[3:16] Semi-Captain, Lt.-Captain, almost-Captain on deck, sir!

[Lance D. Allen]

My call on the split would be to follow the rules of no more than 2x the number of players in threat tokens for the encounter, and run the encounters as normal.

This session = awesome.

So, Tim chose to be a Trooper, instead of a Sergeant?

[Tim C Koppang]

So, Tim chose to be a Trooper, instead of a Sergeant?

Heck yeah I did.  Actually, there were two things going on.  One, I didn't want to simply try to recapture my old character.  And two, I like the idea of Chris being suddenly thrust into the higher ranks with no one (at least no other PC) to back him up.  The group dynamic is going to be very different come next session.

[Gregor Hutton]

That is fantastic. I'm particularly grinning about the three 5s, since the same thing happens in the example in the back of the book (and with 5s too, on page 76).

Oh, for split parties I just go with what Lance said. I've had a couple of times where the Sarge orders (dammit!) a Trooper to go ahead on his own, and I get to attack him with 2 Threat Tokens. If it makes sense in the SIS for them to be doing different missions then keep them apart. I find in bigger groups that some NFA guys can slack off and do NFA stuff since they know there are always some grunts rolling FA each round. That changes in smaller groups, if no one is rolling on FA then the Threat is not going away.

Force Weakness was great fun for me when I used it too. A real sense of satisfaction of seeing the Flashbacks getting crossed off.

I hope Tim is enjoying his refreshing of a Strength with his new character. (You only ever get 5 Weaknesses, but in theory you can have infinite Strengths if you let your characters die...) Oh, and yes, just rolls Kills like a new character with a d10 for every point of FA.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

I am fully capable of running separate encounters among several player-characters. I do have at least that much GMing ability. That is not my question.

Gregor, my question is, what do I do with the current array of assigned Threat Tokens? Let's say I divide 15 Tokens as follows: 2 + 3 + 5 + 5. Let's say we play the first two encounters, so I have 5 and 5 left.

However, in the course of that encounter, or for whatever reason, one of the player-characters is deep in the pits and the other two are on top of a mountain somewhere else.

What do I do with the current array of Tokens in order to run the split-up encounters now? Note as well that the two assigned encounters' Tokens are in excess of the permissible amount for the number of player-characters, too (or I think they are, the book is elsewhere, so for purposes of the question, pretend they are).

My understanding is not that I have an unassigned blob of Tokens which I allocate as I go along. I have assigned a set bunch of encounters with so many Tokens each.

To be absolutely clear, I do understand how many Tokens I could, hypothetically, put toward each sub-group of player-characters. That is not my question either. I want to know where those Tokens come from and what they do to my already-assigned sequence.

Best, Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Ah, I see your difficulty now. I didn't before because that's one rule I admit to having discarded entirely, somewhat to my own detriment. I just have an unassigned blob of Threat Tokens.

In such a case, maybe the best bet is to have a few lower token encounters prepared in reserve. Anywhere that things don't split naturally, toss a point into a later encounter that wasn't already at the limit. Vaguely like the concept of a bandolier of bangs, you could have a bandolier of encounters. Some of them may not be used in a given mission, and they could be tweaked for use in a later mission, or simply discarded, as is most appropriate.

[Tim C Koppang]

Ron,

I obviously can't speak with the authority of Gregor, but re-reading the rules, I don't see anything the requires the GM to stick with his pre-alloted spread of threat tokens.  The rules even specifically mention being able to vary the threat token allotment on the fly depending on how the PCs decide to tackle the mission.  (See pg. 29.)  So if the PCs decide the split up, I'd say that GM has the freedom to re-assign his remaining threat tokens as he sees fit.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I'd have to go with Tim here, it never came to my mind that the encounter pacing should be fixed in advance. To the contrary, I use the freedom in this regard to increase the challenge for the characters by choosing the strategically optimal encounter sizes each time. Or, should the players make some effort towards choosing their own battles, I let those efforts determine whether they get a large or small encounter next.

[Ron Edwards]

Eero, the rules do in fact require pre-allocating the Threat Tokens for encounters. Telling me that you don't do this doesn't answer my question. Also, your comment actually doesn't agree with Tim's post, but rather with Lance's. I appreciate the insight that others tend to waive this rule, but again, it's not what I'm asking.

Tim, I see what you're saying and it answers my question.

Best, Ron

[Gregor Hutton]

Oh, I see your point now, Ron. What Tim says seems fine to me. Thanks Tim.

I have a rough plan for planets, but I hold the encounter ideas lightly and amend the tokens as I see fit based on the fiction. If the PCs investigate cautiously then I only push one or two Tokens forward (even if I had pencilled in for more before the start). I sometimes put in extra encounters of only a few Threat Tokens if it fits the story (I guess that's how I read "Future Encounters" at the bottom of p. 28 and the "Role-playing and Rolling "stuff on p. 30.)

When running it at some recent cons I must admit that I have ended up doing what Lance does.