We all know that splitting the party is bad. But by the same token, allowing a player to have a "spotlight moment" can be good. These include backstory scenes, solo stealth missions, and dramatic confrontations between a small number of party members. These can be tense and exciting encounters, and some of the most meaningful of individual PCs.
I think that the problems tend to come up, however, when these scenes drag on. If you force half the party to sit by and take on an audience role for hours at a time, you're no longer GMing for the full table.
So for GMs that do like to give dramatic moments for individuals: How do you do it well? What's the longest you're willing to linger on an individual character while the rest of the party looks on? And for the players out there: When is it good form to be a good audience, and when does that expectation become unreasonable?
I never fully split my party for this same reason, except SOMETIMES for a stealth character to scout ahead briefly. Since I play on roll20, maintaining the engagement of all players is both difficult and important to do! Since things take more time to accomplish, letting a character do a solo thing for 10 minutes will already take everyone else out of the groove and it'll just worsen the session overall.
If playing IRL, then you have some options if you do the "solo scene" pretty fast. Other players are not as likely to be distracted and they can use the pause to get more snacks, smoke, go to the bathroom, etc.
If it's something really big then only the players involved should be invited to a special session just for them.
It's a pretty major issue every GM has to face, as being paranoid about splitting can reduce the amount of stories you can tell.
My experience is keep it short. There will be times when the party is engaged and watching the solo play happen, maybe RPing around it, and those tend to go well. A friend's hellknight test comes to mind.
However, in these scenarios we quickly approach the point where the GM has to make decisions. OK, I can let the wizard have this epic scrying duel with the BBEG, but for how long? Sure the rogue can scout ahead but when am I going to tell the player to stop and go back to the party? These are hard calls to make because essentially you have to get your player out of character and make them change what their character would do due to the metagame reason of the party is fallling asleep.
Ultimately you owe it to all your players to maximize the amount of fun they could be having at the moment, not just the person with the spotlight. It is a tool to be used, which can be very effective in making moments memorable, but it needs to be handled with caution, and the GM must be sensible enough to know when enough is enough and what is and is not acceptable to the rest of the party.
As long as it takes for as long as most/all other players are engaged and every other player has a fair chance to shine at least once in a while. Note that is not as easy to GM as it may sound but also very dependent on your gaming group.
If everybody is really into the story and in character I have had plenty of evenings centered on the party bard during the kings grand ball, while following our hacker on a hellride through the matrix or having a blast watching the rogue pulling off a 007-like solo mission infiltrating an evil cult for vital information.
However this very much comes down to the ability of the GM to capture all players attention by telling a exciting and good story and the willingness of said players to take themselves back at least once in a while.
Also I will freely admit that I have witnessed my fair share of failed attemps on "spot lighting" where half of the group was on their phones, at the fridge, or on the toilet by the 5 minutes mark. Usually this happens most often if the storytelling and/or pacing is not especially strong to begin with.
Organized Play Developer
|
As long as the entire party is engaged and enjoying the scene. If you're losing people, it's time to bring the spotlight moment to a close (and make a reasonable attempt to give everyone else similar spotlight time). IME, it's not typically necessary for someone to have more than 5 minutes of spotlight time at a stretch, and a well-balanced group of considerate players will often naturally transition in about that window. This can change pretty significantly depending on the venue you're playing in; play-by-post games and some VTT games have different pacing and less opportunity for people to convey various social cues, so GM time/post/response management can become more critical. In groups where some players don't pick up well on social cues, it can also help to introduce mechanical devices like egg timers or table rules for reasonable limits.
When using timers or setting table limits, try to include the group in the discussion and make reasonable accommodations that everyone can be happy with. If one person at the table thinks 5 minutes is reasonable, 2 people think 10 is fair, and one of person feels like 30 is number, I, personally, as the GM might set the limit/timer at 10 minutes and make a point of ensuring that the encounters I've set up synergize with that decision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the underlying issue is not duration of time, but entertainment value.
If somebody can't be entertained by another player, that's a bigger issue than "somebody else has the spotlight."
If there is a GM + 4 players, for example, each person will have roughly 20% of the time to actively play. The numbers are very rough here as the GM "gets" more but also shares almost all of the time they "get" but I think you get what I'm going for here. As in most games, you spend most of the time watching others play, and enjoyment is derived greatly based on how much fun watching is.
So... the spotlight is on somebody else. If the GM is on their game, they are entertaining. If the spotlight player is on their game, they are also entertaining. Which means that the other 3 players are being actively entertained during whatever amount of time it takes for things to resolve.
And if not... well... any amount of time will feel like it's too long, I guess.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think individual character stories are important, but time together at the table is also valuable. I would say that any spotlight time for one character should be entertaining for all players to watch, and at the same time all players should do each other the courtesy of paying attention.
So if a one on one moment is actually interesting to the whole party, play it out at the table, and people don't go play on their phones. This works fine if the character is doing something alone that's related to the main plot that everyone is invested in, for example the rogue who's sneaking one or two rooms ahead and everyone is interested in hearing what the rogue sees, or when the bard has a private moment with the king's advisor to try to get the party an audience at court.
But if the one on one moment isn't that relevant to the other characters, or rather long and detailed, maybe it's better to resolve it another time, during a one on one meeting, through chat or email.
One way of making spotlight moments more interesting is to recruit other players to play NPC roles. For example if the cleric has to appear before a church council to answer for his recent actions, you could give three other players NPC roles to play. The scene is still about the main player, but everyone is involved. And it can be fun for players to give each other a bit of a grilling. It also makes scenes where NPCs would also talk to each other a lot better than when the GM has to talk to themselves.
One way of making spotlight moments more interesting is to recruit other players to play NPC roles. For example if the cleric has to appear before a church council to answer for his recent actions, you could give three other players NPC roles to play. The scene is still about the main player, but everyone is involved. And it can be fun for players to give each other a bit of a grilling. It also makes scenes where NPCs would also talk to each other a lot better than when the GM has to talk to themselves.
Never tried this! It sounds cool but I see 2 possible issues:
1- Conflict of interest: Players won't be harsh enough RPing with each other.2- You'd need to give them some potentially important info so they can portray certian NPCs properly.
|
|
One way of making spotlight moments more interesting is to recruit other players to play NPC roles. For example if the cleric has to appear before a church council to answer for his recent actions, you could give three other players NPC roles to play. The scene is still about the main player, but everyone is involved. And it can be fun for players to give each other a bit of a grilling. It also makes scenes where NPCs would also talk to each other a lot better than when the GM has to talk to themselves.
Never tried this! It sounds cool but I see 2 possible issues:
1- Conflict of interest: Players won't be harsh enough RPing with each other.
2- You'd need to give them some potentially important info so they can portray certian NPCs properly.
Yeah it requires a bit of trust in your players, but if they play fair, it can really enrich the game.
There's a certain "maturity" that as a gamer you hopefully develop, where winning the game with 100% perfect score isn't as important as whether the game was interesting. It's kinda like having a really good board game, where you can have a good time even if someone else ends up winning. Well, in an RPG usually the party will win in the end, but you might get some setbacks along the way, the GM may mess with you, you bite the plot hook that looks suspicious etcetera, because it'll just be a really interesting journey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all know that splitting the party is bad.
I disagree with that most fundamental statement completely. Splitting the party is sometimes difficult to manage, it is sometimes difficult to play with a split party, but it is not inherently bad. Some of the most dramatic storytelling scenes I've run, have resulted from splitting the party.
It's a thing where you should always have a specific reason to do it, you should have an easy means of having the split sides of the party rejoin each other should the situation change, and you should give both halves of the split equal narrative weight and opportunity.
Letting someone take the spotlight is great, but splitting the party can also be used to create and explore new dynamics for whole groups. When done right it can really take the game in bold new directions.
|
|
Splitting the party can make for a good change of pace, but you need to avoid a few pitfalls.
What's awful is if half or most of the party goes to a location and gets into a long fight, while one player was at a different location and is basically waiting an hour before they get to do something again.
Also bad: a character goes alone to a fight intended to challenge the whole party.
So splitting the party tends to work better in somewhat safe areas, like a city with a town guard that keeps order. The party can split up to chase down several different leads or work on errands, all of which are low risk. Then when they've put some clues together and figured out where the antagonists might be, they go there as one group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A converse of "is one player getting too much spotlight" is when other people are being really passive.
Sometimes players aren't really contributing much, either because they're just not having a good day, or tired, or distracted, and they don't really get involved. Then one player who's fully awake ends up in the spotlight, unable to take a step out, because nobody else steps up.
More and more I find that I really don't like people playing with phones during the game, even if they're not currently involved in the action. Part of the time, they could be getting more involved in the action if they were actually paying attention.
It can be pretty startling to players when you say "hey guys, everyone put your phones away. I want everyone involved. What are we going to do?" It's a bit confrontational, almost rude - although you're also just calling them out for being rude.
But when everyone gets back into the game, paying attention and contributing, you get a lot better game out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you set the party up to be split, you should make sure everyone still has things to do. Then you can swap back and forth, especially doing little cliff hanger moments, giving each split attention and maybe make things that one side does effect the others. You should rarely if ever make huge chunks of time about one single player, unless your hitting the climax or a major part in their personal story, even then you should make sure all the players are engaged and enjoying the story to some degree.
If you ever have problems with people being distracted or being too quiet, then make everyone take turns even out of combat, go around the table to each in turn and ask them what they are doing, enforce ordered and timely turns to keep everyone at a good pace to get involved in the story. Some people require more structure then others, this is a social contract issue where you set expectations for the players, even if it's after several sessions and your noticing issues, let your players know your going to try a new format or mechanic to keep everyone on the same page.
As a player and a GM, I'm keenly aware of spotlighting issues, which kinda' makes me feel awkward when my character has it and the rest of the table are just looking on. There have been times when I have tried to redirect that spotlight to someone else, or bring another player into the spotlight with me.
When I am behind the screen, I will frequently pause whatever action the solo players is undertaking to check in with the rest of the party and hope that the two narrative strands weave into one another sooner, rather than later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player and a GM, I'm keenly aware of spotlighting issues, which kinda' makes me feel awkward when my character has it and the rest of the table are just looking on. There have been times when I have tried to redirect that spotlight to someone else, or bring another player into the spotlight with me.
I think that's at least partially a confidence issue.
"Am I good enough to carry this scene by myself? Is everyone else bored by my mediocre acting? Oh God! They're all looking at me!"
If it comes up in the moment, I think that it's best to follow a GM's lead. If others feel that you were spotlight-hogging, you can always talk about it between sessions. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spotlight management really is an art. You get better with practice. To be honest, the Pathfinder/D&D family of games doesn't handle that naturally very well: Most of my technique comes from playing story-games and indie RPGs like Fate and "Powered by the Apocalypse" games.
I've learned to think of RPG pacing as if the game were a film or TV show. I try to think visually, and to describe and pace the adventure from the perspective of the viewers at home watching this as a show, rather than from the perspective of the PCs themselves. It's a different mind-set, but so far my players all seem to enjoy it: It provides a more cinematic experience.
If your party is split, I think it's important to cut between the different scenes fairly quickly. Think of it like a TV show, where different groups are doing different things.
In particular, I like to smash-cut between scenes just before a roll, to keep the tension up. So...
"The ogre mage casts a spell, and everyone in the dungeon corridor is blasted with bone-chilling cold!
Meanwhile, over in the hobgoblin chief's bedroom, the rogue is desperately searching for the stolen battle plans. Make a search check. <rolls> Okay, you find a battered notebook...
Back in the dungeon, everyone please make Reflex saves, DC X. Base damage is Y, if you saved take half. What do you do?"
...etc.
If you really want to get fancy, try to set up parallel events in the two scenes and use a match-cut between them.
Honestly, the "solo stealth mission" you brought up is kind of tricky, as, logically someone doing a stealth mission SHOULD leave all the stealth-impaired characters behind (as one book (I forget what it was) I read put it "A group is only as stealthy as it's least stealthy member".) If there's only one such character in the group and nothing the rest of the group could realistically be doing at the time, I would go with what ChibiNyan said and just do a session with them alone if they are intent on doing this.