D&D General DMs, how do you handle 'split party' situations?

[Tallifer]

Sometimes I have split the party as a dungeon master, but I have often run it like a movie/novel: all the audience/readers can see everything that is happening, and the players to me are an audience watching their characters. It can cause much laughter around the table.

(You can find more D&D art and stories in my webcomic Tales from the Gnomish Tarot

 

[Richards]

I have everyone roll initiative and then intercut between characters in initiative order.

I do the same, but I "clump" the initiative together for each separate location, based on the PCs' initiatives. So we'll resolve all of the actions in location 1 (PCs and foes) before moving over to location 2 and dealing with those PCs and foes.

My players don't split the party very often, though. Of the three times that immediately come to mind, two of them were in adventures where I wrote it that way (and there were another two adventures besides those where the first encounter was a crypt thing, which pretty much involves a split party unless everyone makes their saves).

Johnathan

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I do the same, but I "clump" the initiative together for each separate location, based on the PCs' initiatives. So we'll resolve all of the actions in location 1 (PCs and foes) before moving over to location 2 and dealing with those PCs and foes.

My players don't split the party very often, though. Of the three times that immediately come to mind, two of them were in adventures where I wrote it that way (and there were another two adventures besides those where the first encounter was a crypt thing, which pretty much involves a split party unless everyone makes their saves).

Johnathan

I basically alternate between what you do and what I said I do, depending upon what is most appropriate. Sometimes it's better to let a full scene play out before cutting to a new scene, other times it's really suspenseful to intercut between both scenes simultaneously.

 

[Mannahnin]

I agree with the best practices of splitting time evenly and cutting back and forth at dramatic cliffhanger moments. Or when the group being cut away from has just learned something, to give them time to think about it. Generally don't let half the group sit longer than 5-10 minutes without getting to act, but exact timing varies depending on the group and the situation.

I used to strictly separate players the way Lanefan describes to minimize metagaming, but like others found that it was too likely to result in loss of focus from the unattended players. If you have the right level of player buy-in, I find it works very well to let the off-screen players witness what's happening with the separated character(s). It can foster a wonderful sense of suspense and excitement with those non-involved players still engaged with those events despite or because of the fact that their characters can't interact with what's happening and they can't contribute advice.

 

[delericho]

Like many others, I split time between the various groups - trying to allocate time based on the number of players in each group, and not leaving anyone alone for too long.

I've gone back and forth on the question of whether to remove players when their characters aren't present. My eventual conclusion is that the players are audience as well as participants, so the maximum fun comes if they see all the problems the other group get into. (And for much the same way, I don't any longer allow private conversations or note passing even when a PC is plotting against the rest of the group - they have to do that in the open. Of course, that only works if you can reasonably trust players not to act on out-of-character information. Maybe I've been lucky in that regard.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've done and seen it done a couple ways:

For all-day weekend games, especially with large groups, splits tend to take a long time. 30-ish minutes with one player/group, then switch. Players not involved in the current scene are allowed and even encouraged to take a break if they want. Call the SO, get dinner started, bio breaks. Or they can hang out and watch and/or add commentary. It works really well. This method is also common for stuff like shopping or other city-based non-challenge rp.

For shorter games where we only have a hour or two anyways - switches tend to be faster and there's usually more incentive to get the party back together soon. Smaller groups also need a lot less split time, so it's simpler to handle. This is how I've seen it done in dungeons most of the time regardless.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Just like the title says. I'm curious how different groups handle it. (I'm always on the lookout for 'best practices'...)

Cruelly, swiftly and without mercy. Why do you ask?


^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Nefermandias]

I find it hilarious and at the same time annoying that players have this weird idea that splitting the party is going to get things accomplished faster.

 

[Lanefan]

I find it hilarious and at the same time annoying that players have this weird idea that splitting the party is going to get things accomplished faster.

Depends whether the priority is efficiency in the fiction or efficiency at the table.

How many times, for example, have you and your SO gone shopping and to get it done faster, each hit a different store in the mall rather than both going to both?

In the fiction it's the same: the party splits up so the MU and the Thief can go get info from the MU's guild while the Cleric checks in with her temple and the two Fighters go looking for a hench to hire. Afterwards, they all meet up and compare notes.

Woefully inefficient at the table but more efficient (and probably more reflective of what the characters would actually do) in the fiction. To me, the latter is more important.

 

[Weiley31]

Do it as a Group Skill Challenge.