with this came a couple years ago, after I'd taught my friend Scott to roleplay. Scott made it into his late 30s without ever having tried RPGs, but the news that there was a Star Wars game tipped him into our camp. So we played a few sessions, and then I asked him what he thought about the various tropes and expectations of roleplaying. Turns out he really hated it when the party split up. "It's so boring," he said.
And he's right. It's boring. So when I run games now, I ask the players to not split up unless they really need to. In return, I create adventures that don't require so much splitting up - I design my encounters with the assumption that everyone will be involved. What we lose in reality-simulation, we more than make up for in fun-having. This isn't a novel, after all. We aren't being entertained by Gandalf and Pippin in one place, then Merry in another, then Frodo and Sam in yet another. This is a group activity - so don't sideline each other without a good reason. Don't split up unless you have to - and expect that we'll resolve your solo activities very quickly. Because while one or two players are having fun, everyone else will be bored.
My reply follows:
There are, of course, iconic character tropes that *require* splitting the party. The stealthy scout never gets to shine if she's always in the company of the big bruiser in armor or the were-chicken sorceress with her flock of love-sick Dire Roosters. The cyber-decker / rigger's whole schtick is that their meat-bodies are half-way across the planet while the cyborg samauri handle the on-site extraction. Likewise, powers such as astral projection or a personal teleportation have to split the party, at least physically.
As well, there are great genre conventions that *can't happen* if the party always sticks together. I want to see Artoo over-ride the computers and save the party from the trash compactor. I want to see "everybody meet back at the ship" type of escapes go awry when Jayne, Simon, and River don't make the rendez-vous, and the rest of the party needs to improvise a rescue.
The trick to keeping the other players engaged is to (a) keep communication open between party members, or (b) get inactive players to temporarily role-play NPC allies of the active PCs, or (c) give them something to huddle and worry about that doesn't require the referee's attention. (You spoke yesterday about your dislike of puzzles, but this is a good time to drop an enigmatic clue on the players who would otherwise be waiting their turn.)
The STAR WARS cinematic solution --rapidly cutting back and forth between groups to keep tension high-- doesn't really work in a table-top environment. It's too hard to keep the threads straight, and timelines can be tricky. And "rapid" cutting in an RPG sometimes isn't. It can take only a couple of minute on screen to switch back to the surface of Endor's moon for a couple of rounds of hot-and-heavy Ewoks-on-stormtrooper combat, but that can take fifteen minutes at a table. Add in another fifteen minutes to resolve a couple of rounds of Lando's starfighter battle, and Luke's player has lost track of the Emperor's manic taunting.
You can comment here if you like, or you could reply at Matt's LJ, 'cause he's looking to engage people.
|
I agree with "Matt" -- splitting up sucks.
Sure, sometimes it seems unavoidable and you kinda have to go with it. When this happens I tell my Players that they need to explain to me what they will do if "so-n-so" doesn't show up at the rendevous or whatever, that way, if so-n-so does get eaten by my pet Tarrasque and doesn't show up back at the inn, my Players can't use Metagame knowledge to make their decision.
But splitting up still sucks.
It sucks for Metagame reasons. As a Player I sure as hell ain't gonna use my precious free time for gaming by sitting at my chair waiting for the DM to deal with Bob's PC. I WILL. NOT. DO. IT. It is an incredible waste of time. I came to play D&D, not sit out for a while because the PCs are splitting up.
As DM I do my absolute best to provide adventures where splitting up ain't a good idea. Sure there are exceptions but I make those as rare as possible.
|
Posted at the LJ, reposted here:
I agree with Chris that splitting up is only boring if you do it wrong. Of course, it's something that's hard to do right.
I've had success with these methods:
- Staying in initiative order. This is especially helpful/easy to do when both parts of the party are engaged in combat or something time sensitive, or when they're split up but not by very much (a few rooms away, for example).
- Giving the "inactive" group something to work on. Developing a plan to assault the fortress, solving a riddle, etc. Something they can work on as a group with very little DM input.
- Give the "inactive" group their own GM. We once split up a large party during the CotCT adventure path. While half the party wanted to go interview a crime lord or something, the other half of us were content to do some RPing and in-character gambling at the docks. So, the GM ran the big NPC negotiations, while I set my character sheet aside and ran a quick gambling mini-game for the rest of the party.
|
I split the party on a regular basis!
Sometimes they do it to themselves, or a "sliding block" trap falls and separates them. IMO it makes them RP a little more (ie. Wizard not being ablee to rely on the Fighter in Plate as much and the reverse) and makes the players think beyond smash/blow it up.\
Just my Opinion. Please don't kill me. :P
|
I don't agree entirely with "Matt"'s veiw of splitting the party. The one time I can remember ever doing it was something we all remember as fun. Granted, we all had something to do, we got the information required, and nothing bad happened...
But I can see his point. I'm running a pbp were the party split up(two of the characters didn't even know about it until later) and had to use my plan for those who didn't go(they were asleep, so I had a little dream RP planned).
Posted at the LJ, reposted here:
I agree with Chris that splitting up is only boring if you do it wrong. Of course, it's something that's hard to do right.
I don't think I can put it any better, other than to say splitting up is also occasionally deadly. Still, keeping the party together to the point of claustrophobia is also quite stupid and ends up hampering the DM as well as other party members. I would amend the trope to "don't go rushing off by yourself" as opposed to "never split the party", an overused saying that is just one more thing I'll never forgive 4th ed for. ;-)
I dislike splitting the party. There are many things that do not translate well from Cinema/Literature. I do not have a strict 'Never Spit Up Ever' rule, but I do avoid it as much as possible.
One con I did not see mentioned is the often increased meta-gaming that happens when you split a group: characters acting on knowledge they do not have.
Agree with "Matt", not with Chris.
The payoff for splitting the party is no where near the pain it causes when doing so.
Fails cost/benefit.
Oddly enough, I tend to do fast cut scenes in RPGs.
The trick works like this:
1) Make an index card for each scene you intend to run, along with its time budget.
2) Each index card has a character (or subset of characters) that it's a problem for.
3) Each scene has two "Yes, they overcame the problem" exit arrows and each scene has two "No, they didn't overcome the problem..." exit arrows.
And I always cut away at a cliff hanger to pop a scene for the group that isn't involved.
I try to keep my scenes running at 15-20 minutes - and switch between two groups. This gives people time to contemplate their "big reveal" while the other scene is running, but isn't so long that people can take a nap, or start talking about the football game, or how the Evil Political Party is full of Evil, while the Not Evil Political Party is full of Not Evil.
One of the other rules of my games is that experience points are awarded by player nomination based on your description of how your character fails.
So...if you aren't paying attention when someone else's scene isn't running, they won't pay attention when yours is either...
I have had players that so frequently insist on splitting the party that I realized that's part of why I don't ask them to join my games any more. They've asked me to run, and I've said, "Sure, maybe a one shot sometime" (this is also because I'm already running a full time game and playing in a game), but felt a feeling of dread about the idea.
And the feeling comes from this: when the party splits CONSTANTLY, you're not running 1 game. You're running 2 or 3 or 5 games. Yes, there are things you can do to discourage that, like getting a small group attacked by a monster that they can't handle or something, but that can cease becoming fun for me and person involved. I have a great deal of difficulty working with my attention split and coming up with everyone for something to do. I get especially flummoxed when I know the direction one party is going is going to lead to a fight whereas the other direction the other people are going is only going to take a couple minutes, and trying to figure out timing and keeping everyone engaged becomes a nightmare. There ARE ways to deal with this, and I know many of them and I am not looking for advice in this thread. I'm just saying it's difficult and it sucks all of my fun that I have as a GM away from me like that *snaps*.
Likewise as a player, I don't like sitting around waiting for someone else to get back from their scouting mission while I've apparently been told to sit with my thumb up my rear end somewhere. A good GM will give me something to do, but then I know that GM is having the frustrating time I have when people CONSTANTLY split the party.
ALL THAT SAID:
Sometimes, if it is kept within reason and makes sense for the specific circumstances to call for different people running different errands, it makes the most sense for the party to split. It's stupid for the Shadowdancer to go scouting if you're forcing the Paladin to clank along with him.
The key is to be sure it doesn't happen constantly, and that the other players have something to do when it does happen.
Small gaming groups help. If a party of four people splits into two groups, it's easier to deal with a party of six people that splits into four solo missions and a fifth pair.
PEOPLE ASK FOR PARTY SPLITS FOR THREE REASONS (broadly speaking):
1. They think it will accomplish what the party has to do faster. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it's a broad and damaging and frustrating misconception.
Example: If the party has to research at a library and go meet their contact at the bar, it may seem to make sense to have one group work at the library and group go meet the contact. But if the library involves a series of die rolls and the bar involves a roleplaying scene where everyone needs to hear the information shared, this isn't efficient. The library-ers will be done before the contact meeters and then miss out on the exciting scene (the GM may try to fluff up the library scene but normally on the fly is not going to be able to come up with something substantive or satisfying unless they are really, really good). And then once the contact meeters are done, they have to go explain everything they learned to the library-ers (and likely, knowing certain players, they WILL have to have it explained to them again because they won't pay attention to the scene they're not in otherwise). Out of game time spent doing this has INCREASED; in game time the party could have more speedily done the research with more hands scanning books, and then everyone could have heard what they need to hear once and been able to move on more quickly not only from the players' perspectives, but from the characters' perspectives.
This isn't always the case and sometimes narrative time can be saved if not player time, but players and GMs need to consider this seriously before splitting the party.
2. A necessary mission involves an extremely specific skill set. This is the one that usually makes sense for the party to split---see the Shadowdancer Scouting with the Paladin scenario.
3. Players want the spotlight for themselves and/or are more interested in interacting with NPCs than the party; aren't interested in party cooperation.
Some players unfortunately treat the game like a video game, with their party members their Baldur's Gate-style NPC companions to enjoy some banter from and then ignore while they try to do everything themselves. They will spend more time with random NPCs than the party in hopes of recruiting a lackey/yes-man or otherwise someone that makes them particularly feel special; party members cannot do this for them because they need their own agency. While I've been blessed not to have to deal with this kind of player as a GM for awhile, it still unfortunately can be a problem in general.
If there's one person who is always trying to split off and have the Me Show while everyone else is trying to play together, this could be the problem. The Game Mastery guide has some good advice for how to deal with it.
Of course, there's also the scenario where splitting up the party tends to get a party member killed. It's one thing if you're in a relatively safe place and people are just accomplishing personal tasks. It's another if a party member sneaks away from camp to have a personal rendevous and ends up causing all kinds of mayhem in the process.
Anyway, I don't agree that splitting up the party is a never but I do think it needs to be dealt with delicately. I think if individual PCs want to accomplish individual goals in a relatively safe setting, a lot of that should be done away from the table. Either in email between sessions, or before and after the session when a bunch of people aren't waiting around for one guy to get his jollies.
Like everything else, it's a question of balance.
It's a necessary evil sometimes (like having one person scouting ahead). But I think all PCs should make a concerted effort to finish their solo business as soon as possible and rejoin the group.
That may mean glossing over some stuff; for example, saying "I check out all of the taverns in town for information on the bandits" rather than "I enter the Broken Skull tavern with a swagger in my step and a flirtatious wink to the barmaid. [...several minutes and one Gather Information check later...] Since there's no information at that tavern, I leave and head down the street to the Cock and Bull tavern [...etc., etc.]"
Good stuff
Interestingly enough, I find the best way to avoid all of these problems is for characters to pair off. My all-girl darklight sisterhood quasi-evil game does this on a regular basis, which kinda sucks for the odd person out left with the NPC, but it means that there are two sets of eyes/ears/swords out there which tends to dissuade the feeling of one person hogging the spotlight or "THE DM LEAD ME INTO A KILLBOX!!!!!" I find that in all-male groups, the one person going off to save the day thing is an issue that leads to dead PCs and/or perpetuations of the "don't split the party" stereotype.
Example: If the party has to research at a library and go meet their contact at the bar, it may seem to make sense to have one group work at the library and group go meet the contact. But if the library involves a series of die rolls and the bar involves a roleplaying scene where everyone needs to hear the information shared, this isn't efficient. The library-ers will be done before the contact meeters and then miss out on the exciting scene (the GM may try to fluff up the library scene but normally on the fly is not going to be able to come up with something substantive or satisfying unless they are really, really good). And then once the contact meeters are done, they have to go explain everything they learned to the library-ers (and likely, knowing certain players, they WILL have to have it explained to them again because they won't pay attention to the scene they're not in otherwise). Out of game time spent doing this has INCREASED; in game time the party could have more speedily done the research with more hands scanning books, and then everyone could have heard what they need to hear once and been able to move on more quickly not only from the players' perspectives, but from the characters' perspectives.
The issue that can come up with the whole party going to the library is that depending on your party, character wise it doesn't always make sense for the rogue to go to a library when he has local contacts he can check with, and forcing him to the library can hurt game play just as much as letting everyone go their own direction. Yes, it can be tricky to run, but occasionally, it can help keep people in character mode rather than forcing everyone into an encounter focused on the wizard or the tavern where the paladin would never in his right mind show himself. This isn't a situation that should come up all time, but when it does, there are ways to deal with it that allow the other players to stay involved.
The issue that can come up with the whole party going to the library is that depending on your party, character wise it doesn't always make sense for the rogue to go to a library when he has local contacts he can check with, and forcing him to the library can hurt game play just as much as letting everyone go their own direction. Yes, it can be tricky to run, but occasionally, it can help keep people in character mode rather than forcing everyone into an encounter focused on the wizard or the tavern where the paladin would never in his right mind show himself. This isn't a situation that should come up all time, but when it does, there are ways to deal with it that allow the other players to stay involved.
I realize I may have not used the best example (was vaguely drawing from past games) but please remember that the point of that example was more broadly, to illustrate how sometimes the party thinking they are saving time by splitting up is erroneous. Maybe a better example would be something like hitting a T intersection and the group splitting to explore both ends simultaneously (assuming each half of the group is equally exploration capable). The players think it would "speed the story" along but it forces the GM to run two dungeon crawls at once instead of the one. Which ultimately slows things down in IRL, and perhaps in game as well, especially if one half of party gets themselves in trouble and have to be rescued by the other half.
I did note different skills for different jobs can be a good reason to split up; we are already in agreement there.
Went back and read your post when I was fully awake and caught that little detail about the party trying to save time. You are right on that aspect; in DnD, doing something just to save time usually backfires.