Players' Poll - Splitting the Party
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Agamon
Adventurer
Depends on the type of game your playing. If it's a published adventure, with a DM that just relates to the players what is in said adventure, then splitting up is suicide.
If the adventure is less rigid and the DM more malleable to making encounters challenging and fun, then splitting up can often be a good idea, though it will still sometimes bite you in the butt, as your ability to survive an encounter goes down the less allies you have with you to assist you should you come across a stroke of bad luck.
If the adventure is less rigid and the DM more malleable to making encounters challenging and fun, then splitting up can often be a good idea, though it will still sometimes bite you in the butt, as your ability to survive an encounter goes down the less allies you have with you to assist you should you come across a stroke of bad luck.
Re
Splitting the party is only effective if the DM can handle it without destroying the party. For example, having half the party retrieve an item while the other half distracts the big, bad from detecting the half of the party that is retrieving the item might be a fun scenario if run well by the DM. There are plenty of scenarios where splitting the party could make for interesting gaming, it just depends on how well your DM handles the situation.
I definitely don't recommend splitting the party if your DM is not prepared or interesting in running two separate groups.
Splitting the party is only effective if the DM can handle it without destroying the party. For example, having half the party retrieve an item while the other half distracts the big, bad from detecting the half of the party that is retrieving the item might be a fun scenario if run well by the DM. There are plenty of scenarios where splitting the party could make for interesting gaming, it just depends on how well your DM handles the situation.
I definitely don't recommend splitting the party if your DM is not prepared or interesting in running two separate groups.
Well, in general, splitting up only works in a game if the DM can handle it and is prepared for it.
But, specifically for your question ...
in the games I have been part of, splitting up results in the same probability of "bad things happening" as does staying together -- why? Because those who are in the separate groups basically still look at each encounter and try to figure out if they can take the encounter or not; they just have a lower threadshold that they can handle when separated than when together (and the PCs are usually good at recognizing it).
So to answer your question - my opinion would be that of indifference... one option is no more worse than the other with respect to bad things happening.
If a group is more brash and quick to react than ours is, they may find themselves in over their head more often though. So depends on the group in part to see how "bad" it becomes. (and as said above, depends on the DM if it can even work from a meta game standpoint).
YMMV.
But, specifically for your question ...
in the games I have been part of, splitting up results in the same probability of "bad things happening" as does staying together -- why? Because those who are in the separate groups basically still look at each encounter and try to figure out if they can take the encounter or not; they just have a lower threadshold that they can handle when separated than when together (and the PCs are usually good at recognizing it).
So to answer your question - my opinion would be that of indifference... one option is no more worse than the other with respect to bad things happening.
If a group is more brash and quick to react than ours is, they may find themselves in over their head more often though. So depends on the group in part to see how "bad" it becomes. (and as said above, depends on the DM if it can even work from a meta game standpoint).
YMMV.
Last edited:
diaglo
Adventurer
splitting the party is neither a good or an evil act on the part of the DM.
it really depends on the mechanics of the campaign.'
a city based adventure where the party splits up to buy supplies, look for information about something or find a job to supplement their funds, catch up with old NPCs, or just explore the place; can have many opportunities to go it alone or together.
the balance (someone had to use that word) is in the hands of the party mostly. are the players wary enough to take hints or run when necessary? are they law-biding? do they give a snit?
it really depends on the mechanics of the campaign.'
a city based adventure where the party splits up to buy supplies, look for information about something or find a job to supplement their funds, catch up with old NPCs, or just explore the place; can have many opportunities to go it alone or together.
the balance (someone had to use that word) is in the hands of the party mostly. are the players wary enough to take hints or run when necessary? are they law-biding? do they give a snit?
Zappo
Explorer
Generally speaking, splitting the party won't make you do stuff faster in real time because the DM can only deal with one group at a time. And it does reduce your strength considerably. So I think that splitting the party is a generally bad idea, unless you're really short on time (in-game, naturally).
Silver Moon
Adventurer
I like split missions, but that is probably because I've always loved those D.C. comics JLA/JSA team-up stories and the classic Marvel Comics Avengers/Defenders team-up story. My standard epic-module M.O. is to have each player bring in two characters, and field two teams up adventurers. Twice I've done this with three teams. For our 20-year anniversary module we actually had seven teams operating simultaneous (with a different DM running each).
Similar Threads
