What's wrong with splitting the party?

[Mishihari Lord]

I dislike it from the perspective that it means that half the table is always sitting there doing nothing. If you don't physically split the players up some players can't resist the temptation of offering suggestions or trying to get their PC to "sense" that the other PC's are in trouble and rush off to help them. Too much trouble for very little gain in my opinion.

Olaf the Stout

All very true, but sometimes it make sense in-character to split the party. This is one of the reasons that I generally have my players play two characters each. The party can split and everyone can still participate. The other reason is that when a character dies or is incapacitated, the player doesn't have to sit around bored until a new one can be introduced.

 

[Davmeister84]

Time lapse in tabletop is also a problem. If one group gets too far ahead of the other, by skipping over travel time and such, their actions always have the possibility of retcon by the other group intervening.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We all know the saying: "Never split the party."

But why is it bad?

If you have to ask, your DM is far too easy on you.

 

[Crothian]

If you have to ask, your DM is far too easy on you.

What does that mean? Does splitting the party have to end in death and destruction? Should players always be punished for splitting the party without any regards to circumstance? Is questioning the typical player responses and trends (like splitting the party) just something that should never happen since asking means my DM is too easy on me?

 

[Olaf the Stout]

All very true, but sometimes it make sense in-character to split the party. This is one of the reasons that I generally have my players play two characters each. The party can split and everyone can still participate. The other reason is that when a character dies or is incapacitated, the player doesn't have to sit around bored until a new one can be introduced.

That's quite a good way of getting around it. And having 2 characters each does have some benefits, as you have shown. However 2 PC's per player can create problems of their own. One of my players struggles to play one character. I would hate to see him with 2! If it works for you though.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Agent Oracle]

Splitting the party is rarely entertaining for everyone involved. i'll give you a prime example:

Back when 3.0 was still the paragon of new D&D, i had a Game Master (bastard) who was running his own thing (pilfering liberally from every old 2nd edition setting). At one point, we had a single wizard in a party of seven players.

The Player of that wizard was... alignment Chaotic Apathetic. He'd alternate between doing nothing for prolonged periods of time, and doing something ultra-impulsive and stupid which the GM would protect him from the inevitable consequences of. (Like sprinting across an obviously trapped room and activating the big obviously trapped chair to activate the big obvious party-attacking trap)

Anyhow, the GM decided that this guy needed to be given the tower test that had been given to wizards back in Dragonlance.

it took the apathetic player THREE HOURS. He'd hem, haw, and do nothing whenever the GM talked to him. The only way he was moved form point to point in the story was by GM Fiat. "So you go to the basement..." type deals.

This was three hours when we were devoid of any kind of action, sitting around, watching the LEAST effective player out of all of us, getting the spotlight.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

We all know the saying: "Never split the party."

But why is it bad?

Is it because it's a pain in the ass on the DM to have to worry about two or more smaller groups at once?

Yes. It's hard to run, and often less fun for the players. It's hard to keep track, especially if you've got a large group (and they tend to split up). It's hard to "compartmentalize" information.

Is it a metagame thing that people beleive the encounters they run into need everyone to defeat, and half the part y just won't cut it?

Often that's the case. If the DM wasn't expecting the group to split up, does that mean the cool but high EL encounter they planned doesn't get used? The NPCs aren't going to hold back just because only half the party is there (usually) and might not even know the party is split (eg the NPCs are guards and don't have great info gathering abilities).

(BTW need here means "want". A lucky smart half-group might still win, but they'll need both.)

It's worse if the DM doesn't have an extra dozen encounters planned, one for each mini-group.

Is it just because it goes against the party structure of the game?

By this point I've run more Modern than DnD. That seems not to be an issue; no worse than a player not showing up. (In groups I've been in, when a player doesn't show up, their PC is not present.)

Does it always end in no fun TPK?

Not always, but it makes combat harder on the PCs if the DM doesn't adjust ... and why should the DM adjust?

 

[Crothian]

THis thread is leading us to many great places, thanks all!!

Often that's the case. If the DM wasn't expecting the group to split up, does that mean the cool but high EL encounter they planned doesn't get used?

The half a party can retreat, scout out, use stealth, and be careful. I can see that there is the chance for them to get in over their head, but it doesn't have to always end bad for them. Or do the half parties just go on fighting thinking they can win?

 

[takyris]

Exactly. If it's the rogue and the ranger in one half, they can sneak and hit people by surprise. The party's wizard and cleric might actually do better in a fight against a magical monster (one that uses spell-like abilities and forces Will saves) if they're not worried about the low-Will-save party members and can just buff the heck out of themselves.

That said, the party is almost always stronger when together, so I don't recommend it tactically. If you're playing a non-tactical game -- an intrigue game, for example -- or a game with at ticking clock that requires a split, however, it can work very well.

And yes, it's a ton easier in non-realtime-response-required games. I also think it's easier online than in person -- it was easier in my IRC game than in my face-to-face game.

 

[haakon1]

10 Fewer characters = more death.

20 For DM in a live game, it's too much work while boring half the players. Which leads to a disgruntled DM. Go to line 10, but with less DM sympathy than usual.