Often times, whether it is in discussion of a specific scenario, adventure path, or module, or simply when giving advice to new GMs, or when discussing the cardinal rules of GMing, one of the biggest things mentioned is "Don't split the party". We are also often told to never tell a player "No," unless of course it is actually something disallowed in the rules, but this generally doesn't apply to PC decision making unrelated to rules or crunch.
Splitting the party means splitting the role-play and can lead to bored players when those players aren't the party in focus. Splitting the party also means PCs can end up in situations where they don't have all the resources they need because the wizard and the rogue wandered off without their meatshield or maybe the meatshield wandered off without the cleric.
In any case, it is obvious to a GM that splitting the party, MOST times, can be considered, generally, a bad thing to do. However, I have always thought this a strange piece of advice to give to the GMs, since ultimately they cannot control what the party decides to do. While it is easy enough for a GM to avoid creating scenarios that would intentionally split the party, it is near impossible to actually stop the party from splitting of its own accord.
This has become a problem in my current adventure, where two of the party members constantly are trying to sneak away from the Good aligned members so they can get away with things that are not generally considered Good actions, or at the very least are not Lawful (which one of the Good characters doesn't honestly care about, so long as the acts are not evil). It's already making me mad because I specifically told them it was not an evil campaign and evil acts would not be tolerated, so they took chaotic neutral alignments (the bane of GMs everywhere, I'm sure) to try and "loophole" their way into evil acts. In any event, the local heroes would not be stealing from the local townsfolk so their characters, if they want to be the heroes, should not be doing these things anyway. But, I digress from the topic of discussion here. That's an issue for another discussion thread, so let me get back to splitting the party.
So I end up with situations where the rogue tells me he wants to go somewhere without the party, and I have to do one of two things: tell him no, you can't leave without your party (not good, removes player agency, makes the player resentful -- though there is precedence: "You must gather your party before venturing forth.") or let him leave and go against the general guideline of not splitting the party and potentially end up with bored or distracted players.
Maybe I'm not being creative enough, but I really just can't think of a scenario where you could stop this from happening without ruining someone's day. You can "punish" the player for splitting the party by putting them in a position where they can't get out on their own (this has already happened naturally with the rogue a few times), but I've found that players often DON'T learn from their experiences. Maybe this is my fault for being a fairly lenient GM -- I tend not to kill my players if I can avoid it, so maybe they don't perceive the threat of death as a real threat?
I have also had a small amount of success by telling the rogue he couldn't go out without the party. Most recently, the rogue decided he wanted to go to the scummiest tavern in town and pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room. Yes, the 5'3" elf (I realize this is below the base height for elves, but he's a special case) rogue/wizard wanted to pick a fist fight with the biggest guy in the room. If the party hadn't been there, it would have been a boring situation, but since I had the chaotic Barb, paladin of Iomedae and cleric of Sarenrae tag along, it turned into an awesome role-playing scenario with both the paladin and cleric trying to diffuse the situation before it could get any worse, while the barb just wanted to fight everyone. Pointing out that the scenario wouldn't have been as fun without them along seems pointless, being based on hypothetical and all, and in my experience when you point out learning experiences to people, they tend to take them as you forcing them to see it your way and they end up ignoring you and learning nothing in the end.
Of course, the good aligned characters are on to the rogue and try to tag along whenever they think he has something nefarious planned. And, of course, there's always the "You're not there" arguments -- arguments that could be avoided if the party didn't split in the first place.
Getting back to the original point though, how do you avoid splitting the party when a PC is trying to desperately to get away? How do you avoid splitting the party without affecting player agency? How do you prevent the party from splitting without saying no?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never had to kill a PC. They always seem to do that pretty well by themselves.
Bad things happen when you wander off without your friends into the worst parts of town. Best to just say "You remember that one scene in Pulp Fiction?" and leave it at that.
Right - ignore the parts about my specific problems, they're just there for examples. There is plenty of role-playing opportunity in a party with players of opposed motivations and alignments so I don't really mind -- it makes for a good dynamic, and like I said, that's an issue for another discussion thread, so let's get back to the discussion on splitting the party.
I want to know what other GMs have done to prevent the party from deciding its best course of action is to split, or to prevent specific players from wanting to take off and do their own thing (I realize this is kind of another issue altogether, so please, let's try to stay on topic) -- again, without impacting player agency or being a jerk GM.
One possibility, at least from a time management perspective, is to ask that player to handle those little jaunts as side-bar action.
It doesn't have to take place during a regular gaming session. Just make sure they understand that when they go off alone, they really are alone.
My current DM is pretty good at handling this sort of thing. The party rogue (who only steals information) and my martial artist (both of whom are CN and haven't gone alignment-nova) have planned out and role played some pretty elaborate scams and cons that the rest of the party knows nothing about.
We wrote out exactly what we wanted to try to accomplish, step by step, with contingency plans, and gave it to the DM. A little prep can streamline these things and get them accomplished relatively quickly so that sidebar play doesn't impose a huge real-world burden on the DM.
If you have the time outside normal sessions to do this sort of thing (and it doesn't require face-to-face play, if you trust your players to roll dice in private), then you may be able to give that player what they obviously want, without interrupting the rest of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that this shouldn't involve only the preferences of the GM and the player playing the rogue. The other players' preferences should matter too. Do they mind the rogue splitting off and leaving them twiddling their thumbs while he has his own little adventure? Are they entertained by this? Does it happen so often that it gets in the way of other people having their fun? To my mind, the issue isn't bad things happening to PC's; this player seems to me to be asking for trouble, and he has no one else to blame if he gets it. And this could involve worse things than character death; he could lose all his equipment, for instance, which for some players is a worse fate. Or there's always the law; let his character spend a month of gametime in the clink, and ask the player to draw up a back-up character to play with while his favored PC rots in jail, or have him play an NPC for a while. But the real issue is whether the people at the table are having fun or not. If the rest of the people are having fun, I don't think you really have a problem. If the rest of the people aren't having fun, then it's not just your problem to solve, it's the table's, and you should enlist the other players (and not just the players' characters) to help you explain to the rogue player how his approach to the game is making it less fun for everyone else. And if that player continues to be a lone wolf in the face of that pressure, I don't know, maybe then it's time to consider finding a different player.
Last thought: there's also the possibility of running a parallel session just for the rogue online when the whole group isn't meeting together. That way the rogue gets to do his thing, and everyone else isn't wasting their time.
Usualy I will try to keep the camera on the splitted members a proportionate amount of time. So if one player wanders alone he might have to wait a bit more while the other part of the plot happens without him. I might also choose to handwave certain actions so the other players aren't waiting and make them one roll instead of spending a half-hour on them. Long term party separation would be something entirely different and I would have to plan for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution is that even when the party is split, all action takes place at the table, in front of everyone.
Why do I do this? Because the players are the audience. They deserve to see what's going on, what the action is, they all deserve to get excited when the rogue gets in trouble, and so forth. It increases the fun for everyone.
Heck, what I'll commonly do, too, is give the inactive players NPCs or even monsters to keep them involved in the game. If anyone wants to beat up on each other, here's their chance. If I kill a player's character during this time, nobody cares much, because it's just an NPC and not their PC. This keeps everyone involved, no matter if the party splits up or not. In fact, this allows me to run scenes where no PC is involved; Dragon attacks village, everyone dies--the players get to see and interact with this up close and personal, but when the dragon kills everyone, it's okay because the PCs are unharmed.
There's a second reason I do this. I want the players to work together. The PCs don't have to, necessarily, but the players are crafting the story with each other and the GM, and a great part of the enjoyment comes from that. The only people who have had a problem with me leaving everything out in the open like this are the players who want to be sure the other players don't know what they're doing. The characters will still be in the dark. If the PC is a sneaky thief and everyone doesn't mind that the PC is a sneaky thief, then the player can be sneaky in full view of the other players and everyone just rolls with it. It's only when one player wants to stymie another player's efforts that keeping things hidden from the players matter--and I'll stop that.
So that's my solution. Do everything in the open. Get the other players involved by giving them temporary NPCs. Foster an environment where the players can always work together, even if the characters don't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on this is a lot like Wrong John's.
A lot of my GMing experience is with Vampire the Masquerade. Splitting the party in the modern age, with cell phones and earbuds, it different. A party can be split geographically, but operate as a team nonetheless.
In Vampire, splitting the party is pretty common. Vampires need to regularly hunt for blood, and tend to do this alone. Most of them are more south on the alignment line than normal in PF, and they generally need some "personal time" to pursue questionable activities.
I used to take people out of the room for the naughty stuff, but with 7 players, that didn't work all that well. I've halved my group, and do most things in the room now. The stuff that other players aren't supposed to know, I do outside. But if it's stuff that only the PCs shouldn't know about then I like to do it in the room. Hopefully, the meanderings of the other players' PCs are entertaining to everyone watching.
---
In the case of your rogues. It's not fair to expect a class called "rogue" to stay on the reservation all the time. They're going to do stuff that's not all that legal from time to time. The other players need to respect that on an OOC level: just because you're lawful doesn't mean the other PCs have to be lawful as well.
But there's some give and take needed here. You say you didn't want evil characters. I assume you mean you want the PCs to be basically heroic adventurers. Some of them may be more like dark heroes, using questionable methods, straying on lesser matters, but they're not villains. Communicating this idea to the players is important; you have to tell players what you expect from them, rather than just saying they're not supposed to be evil.
Also, don't be too soft. If the rogue goes off on his own to start a barfight, don't drag the other PCs there. Let the rogue get what's coming to him. If he picks a fight he can't win, let him get beaten up. (Humiliating, not deadly.) If he's obviously the one starting trouble, the town guard wants a word with him. If he comes quietly, he's sitting a night in jail and paying an annoying but not crippling fine. Maybe he keeps his head down until the other PCs are ready to leave town. If he's stupid enough to fight the town guard, he gets arrested, and has to sit out the next adventure in jail. Then you give the player a stand-in character so he can play, but his main character gets no XP or treasure from this because he wasn't there. (However, to soften the pain, he might make some useful criminal acquaintances in jail. Remember that the GM's job isn't to be on the side of Lawful Good exclusively. Just make sure that the consolation prize isn't as good as the main adventure.)
Don't side overmuch with the Lawful PCs though. Toss in an occasional plot where a less law-abiding approach is better, and the Lawful PCs get to squirm a bit. Don't make them commit atrocities, just some stuff they prefer don't leak out.
If some of the players make CN characters, that means the players don't really want to be goody-twoshoes heroes. Give them a chance to be a the kind of hero they DO want to be.
Thanks for the advice everyone, but the rogue player situation really isn't relevant; like I said, it was there as an example, nothing more. The alignment issue isn't up for discussion, either.
This conversation is solely about splitting the party and I don't want the focus to shift from that, because it is my primary concern here. There is a generally accepted guideline for GMs about not splitting the party, yet it seems that by not splitting the party you are removing options for PCs.
I'm really just looking to have a discussion on that "Don't split the party" guideline, and how one can say that and abide by that without removing player agency. I mean, splitting the party is widely regarded as a no-no, yet it is impossible to avoid unless you want to limit what your players can do. What have you, experienced GMs, done, to prevent the party from splitting, without ruining your players' plans?
I'm really just looking to have a discussion on that "Don't split the party" guideline, and how one can say that and abide by that without removing player agency. I mean, splitting the party is widely regarded as a no-no, yet it is impossible to avoid unless you want to limit what your players can do. What have you, experienced GMs, done, to prevent the party from splitting, without ruining your players' plans?
What I did above.
I think the big thing is that you're focusing on not splitting the party, but as an experienced GM, splitting the party isn't the problem. Large amounts of boring downtime, secret meetings, and maintaining player agency is the problem. My method prevents that.
Also, I haven't heard "Don't split the party!" as actually advice for the GM. I've heard it mainly as advice for the players.
I'm really just looking to have a discussion on that "Don't split the party" guideline, and how one can say that and abide by that without removing player agency. I mean, splitting the party is widely regarded as a no-no, yet it is impossible to avoid unless you want to limit what your players can do. What have you, experienced GMs, done, to prevent the party from splitting, without ruining your players' plans?What I did above.
I think the big thing is that you're focusing on not splitting the party, but as an experienced GM, splitting the party isn't the problem. Large amounts of boring downtime, secret meetings, and maintaining player agency is the problem. My method prevents that.
Also, I haven't heard "Don't split the party!" as actually advice for the GM. I've heard it mainly as advice for the players.
And I did note that you kept with the topic of discussion, and appreciate your input. :) I realized my last post could sound rude or unappreciative or whatever, but it's not my intention! There was lots of good information in your response, and I already do some of the things you suggest. I guess the problem isn't really my problem and I shouldn't have framed it that way, so maybe it doesn't belong under advice; I was just hoping to have a discussion about the two seemingly opposing guidelines: don't split the party, and don't remove player agency, two things which seem at odds with each other but are both important for the enjoyment of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many adventurers does it take to screw in aALL OF THEM DONT SPLIT THE PARTY!!!
But seriously, this is more of a social contract thing then anything else. I talk to my group about limiting things that separate the party for the simple fact that it limits what people participate in. A roleplay scene could take an hour or more to play out, you dont want people to have to sit and do nothing for that time, but the dm can only deal with one situation at a time.
There is also the mechanical situation, where someone could be without the needed resources. Again, talk to them about this, if that doesnt work, have some encounters pop up when they sneak away that are meant for the whole party. Leave the sneaking player unconcious in the street (possibly robbed blind) and let the player learn a lesson(Mind you only do this if they continue to split up after you'd talked to them about it).
Some options if the players insist are:
1. Switch back and forth between groups split so no one is spending a long time without being involved.
2. Any solitary actions will be handled as a separate session away from the table, possibly via email.
3. Simply narrate what happens in the side treks with maybe a few skill checks, but keep it abstract to avoid it taking too long.
IE
Player: "I want to sneak away and see if i can steal that artifact from the merchant since he doesnt want to hand it over to us"
GM: OK give me 2 stealth checks, 2 perception checks and 2 disable device checks.
Then based on those rolls just narrate what happens taking inputs if needed from the player but moving it along as quick as possible.
Yup, no problem here, no offense taken. Sorry if I reiterated too strongly.
Also, if you're looking to prevent splitting the party, then it's important to look into reasons why people want to split the party. Basically, these can result from two sources: the players make it a good idea, or the GM makes it a good idea.
I'll start with the GM side. Let's say you've got a party with a sneaky rogue, a clever-tongued and somewhat sneaky bard, a shining-beacon full-plate paladin, and a big dumb lovable but uncouth ox of a half-orc barbarian. If the GM makes an adventure where the goal is to sneak into the city mansion and steal the diamond, then the party will inevitably split. The rogue and bard leave to do the stealing, while the barbarian stands guard outside, and the paladin runs off to the nearest temple and pretends not to notice. Alternately, if you need to smooth-talk your way into a holy secret society's inner sanctum, then you send in the bard and paladin, while the rogue watches, and the barbarian is outside of town playing with bunnies. The split is a good idea. So, the GM should be cognizant of the party make-up and present challenges that don't require the party to split to be effective.
On the player side, let's say the sneaky rogue likes to sneak off and steal stuff without the paladin knowing. Now, if the rogue's player and the paladin's player are good, mature players, it's possible for this to still work fine by carrying out everything at the table in full view of everyone, and everyone has a good time. The split occurs, but everyone gets to still have a good time. If, however, the rogue's player wants to make sure that the paladin's player doesn't know how much more treasure and power he's getting, or if the paladin's player wants to make sure that nobody in the party ever sneaks off for any reason whatsoever and inflicts his code on all the players, then there's a problem no matter what. In these cases, the players are actively trying to remove agency from each other, and thus trying to ruin each other's good time. That needs to be discovered and addressed quickly, no matter what.
So that's my advice. If you want to prevent splits, don't present adventures that make splits a good idea, and don't let PCs who like to split anyway stem from players who want to keep things split.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP: I think you have somehow missed the reason why splitting the party is generally considered a big error. It's not because it's less fun for people who aren't involved (though that may be the case).
It's because in every horror movie, etc, whenever anybody splits up, the person by themselves dies a grisly horrible death. Not "gets thrown in jail and is rescued later or something", no, grisly... horrible... death. It's sort of a trope.
You need to instill the fear of gods into your players. Your PCs should never know when they have to fight. Fights should not be limited to "okay, I guess we've buffed up for the day and are all together now, so lets wander around in a dungeon and kill things." Even in town, there are plenty of threats. It could simply come from an NPC who is legitimately stronger than them. It could be something more sinister, a Vampire hiding out and preying on the weak, a serial killer, a doppleganger, a cleric/wizard who needs someone to sacrifice (hold person/ tie up/ KO/ move to fun location/ coup de grace).
Make a plot point out of it. Also, kill the hell out of that guy.
I heard "never split the party" in a Call of Cthulhu game from another player as an advice on how to survive. What did I do? went off alone and almost went insane...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the problem is players dont want to play your game the way you want to play it. They do want to play a game and since you have agreed to GM well........
I don't know about that. I know my players very well -- the rogue in question is a long time friend of mine and he likes to push my buttons, so I take anything he does with a grain of salt. More often than not he's just trying to see how far I will let him go; generally I try to keep him on a short leash, and that's just how our relationship at the table works.
Let's keep in mind that that wasn't the point of my posting here; I am more concerned with the general rule/guideline of "Don't split the party" and how to handle it as GM without boring your players or leaving anyone out than any problems with any of my players. They're my players and I know them well; I am capable of handling most everything they throw at me.
|
|
Fair enough. I let the players know that splitting has side effects like split table time between players and increased danger. They have some stake in this as well. I have run multiple combats with split parties before and it can be real fun. It is also really stressful and takes a lot out of you. My advice is to not let one side or the other take too much time. You can always switch back and fourth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an important difference between splitting the party and having party members go off and do off-screen things separately.
If the paladin wants to go check in with the temple and the rogue wants to go gather rumors at the docks while the mage goes hunting for someone to buy a scroll, that's one thing, and I completely advocate for that.
But if players want to go off and have their own adventures without the party, then Bad Things ^TM will happen to that PC. I give a warning to new players because they don't necessarily understand that adventuring is a team effort.
I won't give XP to players going off and doing their own thing while the rest of the players sit around. I also won't give them treasure. No benefit will be gained from ditching your friends.
And you will find yourself outnumbered and out-powered. I've never had to play that out more than once.
next time the rogue or whoever wants to go off on his own, have him meet a mysterious and horrible end, maybe even an encounter that wouldn't be a problem with the party around.
Personally I've heard that piece of advise more often given to players than GM's. in building your own encounters or dungeons you should take some minor precautions against tempting the party to split up too hard. But generally unless your GM is actually inviting you to have some lone RP time(which should be handled out of session if done right) the party should learn to stick together or at least within shout for rescue distance =)P.
Asta
PSY
There's an important difference between splitting the party and having party members go off and do off-screen things separately.
If the paladin wants to go check in with the temple and the rogue wants to go gather rumors at the docks while the mage goes hunting for someone to buy a scroll, that's one thing, and I completely advocate for that.
Definitely an important distinction. I agree.
I won't give XP to players going off and doing their own thing while the rest of the players sit around. I also won't give them treasure. No benefit will be gained from ditching your friends.
My current DM handles this by splitting any sidebar XP gains evenly with the party. That way everybody benefits and there's some more tolerance if a scene with only a few party members drags on longer than expected.
Personally I enjoy spectating during at-the-table sidebar events if the players involved are creative and build a good story with the DM. It can definitely add to the gaming experience if you've got a good group.