How Would Your Favorite Game System Handle This?

[Thomas Shey]

Well, there are plenty of other task-focused games, but I'd also suggest that even in action-resolution games, there are typically mechanisms for converting actions -> tasks.

And to the degree people are okay with that, it does indeed solve the problem--largely by washing out most of the details where the issue comes up. How satisfactory doing that is, is however not a standard with people, especially when the process has impacts on other elements that will be played out in detail.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess I’m a little surprised that handling a split group seems so unusual and hard to do for people. I thought we had moved a bit behind the traditional D&D don’t-split-the-party stage of game play. It’s probably more unusual for me to have a session where everyone is always together for every scene, even in fantasy games. For a modern or a spy game, it’s really rare.

I’m curious here — what makes it harder to run a scene where the characters are not physically together? I’m not interested in keeping player knowledge limited to their own character’s knowledge [...]

To the bolded: how do you prevent players (ab)using kowledge their characters don't and can't have, when making their next moves?

IME one of two things nearly always happens: either the player acts as if the character knows what it shouldn't know (i.e. lines up player and character knowledge in favour of the character) or the player overcompensates in attempts to ignore info the character doesn't have. Neither produces true-to-the-fiction results.

Maybe it’s dependent on system. D&D4E, and PF to a fair extent, often have finely balanced combat encounters built in, so if you want to allow a split party, you need to adjust the combats on the fly. Is that the sort of thing that GMs who favor simulational style games dislike?

For me personally this is a non-issue. Nothing gets adjusted, the encounter is what it is. If they split up and one or some of them run into something they can't handle then so be it.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, it wouldn't. I don't know of a game that can handle this well. Some of them foresee the problem and try to head it off at the pass, but there isn't a way to handle the actual situation well given the limitations of the GM as a simulator. I try to avoid these sorts of situations the same way I try to avoid "ballroom scenes" where there are 50 NPCs talking at once. A certain amount of GM fiat and railroading to get out of this situation gracefully might be in order, which is really what something like FitD is doing by eschewing any sort of naturalism.

The underlying problem here is "too much to describe" The GM can't reasonably convey information to that many points of view in a timely fashion, nor can the GM do so in a way that avoids passing information between groups except by physical separation,

...or by passing notes (or using secret chat if online)...

and the situation is further complicated by the slow pacing means failure to share spotlight becomes even a bigger concern.

To a certain extent, this gets worse if the players aren't fully split up. If they do fully split up, I can use some fiat to try to make something interesting happen to each of them, but if we have some groups of 1's and 2's or whatever, or even just "rogue out on his own and everyone else together" there is no guarantee that I can make everyone useful without twisting the narrative structure so much the strings on the puppets are obvious.

The way I see it, when the players decide to split the party they're tacitly agreeing to two things: one, that play is going to slow to a crawl because everything is going to take much longer to do (if only because writing/typing is way slower than talking); and two, that one or more players are going to have nothing to do, quite possibly for a considerable length of time, while the other(s) do whatever they're doing in the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

If your players cannot separate in-character and out-of-character knowledge, then OK, yes, you are going to have problems with many kinds of scene. But can we assume players who can do this?

No.

And as a player, I don't ever want to have to do this. I want to be able to use the knowledge I have as a player to its fullest extent, on the basis that I know what my character knows and if there's something I don't know but should, I can ask for more description or detail. I also want to be able to use my player knowledge unfettered by having to compensate for that player knowledge exceeding what my character can know; because any such compensation might be too little, too much, or just right and I'll never know which.

It's light-years easier to roleplay true to character when the player knows only what the character knows and no more.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

To the bolded: how do you prevent players (ab)using kowledge their characters don't and can't have, when making their next moves?

This is a great question. The answer almost always is = The GM had a bad adventure, with repetitive gameplay, and shallow tropes they were overusing; or they were not using the rules to full effect.

To talk to that more...
When the situation out-of-character knowledge is used, it's often something players could have shared in character anyway, or was not a valuable plot point/secret that needed new discovery every time.

Bad scenario 1 = room with a trap that summons skeletons to fight PCs. Group A gets there first, fights skeletons, moves on. Group B saw the trap out of character, and so before they enter the room they equip bashing weapons and fire weapons. This is out of character knowledge used. And... who cares. Its a one-trick pony trap that is tedious to play out multiples times over and over. So let Group B power through it and get to the next good part.

Bad scenario 2 = All of the PCs are in a giant castle with a NPC. The party splits to explore better, NPC goes with Group A. NPC betrays Group A, and they are stuck in a trap. The NPC then travels back to Group B and pretends they are still loyal to aid them. Group B attacks NPC knowing out of character the NPC is a betrayer. And... let the rules guide everyone. Sure, you all say you want to attack the NPC, but it is perfectly allowable to call for saving throws or wisdom checks or perception checks, or any other mechanic your chosen system has. Fail the roll = you can't attack the NPC, and there is something that halts your blade... maybe its a odd item the NPC has, maybe the NPC says something to give you pause, or maybe there is just no reason your character can think of to justify harm. Succeed at the roll and some bit of blood, fellow PC gear, or some other tell does in fact tip off Group B, let them deal with the NPC as they want. Or Let them attack the NPC and never learn where your friends are trapped... uh oh!

Or, if you have muppet players (usually this is a response to a too-adversarial GM), then just offer them XP to not use out-of-character info and lean into the obvious plot they know awaits them.

TL/DR
I don't see this problem often. Usually when the party splits, they don't encounter things that they could utilize with out-of-character knowledge. Group A gets X plots and info and traps. And Group B gets Y plots, info and traps. And they converge after each goes through their own part of the overall problem/gauntlet and are free to exchange info in character.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a great question. The answer almost always is = The GM had a bad adventure, with repetitive gameplay, and shallow tropes they were overusing; or they were not using the rules to full effect.

To talk to that more...
When the situation out-of-character knowledge is used, it's often something players could have shared in character anyway, or was not a valuable plot point/secret that needed new discovery every time.

Bad scenario 1 = room with a trap that summons skeletons to fight PCs. Group A gets there first, fights skeletons, moves on. Group B saw the trap out of character, and so before they enter the room they equip bashing weapons and fire weapons. This is out of character knowledge used. And... who cares. Its a one-trick pony trap that is tedious to play out multiples times over and over. So let Group B power through it and get to the next good part.

Still doesn't mean Group B should have that knowledge.

Bad scenario 2 = All of the PCs are in a giant castle with a NPC. The party splits to explore better, NPC goes with Group A. NPC betrays Group A, and they are stuck in a trap. The NPC then travels back to Group B and pretends they are still loyal to aid them. Group B attacks NPC knowing out of character the NPC is a betrayer. And... let the rules guide everyone. Sure, you all say you want to attack the NPC, but it is perfectly allowable to call for saving throws or wisdom checks or perception checks, or any other mechanic your chosen system has. Fail the roll = you can't attack the NPC, and there is something that halts your blade... maybe its a odd item the NPC has, maybe the NPC says something to give you pause, or maybe there is just no reason your character can think of to justify harm. Succeed at the roll and some bit of blood, fellow PC gear, or some other tell does in fact tip off Group B, let them deal with the NPC as they want. Or Let them attack the NPC and never learn where your friends are trapped... uh oh!

This one's a better example of where Group B simply should not know that Group A has been betrayed. Your solutions involve forcing mechanics to dictate roleplay (e.g. on a failed perception roll Group B has to play along as if the NPC is legit) and the players then have to go through the motions as if they're unaware of events elsewhere, rather than just letting Group B play true to character in ignorance (unless the NPC lets something slip) of what's become of Group A.

And this is not by any means a "bad scenario" and I'm not sure why you'd suggest that it is.

Or, if you have muppet players (usually this is a response to a too-adversarial GM), then just offer them XP to not use out-of-character info and lean into the obvious plot they know awaits them.

Over the years I've had a string of players who not only would abuse out-of-character knowledge but would insist on offering suggestions and ideas to players of characters in remote places based on knowledge they as characters wouldn't have, rather than just leaving the scout alone to do its thing. For example someone sneaks ahead to scout, leaving the main group well behind and out of sight/comm range, and gets to a sticky situation; it should be only on the player of the scout to figure out what to do next, rather than have the table offering suggestions. Edit to add: and these suggestions were NEVER welcome.

It got to the point once where I had to put the hammer down and rule that any suggestion from the table immediately became a banned action for the remote character, even if it was the best/most obvious/safest thing to do. And then I went to writing notes, which has worked fine ever since.

TL/DR
I don't see this problem often. Usually when the party splits, they don't encounter things that they could utilize with out-of-character knowledge. Group A gets X plots and info and traps. And Group B gets Y plots, info and traps. And they converge after each goes through their own part of the overall problem/gauntlet and are free to exchange info in character.

And that's all fine. The problem for me arises when the players have their characters react to things those characters couldn't possibly yet know about, the classic being when a remote character gets captured or coshed or whatever and the others immediately race to its rescue even though they've no possible way of knowing it needs rescuing and would otherwise have waited an hour for the remote character to return.

 

[Ath'kethin]

ETA: Just as a reminder, thus thread is not intended to be about how you,asGM,would run the scenario. It is about game system design.

Note 1: This is a thread about game design and preferences. The point is to talk about the different ways that different RPGs resolve situations.

Note 2: "Favorite" in the subject line can also be interpreted as "preferred" and might come from a game you WISH existed. Again, the point here is to talk about how things get done in play, as enabled by the rules and the mechanics of the game.

The Scenario: the classic "party heist" where one character is on over watch from a removed location, a stealthy character is meant to search for The Thing inside, while the face character keeps the Villain busy, with the Heavy uncomfortably shoved into a suit and ready for inevitable violence. Note that the genre does not matter: it could be cyberpunk, fantasy or modern espionage or anything else, as long as the structure and archetypes make sense.

How does your favorite game do this? How does it deal with nearly every character in the group essentially separated doing their own thing simultaneously? How do the rules interact with one character watching from afar and being the comms hub? How does it keep the Heavy engaged until violence starts? How does stealth work? Social interaction? What about being discovered by the guards or enemies or whatever? What happens if one character enters combat or conflict but the others don't?

If your favorite game can't really manage this sort of situation, why? Would you modify that system, or seek a game that isn't your favorite but does this better? Or would you simply not use this situation in play?

My weapon of chioce is Dungeon Carwl Classics, and it would handle this situation fine.

The character on watch would make the occasional Luck check (rolling their Luck score or lower on a d20) to notice anyone coming by. Alternately, I might call for an Intelligence check (with probably a DC 10 or so) if the character was taking specific actions that might warrant using that ability instead. These checks are contingent upon 1) there actually being something happening while the character is on watch, and 2) that happening not being revealed by other mechanics (such as an enemy blowing a roll trying to sneak up on the party).

The Face character could make a Personality check (again, probably at a DC of 10 or so) to keep the villain occupied/distracted, though I'd be open to a different kind of ability check or even a different apprach (such as a spell) depending on what exactly the character was doing. I don't like using dice to determine social interaction if I can avoid it, but generally if there's a chance of failure at any task I'll ask for a check of some kind unless success (or for that matter failure) is just too entertaining based on what the character was actually attempting.

The Heavy would be fine. No need for a check there.

The character searching for the Thing would make an Intelligence check or a Luck check, depending on which gave them better odds, unless the character was a Thief or Halfling, in which case they have pother abilities that might come into play. For that matter, a spoellcaster doing the searching could use their magic if they had something applicable.

In a low-level scenario I'd use side initiative, but if its a level 2 or higher situation I'd have a separate initiative roll for each character. Unless there was something causing a potential problem, the Heavy wouldn't need to do much of anything until the fight started, at which point they'd probably take center stage. I have characters get separated from each other on occasion, and it's never been an issue beyond making my job as a Judge more challenging.

DCC RAW doesn't do opposed checks, so a Thief (for example) makes a roll against a static DC to successfully sneak, climb a wall, pick a lock, whatever.

 

[Kannik]

Did they never get around to making the add-on setting rules sets available? I was a backer so I got them, but after running a campaign I decided outside of a few selective campaign types it wasn't my jam after all, so I haven't paid attention beyond that (I know there was some controversy about what was and wasn't delivered and how Cam Banks handed it off to the current owner, but again, by that point I didn't much care).

Unfortunately, the Spotlight settings (that were not full-on rule sets nor provided any additional rules, just settings/campaigns that assembled the pieces of the core book toolbox as appropriate for the particular spotlight) won't be getting a PDF or print release. If you were in the kickstarter you got all the spotlights that were completed (something like two dozen, sent out as individual PDFs), but the current owners have chosen not to do a retail/combined release. :/

ETA the link again to the the database of various fan-made example campaigns that are a good substitute for the Spotlights.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

This one's a better example of where Group B simply should not know that Group A has been betrayed. Your solutions involve forcing mechanics to dictate roleplay (e.g. on a failed perception roll Group B has to play along as if the NPC is legit) and the players then have to go through the motions as if they're unaware of events elsewhere, rather than just letting Group B play true to character in ignorance (unless the NPC lets something slip) of what's become of Group A.

In a perfect world, players would respect in and out of character knowledge and not play on it. My suggestions are ways to use existing rules to help be a gentle reminder to players that they are acting on out of character knowledge. This has a very positive effect of not requiring 'putting a hammer down', as it just alerts them to the bad habit and resolves it via roleplay/rules. So the roleplay is smoother in handling it.

And this is not by any means a "bad scenario" and I'm not sure why you'd suggest that it is.

Each scenario is "bad" by means of the players using out of character knowledge. The first scenario is double bad as it also highlighted sometime tedium in scenarios created by the GM.

Over the years I've had a string of players who not only would abuse out-of-character knowledge but would insist on offering suggestions and ideas to players of characters in remote places based on knowledge they as characters wouldn't have, rather than just leaving the scout alone to do its thing. For example someone sneaks ahead to scout, leaving the main group well behind and out of sight/comm range, and gets to a sticky situation; it should be only on the player of the scout to figure out what to do next, rather than have the table offering suggestions. Edit to add: and these suggestions were NEVER welcome.

So, one thing here I like to do is "Assume Character Competency".

If the humans at my table are collaborating in how a given character might want to act or look out for = I am 100% fine with this. We are assuming the character, living, breathing, growing up in that fantasy world - would have a greater understanding and depth of knowledge, than the player who controls them. That character may in fact, have thought of those other things to do that other players are suggesting or helping with... the character is assumed to be competent.

In fact, I go so far as; when Character A is alone in a high-stakes discussion with NPC X, I let any player at the table offer questions or manipulation ideas to the active player of Character A (should that player want such advice, otherwise I shush the others). In a highly collaborative group that enjoys this, it becomes everyone investing in and respecting other players and their characters.

As long as the game feels like it has: stakes, there is sense of danger and consequence, and the plot is interesting and the NPCs are engaging = I don't care how the players share or act on out of character info. I got what I wanted = a really fun game

It could be seen as a "Yellow Flag of a GM" who is likely too controlling or too insecure about their plot. There are possibly other issues of a GM who would panic over players engaging with the game collaboratively.

I will also re-state - players who wantonly take out of character knowledge to 'win' or choose their actions; are likely acting in response to a GM who is too adversarial.... but that's just my opinion on the matter...

Let's never forget that the GM always acts on out of character knowledge...

note; none of this is a dig at you, I am just talking to the OP concepts overall.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unfortunately, the Spotlight settings (that were not full-on rule sets nor provided any additional rules, just settings/campaigns that assembled the pieces of the core book toolbox as appropriate for the particular spotlight) won't be getting a PDF or print release. If you were in the kickstarter you got all the spotlights that were completed (something like two dozen, sent out as individual PDFs), but the current owners have chosen not to do a retail/combined release. :/

Ah, that's too bad. Some of them were quite decent. I'd have thought bundling them and selling that as a PDF would have been worthwhile, but from what I gather, the general gist I'm getting is the current owners aren't really that interested in the property anyway.