Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9624957" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Honestly, this kind of split the group up and let them each do their thing has become really common in my games over the past few years. The systems I've played the most during that time are derivatives of Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World, and the Resistance System (Spire and Heart). I think it's mostly a comfort thing with the GM... getting used to doing this. It's not anywhere as difficult as many claim, but it can take some adjustment. You just have to remember that during much of standard D&amp;D style play, you're rotating in turns anyway. So you just do that at a higher level, and even when it's not combat. Obviously, player engagement can be a thing, but I've found that the games I've been playing have helped with that. The ways in which they do so is by working quickly, being more focused on conflict resolution than task resolution, and having a general resolution system. So if the stealth character runs into a guard dog, taking the dog out (or throwing a steak at it, or calming it down, or whatever) we don't have to break into the combat mini-game... roll for initiative and then drop into turns that we have to play out in their entirety because they're mere seconds long. Instead, the dog is handled with a single roll, and then we see what the new situation is, and we move on from there. I think what also helps is for players to become interested in the other players' characters. So when they're not in the scene, they're still interested in what's happening. This is mostly system neutral, but there are elements that a system may have to help here. There may be ways players can still contribute when they're not in a scene, as well. I don't think any system can fully solve this issue... but they can certainly help out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9624957, member: 6785785"] Honestly, this kind of split the group up and let them each do their thing has become really common in my games over the past few years. The systems I've played the most during that time are derivatives of Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World, and the Resistance System (Spire and Heart). I think it's mostly a comfort thing with the GM... getting used to doing this. It's not anywhere as difficult as many claim, but it can take some adjustment. You just have to remember that during much of standard D&D style play, you're rotating in turns anyway. So you just do that at a higher level, and even when it's not combat. Obviously, player engagement can be a thing, but I've found that the games I've been playing have helped with that. The ways in which they do so is by working quickly, being more focused on conflict resolution than task resolution, and having a general resolution system. So if the stealth character runs into a guard dog, taking the dog out (or throwing a steak at it, or calming it down, or whatever) we don't have to break into the combat mini-game... roll for initiative and then drop into turns that we have to play out in their entirety because they're mere seconds long. Instead, the dog is handled with a single roll, and then we see what the new situation is, and we move on from there. I think what also helps is for players to become interested in the other players' characters. So when they're not in the scene, they're still interested in what's happening. This is mostly system neutral, but there are elements that a system may have to help here. There may be ways players can still contribute when they're not in a scene, as well. I don't think any system can fully solve this issue... but they can certainly help out. [/QUOTE]

Verification