Comments on: Ask The GMs: “Let’s Split Up.” – “Good Idea, we can do more damage that way!”

By: Katana Geldar

Katana Geldar — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:39:54 +0000

I have only encountered splitting up in terms of roleplay and have the “five actions before the switch” rule. But perhaps the most annoying thing I have found is some of my players want to somehow teleport between the groups as they think they are missing something cool, and this is even when I purposely make them very far apart.

My answer: this isn’t Star Trek and you can’t just beam in there, Scotty.
Katana Geldar´s last blog ..The GM’s PCs

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:54:07 +0000

@ Rafe: Glad we cleared that up, Rafe! Thanks again for contributing your thoughts on the subject.

By: Rafe

Rafe — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:03:53 +0000

Hey, Mike,

Sorry if I was unclear in my comment. I did, indeed, read the blog post, but the issue for me was more fundamental: Is a split group really going to be the theme for the campaign? That seemed to be what was being said, and the question seemed to extend from that. To the idea of a split party campaign I responded. Your suggestions, and Johnn’s, were great. I just felt you might have missed what I saw to be a very fundamental issue; viz., if people sitting out for long stretches is going to be a major element of the game, why ask for ways to get around it? Don’t do it. :)
Rafe´s last blog ..Abstract Wealth

By: Ravenous Role Playing » Blog Archive » Friday Five: 2009-10-09

Ravenous Role Playing » Blog Archive » Friday Five: 2009-10-09 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:23:53 +0000

[...] Ask The GMs: “Let’s Split Up.” – “Good Idea, we can do more damage that wa… Mike and Johnn over at Campaign Mastery have some great advice and words on how to handle parties that like to split up. I’ve been through this a great number of times as a GM and a few times as a player. I always enjoy it as a GM, but rarely as a player. I think the best handling I ever did of this situation was to have both groups stumble into separate fights at the same time. I drew out two sections of the cavern, one for each group. Then I had everyone roll initiative, and I ran it like one big fight, but the two separate groups couldn’t help one another. It worked out quite well and kept everyone entertained since there was very little downtime between the two groups. It also showed them that splitting up in the Temple of Elemental Evil was a bad, bad thing. [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:17:21 +0000

@Rafe: somehow I get the impression that you didn’t read the blog post, just the question! Because the whole point of the post is offering techniques for avoiding the sort of “sit around and do nothing” situation that you seem so unhappy about.

But you ask a good question about the premise of the campaign, and one that certainly occurred to me when I was putting together my reply.

In answer to your final question, I find that (a) provided that it doesn’t happen regularly, and (b) that they are given sufficient notice that they can bring in something else to do, most players won’t mind an hour’s delay before they get into the action. But, once again, this is exactly the sort of result that we are trying to avoid – if necessary, by having the players who are just sitting around arrive late!

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:01:37 +0000

@Rafe

Last session I spent the whole 4 hours just sitting around watching cause the group was split up and they didn’t get to me. But I had my laptop, so I took care of what I would have been doing at home had I not been at D&D anyway, while getting free chips/soda/vodka. I think it’s a good deal!

By: Rafe

Rafe — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:59:04 +0000

If they’ll be split up for “a good percentage of the game,” why not just run different sessions for the different groups? Is there really a need to have, say, 5 people there when only 2 or 3 of them will be involved at any one time? Personally, if I was a player in the game, I wouldn’t show:

“Want to come watch other people roleplay for 2 hours and then you’d likely get to play for 2 hours while they watch?”

“Ummm… no? How about the first gang plays for the full 4 hours this week and, next week, we play for the full 4 hours? The whole group then comes together the week after.”

Another thing that struck me is: Why is the premise of a game (I’m assuming “game” means “campaign”) to split up the group? Is that a core premise of the campaign, or is the GM who asked the question trying to pre-empt what he sees as being likely to happen?

As players, would anyone reading this blog post actually sit by for an hour or two, doing nothing? I’m just curious, because I sure as hell wouldn’t. :) For 20-30 minutes… hell, it happens from time to time. No problem. But longer than that?
Rafe´s last blog ..Abstract Wealth

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:27:50 +0000

In my group, the party splits up very often, sometimes for extended periods, sometimes literally everyone goes off on their own. Every time we enter any sort of town, everyone goes off in their own direction taking care of their own business, which usually involves plot hooks. That means that a trip to town sometimes takes 3-4 sessions… We dont care though, everyone brings a latop and/or a handheld gaming system, so in that sense no one is bored. No one has to leave the room either, we do everything at the table with the occasional note being passed. We are generally good at not metagaming.

By: Johnn

Johnn — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:39:34 +0000

Cliffhanging is a great technique. Thanks for mentioning it Loz.

I’ve heard of blue booking but never tried it. And as you point out, technology makes it even faster and potentially more usable at the game table.

By: Tweets that mention Ask The GMs: “Let’s Split Up.” – “Good Idea, we can do more damage that way!” | Campaign Mastery -- Topsy.com

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:04:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GatorGames and Initiative Gaming. Initiative Gaming said: Post on splitting the party up – especially over the long term. CampaignMastery: http://bit.ly/3Ltuq0 [...]