I was just reminded of this thing in Trollbabe where you can have your 'babe start anywhere on the map, and so the whole adventure - or maybe even series of adventures - can pass without the characters ever interacting.

The experiences I've had with that sort of play - it also happened in the game of The Pool that I played in, up until the end - tell me that it's not my preference. I like my guys to be able to talk to the other guys.

What I'm wondering is where that preference lies in the scheme of things. Part of it is about communication period. This sort of play strikes me as having the strongest lines of communication between player(GM) and player(PC), and less so between player(PC) and player(PC). Some of that I would guess is about administrating the participation of players who aren't directly involved in the current scene.

But some of it for me is about the opportunity to communicate with the other players in multiple stances. I like being able to play a character communicating with other characters, and if they're all controlled by the GM, I get less variety.

So, this is kind of a weird question, but what does that mean? I don't mean for it to be a "hey, analyze me" post, but I figure that if I understand what I like, it'll help me create rules or whatever that best fit "how Matt likes his gamin'" and maybe someone else will dig it too.

I, personally, am sick of the party mentality. "Keep the party together" "Never split up the party" It feels like a literal, rotting albatross around my neck. However in many games, it is pure folly to go off by yourself and some GM's take offense to this because you *should* stay with the party. My friend was running D&D3e for a bit and had a player with multiple problems but one problem was he was always going off to the temple of his god. My friend eventually stopped playing this out with the guy and just said "OK, so you're at your temple," and that was it. He told me about it and said, quote, if you can't stay with the party, you don't get any screen time, end quote.

I have nothing against PC interaction, but forcing the issue with this that it effects you when watching movies & stuff. (Rented Ghost Ship and at one point the wife said "don't split up the party") I just find this wrong, really. Wrong in some kind of life lesson kind of way as well as "the party seems forced" kind of way.

Hey Matt,

A Trollbabe can also appear in any scene pretty much regardless of where they were in the last scene. Only a minimal amount of explanation of "hey, how did you get here?" is required. This allows for some really interesting situations, last second rescues, surprise attacks, etc.

-Chris

I think Matt makes some good points about party play, notably the desire to interact with other players in multiple modes and Stances. I also think Jack makes a good point about what happens when this is taken to extremes.¹ I just want to point out that this is all a question of spectrum, and has a lot to do with what the GM and the group think the game is about, i.e. Social Contract.

Let's face it, if you're trying to run a CoC game, it's very helpful if the players agree not to have their PCs suddenly decide -- as any remotely sane people would -- to pick up stakes and move to Nebraska and become CPAs and never, never think about anything odd or unusual again. If half the group does this, the game is pretty much over.

On the other extreme, punishing people for splitting the party is not reasonable behavior unless it's clear, at a social contract level, that this is really unacceptable behavior.

Since Jack has made the point about when such punishment is not reasonable, here's an example of the opposite end. The party decides, in a Star Trek-like game,² that we're all beaming down to the surface to go do X. During the discussion of the plan, one player/PC held out for doing Y instead. So when we all beam down, that PC leaps out of the transporter before he can be beamed down, and then goes off and does his own thing. The GM now has to try to run two quite different games, and the player has now also set up a competition: who can win first? Furthermore, by doing this he has undermined the whole point of the discussion (which had taken some time and some heat) and made clear that he wants to do whatever he likes regardless of anyone else -- at a player level. This behavior should have been punished; my preference would be for that PC to be captured and for the rest of us to have to rescue him. A similar phenomenon came up in an Actual Play discussion recently, where there was a player who wanted to be a psychotic over-armed Navy SEAL, and who essentially didn't give a damn what anyone else did: he just did his thing and expected everyone else either to follow along or watch from the sidelines. Party disunity to such a degree is simply not acceptable.

I think it's really important in game design and campaign design to set limits on the sorts of party unity that are involved, and then expect people to accept this or debate it at the outset. It sounds like Multiverser doesn't do parties at all; so long as that's clear, nobody feels like a failure for not cooperating. A fairly traditional Star Trek sort of game, however, would expect that party unity be respected, whether or not this involved occasionally physically splitting them up. That is, you can beam down to the surface alone, but it should be a pretty big plot point if you do so without letting anybody know. Shadows in the Fog tries to play off this conception of a party by assuming that the gang will stick together, but that this may or may not mean they trust each other -- or can trust each other. My hope is that people will stick together at least partly because they want to find out how to use each other, not because they get along. And by running things Soap-Opera style, they also get to do things alone without that being a pain for the GM or an issue of "me me me."

Chris



1. Although I do wonder in what circumstances he discovered what it feels like to have a rotting albatross around his neck, but that's another story. :)

2. Yes, this is a real example, but a lot is changed to protect the innocent and the guilty alike.

Depending on the game there may often be very valid reasons for the characters wandering off and doing stuff seperately. Characters aren't joined at the hip after all.

Quite often I find characters split off into two (and sometimes three) groups, each group doing their own thing. That's cool, makes for some dynamic play at times as the GM switches back and forth from group to group.

Maximizing player participation is the key Matt; keep the players involved in play even if their character is not. One easy way to do that is by letting players assume the role of NPCs in scenes that don't involve their main characters.

I'm not understanding some of these replies. I wasn't saying that splitting the party is bad or good or should never happen or should always happen. I just don't like it, and said why, and wondered what that means in terms of game theory. Is is social contract? a stance issue? Something related to G/N/S?

Hi Matt,

There's the trouble - you haven't posed anything specific to discuss beyond your own value judgment:

I just don't like it, and said why,

and wondered what that means in terms of game theory.

Hi Matt,

Here's some food for thought:

The game is run by a group of people. Traditionally, the players have input into the game via character. Hence, all interactions with the group are divided into "in character" and "out of character". Out of character occurs all the time, regardless. Its plain and basic socializing. In character, only happens during play, with the provision that the characters involved can plausibly interact(face to face, over communication system, psychically, whatever).

So, when the party is split, the players, in character, are only interacting with the GM, not with each other. In terms of ball passing, the ball is passed to the GM, GM passes to player, player to GM, GM to next player, etc. You never get player to player ball passing because in game, they are prevented from interacting with each other.

Consider the various times that players deliberately set up lines for another player to drop the punchline via character. The fun sorts of interactions that make for good entertainment. The group is there to interact with each other as a group, not to interact with just one person, it seems natural that you'd want some in-game interaction to go with the out of game kibbitzing.

Just my 2 cents,

Chris

Let's assume that what you want is a high level of player interaction, almost constant in terms of the characters being together, but not the artificiality of the "party" metagame structure (am I close?).

If so, then my suggestions are to have mechanics that encourage players staying together for in-game reasons. For example, play Hero Wars, with characters designed with relationship Abilities between the characters. That goes a long way.

The other obvous tactic is to have the game be about something that would rarely require splitting up. Most Mission style games do this. InSpectres, for example. Paranoia doubles up by not only making it about missions, but giving the characters a really strong reason to remain on the mission (not being turned into a thick yellow paste).

To a large extent these are just examples of the principles Chris (Lehric) is talking aobut above.

Mike

In my expeience, the problems I've seen with PCs splitting up has not come solely from the GM, but from all the players. The root of the problem seems to be one of timing and attention span.

In the group I was in previously, it was not uncommon that the party would split up, and the GM would focus on one group at a time, for what usually amounted to an hour or more at a time. During this time, anyone whose PC was not currently active was basically not allowed to participate, because "You're not there!" It didn't help that the GM had no real concept of scene framing (or even the purpose of scenes in general), and "skipping ahead" was admanatly frowned upon. It was also not uncommon for inactive players to start picking up other books, firing up Diablo, taking a nap.

When I put my current group together, I decided that I didn't ever want any of those things to happen. I made it a point that when the group is not together, I keep very careful track of how long I'm taking with each subgroup. Five to ten minutes seems to be working a lot better. I also don't smack people down for shouting out suggestions OOC, because I'm an advocate of audience stance, and anything that enhances the group's enjoyment of the game is a Good Thing. I put all of these things in big letters across the top of all my game notes now.

In short, yes, this is a social contract issue.

-- Ben

Hi Ben,

You know, on that point, I just realized that if the major avenue of power for players is through characters, having all the characters in one spot limits what can be affected, but also, as you said, allows the players to have the ability to "get a turn" in the action, instead of sitting around, waiting for the GM to frame them into scene.

Chris

Permit me to clarify this

in response to what Chris Lehrich wrote: It sounds like Multiverser doesn't do parties at all; so long as that's clear, nobody feels like a failure for not cooperating.

I think some games permit/encourage character separation more than others as well.

If you're playing D&D, in general you tend to move about in a party.

If you're playing Amber, in general characters tend to split off and do their own thing, getting back together now and then and splitting off again.

That's IME anyway. Of course, it's easier in Amber because although characters might be a million universes separated from each other, they're only a trump call away (and because time differs from shadow to shadow you don't have to stress too much about how long one person has been out of contact with another when one calls the other).

So it's a social contract, but it's also influenced by the game and the style of game the players want.

Brian.

I think this is partly a player proactivity/protagonism issue, basicly, how much can a player do that is important to the story without the GM's gaze?

If players have bought in, their characthers can talk among them selves and I've seen important
results come out of this, also for games with high planning/bookkeeping players can perform those functions while the group is split.

At a system level this basicly means minimal GM involvement should be needed to resolve actions that arn't 'in focus'. Thus 'out-of-focus' players can do stuff, and then grab the GM's attention for a simple resolution.
This is partially a social contract thing, i.e trust and partially a system thing. A DnD 20th level fighter can't say, go rough up the guy who harrassed his sister, without GM focus because this involves the combat system(and many die rolls).

clehrich wrote: Since Jack has made the point about when such punishment is not reasonable, here's an example of the opposite end. The party decides, in a Star Trek-like game, that we're all beaming down to the surface to go do X. During the discussion of the plan, one player/PC held out for doing Y instead. So when we all beam down, that PC leaps out of the transporter before he can be beamed down, and then goes off and does his own thing. The GM now has to try to run two quite different games, and the player has now also set up a competition: who can win first? Furthermore, by doing this he has undermined the whole point of the discussion (which had taken some time and some heat) and made clear that he wants to do whatever he likes regardless of anyone else -- at a player level. This behavior should have been punished...

damion wrote: I think this is partly a player proactivity/protagonism issue, basicly, how much can a player do that is important to the story without the GM's gaze?

If players have bought in, their characthers can talk among them selves and I've seen important results come out of this, also for games with high planning/bookkeeping players can perform those functions while the group is split.

Mr. Morgan and Mr. Kim stated what My inital reaction was to this post, so I'll suggest a way that players might be encouraged to split up, but it would take some story juggleing from the GM.

Say you're gaming with six people. Four of the players want to go in direction x and two want to go in direction y. The GM takes a guess at which path will either take longer or reveal less of the story and then allows the two players going in direction y to go first. This deturmination could be based on the idea that two are likely not as good as four and therefore going to be less effective (which might not be the case for the two most powerful PCs going it alone).

The GM then conscripts the idle players to control either individual NPCs or groups of NPCs each. The "idle" players then do what the NPC would do. If the NPC is a combatant, they fight the PCs, If they are a bartender, they talk with the PC, maybe the GM could slip notes on things the bartender might know and the "idle" would act it out.

It would take a lot of effort though to go back to the other group and then play, pretending that you didn't just do all that. "You were trying to kill my character!" says player A. "I was supposed to, I was a dragon and you were trying to steal my gold!" player B retorts. Althouth player B is correct, many players would still take offence and I think it would fracture any hope of the group playing as a team or party later on. What would be worse is PC A walking up to PC B and killing him for no reason as far as the game is concerned.

That would have to be addressed in some kind of social contract, or somehow be incorporated into the game so that the Players, not the PCs expect and accept it. At that point the players are likely to work better in competition than co-operation.

In addition, how would you get the player to act not in his/her own interest. Basically the NPCs would start running up to the PC and being nice to them all the time, so the player would return the favor.

Maybe this needs it's own thread . . .

Emmett,

I tried to propose a social contract and play session structure for this in my little essay on Soap Operas. Does that help at all? Or is this not what you're looking for?

clehrich wrote: 1. Although I do wonder in what circumstances he discovered what it feels like to have a rotting albatross around his neck, but that's another story. :)

clehrich wrote: I tried to propose a social contract and play session structure for this in my little essay on Soap Operas. Does that help at all? Or is this not what you're looking for?

Emmett wrote: It would take a lot of effort though to go back to the other group and then play, pretending that you didn't just do all that. "You were trying to kill my character!" says player A. "I was supposed to, I was a dragon and you were trying to steal my gold!" player B retorts. Althouth player B is correct, many players would still take offence and I think it would fracture any hope of the group playing as a team or party later on.

Emmett wrote: In addition, how would you get the player to act not in his/her own interest. Basically the NPCs would start running up to the PC and being nice to them all the time, so the player would return the favor.

John Kim wrote:

clehrich wrote: I tried to propose a social contract and play session structure for this in my little essay on Soap Operas. Does that help at all? Or is this not what you're looking for?

Oops. Chris -- I'm going away for a week shortly, and I don't have time for a full report.

I guess the short answer is, don't expect them to work as a team. That was certainly my main motivation for going with the soap opera structure. It was feeling increasingly contrived for all of the PCs to go together on an expedition. They each started to have their own lives, which is a good thing in the sense that they were blossoming as characters, but a bad thing for plot devices to bring them all together. It's not totally impossible for them to work as a team now, but it isn't required for the game to be fun.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: ahem,... perhaps that was a bit of overstatement, but I had just been wrestling with this whole party mentality for a while now. "Don't split up the party." Why? and the only solid answer is combat considerations. Bah!

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I, personally, am sick of the party mentality. "Keep the party together" "Never split up the party" It feels like a literal, rotting albatross around my neck.

Many years ago, I wrote an article for Dragon called "Divide and Conquer": it was an "advice to the DM" sort of piece about how to run split-party adventures. I was pretty pleased with the thing--it had whimsical James Holloway illustrations and each topical section was headed by a cute little vignette, like this one:

"Never split the party!" advised the wizened sage sternly, poking a gnarled finger at the youthful adventurers he'd taken in tutelage. "You are stronger together than apart--if I had some sticks I could show you. Besides, when separated, you make more work for the Dungeon Master."

The callow youths shivered at the mention of the cruel, cold-hearted deity's name. They would follow their mentor's advice.

Hello,

Jeffrey wrote,

- Trollbabe - the ability to randomly enter a scene with little attention to continuity is intruiging and plays out well for the game, but doesn't allow for direct player level involvement, only character-level involvement.

Bill_White wrote: After the cute vignette above, I offer up a boilerplate rationale of why keeping a party together is a good idea, for the characters (they can overcome tougher challenges and protect each other more easily), the players (more role-playing time and interaction), and the DM ("She can prepare a single storyline and be fairly confident she has options for all contingencies").

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Bill_White wrote: After the cute vignette above, I offer up a boilerplate rationale of why keeping a party together is a good idea, for the characters (they can overcome tougher challenges and protect each other more easily), the players (more role-playing time and interaction), and the DM ("She can prepare a single storyline and be fairly confident she has options for all contingencies").

Yeah, it's getting pretty obvious that I have nothing to add to this discussion because I am coming at it from an entirely different angle.

"can overcome tougher challenges and protect each other more easily"

Such as? Besides the obvious combat situation. I think my issues with RPG combat have already been aired an no need to sully this thread with them any more.

"[The DM] can prepare a single storyline and be fairly confident she has options for all contingencies."

Hrms... there are two assumptions here that I simply do not agree with. The first is that the GM prepares, sets up or creates the story, which may be true in some styles of play but in others it is not. The other is that preparing options for all contigencies is A) possible and B) desirable. I don't believe so. I don't think it's possible to prepare for every contingency, so at some point you need to improvise. I'm of a mind that it's better to be ready to improvise all the time instead of feeling safe in the prewritten plot line and then to get that unpleasant naked feeling when the players drag the plot in a different direction and you must improvise.

Jack --

I'm not sure you take my point. The paragraph you quote was my summary of the usual reasons offered for not splitting the party; the rest of the article outline talks about how to do it, and why (basically, because you have to or because you want to--as the DM, of course). The assumptions of DM pre-planning and control are exactly at issue; dredging up this about 10 years old article lets me see that I made a huge number of such assumptions. So my main point today was to suggest that, in terms of game-running philosophy, such issues are a major factor in shaping one's response to the whole issue of splitting the party, which I took to be Matt's question.

In other words, I'm pretty sure I agree with you.

-- Bill

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Jeffrey wrote,

- Trollbabe - the ability to randomly enter a scene with little attention to continuity is intruiging and plays out well for the game, but doesn't allow for direct player level involvement, only character-level involvement.

I can't understand a word of this. Part of the problem is that you're not referring to a rule in Trollbabe, but a particular agreement arrived at by a particular play group in what they felt comfortable doing. The other part is the business of direct player level vs. character level ... really, I don't get it. Makes no sense to me at all. Help?

Bill_White wrote: In other words, I'm pretty sure I agree with you.

Chris Lehrich wrote: Hey M.J., in Multiverser, what do the other players do when one player is alone in world X?

Jason a.k.a. Cruciel wrote: If you have four characters is one place, and one character in another you would expect that the party of one would receive one-fourth the playtime that the party of four does (if it doesn't then you most likely have a pacing or favoratism issue).

M. J. Young wrote: I disagree.

Generally, when I'm running Multiverser I'm jumping between characters and worlds pretty frequently; but I don't give people equal time; I give them attention commensurate with their needs. Tense and exciting scenes require more attention that routine ones. Certainly in other games, in the situation Jason suggests, I wouldn't divide my attention by number of players, but more by the needs of the groups. Let's suppose a party splits up into three groups, one of four, one of three, one of one. It might be that that one is doing the critical thing. Let's take Prisoner of Zenda: one guy, alone, has to get inside the castle, prevent them from killing the king, and open the gate for the rest to enter. More focus is going to be on that one guy than on the bunch waiting to be let inside. Seriously, can you see it?

[snip]