Party split-up

[Blake T. Deakin]

So, I've been running an old pre-written adventure called "Night of a Thousand Screams" for L5R. This is a classic, linear game.

Tragically, a lot of players are familiar with my normal style and my own writing, and they have a tendency to try and split the party up frequently. I've been doing this a while, so GMing for it is not difficult, but of course its much more difficult to keep everyone interested when they're in three groups of two.

I know all the regular tactics for convincing players to stick together. Telling them it might be dangerous, etc, etc, etc. But... does anyone have any dirty tricks? :)

[Vaxalon]

Dirty tricks?  Focus all your attention on whichever group you decide is the "main" group.  If someone else pipes up, generalize their actions, cut off their choices with railroading, and in general be a total SOB to anyone who dares contravene your desires.  After all, it's YOUR game, right?

Okay, end of sarcasm.

Personally, I'd sit down and talk with them.  "Guys, It seems to me that in spite of the fact that you tend to get frustrated and bored when the group splits up, you keep doing it.  Is there some benefit you're getting out of splitting up that I'm not seeing?  Is there a change we need to make?"

Another possibility is to give the people who do not have PC's in a particular scene, jobs to do while that scene is running.  Many games (Primetime Adventures, The Shadow of Yesterday) permit players to award "gift dice" as bonuses for play that they want to reward.  I have found that mechanic to be endlessly useful.

[timfire]

Are you asking how to keep people together, or how to better GM when people are separated?

Here are techniques for working with separate characters:

One technique is the "weave". This is where you incorporate elements from one person's scene in someone else's scene, thus creating the illusion of continuity.

Another is Ron's new "flashpoint" technique. Here, the deal is you bring everyone up to the point of conflict, and then resolve everyone's conflict at the same time. This requires you switch back and forth between scenes alot until everyone is ready. If one person gets to a conflict before the others, oh well, they have to wait until everyone is ready. But this may not work depending on the game system.

That's all I got.

[Andrew Norris]

Rereading your original post, it sounds like the issue is more "How do I reconcile a linear scenario with parallel player actions." That is, the scenario as written relies on everyone being together when things happen.

I think you should probably tell them this is a prepackaged module with a linear plot, and if they keep splitting up you're going to have to modify it. Then you all can decide together whether they'll stay together or you'll rewrite the adventure. (If you're not willing to do that, you should just say,"Guys, please don't split up, because this time I'm not prepared for it.")

Trying to do it in in-game terms, though, is probably just going to frustrate them. So would being sneaky about it.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

The choices I see are A) you can alter your GMing style to accomodate the players by adding content for them or B) use subtle Force to bring them back together.  Hammering them in combat is one favorite way to do this.

Peace,

-Troy

[Vaxalon]

Or C) Persuade them to alter their playing style.

[Callan S.]

Tragically, a lot of players are familiar with my normal style and my own writing, and they have a tendency to try and split the party up frequently. I've been doing this a while, so GMing for it is not difficult, but of course its much more difficult to keep everyone interested when they're in three groups of two.

This reminds me of the 'Explicit Goals' thread. I'll quote myself from there:

For example, say that I find the GM's presented problem to be unfun. I then use a large theatre to approach the problem from a different angle. The GM has to present a new problem there. If I find that one unfun, I approach from another vector. Either that or we give the GM the impression we will do this if the problem stays unfun. Essentially it tells the GM "Stop giving such a hard problem, or we'll make more work for you under the pretense that this is a wide theatre and we should be able to approach the problem any way we like"

I think their splitting up, in order to rebel against the linearity. By splitting up they spread you thin as a GM, which leaves more weak spots in the game where they might actually influence events.

[ewilen]

As others have said, communication is the first step: tell them that they need to try to stay together for the sake of the scenario.

The next step I would recommend, after expressing the need to stay together (and hopefully getting at least some sympathy from the players on this point): encourage them to find an in-game reason for their characters not to want to split up--something to do with their personal relationship to each other or even systemic depency. E.g., have a character who is important to the group but who would be highly vulnerable or ineffective without the rest of the group.

Whatever factors impede splitting don't have to be absolute of course, but they should be strong enough to minimize the tendency.

Of course maybe the problem is the scenario itself, and perhaps you could improve it through some rewriting?