Request for DMing advice- split party!

[skinnydwarf]

So it's not fair to the two players who want to investigate if you gloss over the details of that investigation, but it is fair to the three who don't, if you decide to just kill off their characters for not liking a plot hook? :\

Oh, no, I'm not going to kill them. I was just saying that was my initial reaction. I have to talk to them about it... maybe they'll read their email for once.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh, no, I'm not going to kill them. I was just saying that was my initial reaction. I have to talk to them about it... maybe they'll read their email for once.

The guys go into the wilderness. They contact the orcs (probably after a fight or two). They find out from the orcs that the kings son, the one left with the centaur, is the villain - he's paying the orcs, or taunting the orcs, or something. The other king's thugs were sent to stop it happening (If the son is threatening the orcs, the thugs were hired to bring the son to the orcs. If the orcs are being paid by the son, then the thugs were to stop the payment). Add in something that means the son will make an attempt on the centaur, and suddenly the guys in the wilderness can return to save the day.

 

[Conaill]

I am baffled about why they did what they did.

HAVE YOU ASKED THEM? Frankly, I am baffled how many DM's seem to come here to ask a bunch of random people why their players behave like they do...

Perhaps a lack of communication may not be the direct cause of your current dilemma, but talking to your players is bound to yield better results than whatever guesswork we're engaging in here.

 

[Henry]

...talking to your players is bound to yield better results than whatever guesswork we're engaging in here.

I try not to engage in "me, too" posts, but Conail is dead on with this one.

It does sound like your three players had a beef with what was going on, though. Find out what that beef was, and try to listen as objectively as possible, putting yourself in their shoes, and see if it makes sense to you.

 

[Whisper72]

I can imagine the three players being in a huff. It is difficult to judge 'from a distance', not having seen what actually transpired but consider some possibilities:

- it sounds like you were trying to railroad the players/PC's into going into a sub-plot, if the PC's felt that they have no business / stake in whether one or the other lord becomes king (maybe they are all just a bad / good as the other as far as they know), it is perfectly legit to want to finish the mission going from a to b. If the 'raising an orc army' was something discussed earlier as being something on their mind, it could have come over as being a delaying tactic in stead of offering an interesting sub-plot.

- If among the three are long time players (don't know about the other two), it could also be seen as being unkind of you as a DM to side with the minority, and telling them you have not prepared for them, only for the sub-plot, only reinforces to them you were forcing them into that subplot (you did not have anyhting else prepared!), and to them you let down old-time friends, the majority to boot!

All the best advice here is the same: talk to the players out of the game itself.
- are they bored with the campaign in general / their own PC's in specific?
- are there Out Of Game issues between the two/three player groups, which bubbled up In Game to cause this split?
- are they upset / p'd off with the process of how things went down last session?

As for 're-introducing' the PC's back into the game, some good ideas were given here as well (the most elegant being have them meet up with the orcs and somehow find out they are tied into the whole kidnapping plot anyhoo), but check first with the players. If for some reason (besides childish 'I dont wanna' type reasons) they dislike this campaign thread, then simply abandon it. Let the other PC's quickly find the son, bring him back to the father (or have them encounter a patrol already looking for the son, and so the PC's need not do more then point out where he is held, and the PC's can be on their way to meet up with the others).

Hope this helps. Main issue is: settle things OOG first, before choosing how to solve thing IG.

 

[Buttercup]

Perhaps they feel they are being railroaded.

I know that if I were a player, I'd certainly feel railroaded. Let's look at the situation from a player perspective: The DM introduces an NPC, who hires the players to perform a certain task. Halfway through this task, that NPC decides to do something else which doesn't make sense given what the players know about him. Three of the players argue against this option, but instead of heeding them, the DM, using the NPC as a mouthpiece, forces the campaign to go his way. Yup, I can clearly see the tracks on the ground. Forgive me if I refuse to board the train.

Whatever the reasons, talk with them, see if you can work it out with them out of game, because I truly believe that until you are right with your players again, you're never going to fix things in-game.

Amen.

If you have a nifty plot that you are just dying to introduce, you have to wait until the time is right to start dropping hints. And IMO the DM should never forget that his/her nifty idea may not be so nifty to anyone else. It's far better to give the players several options that really are options, and be prepared to spin your story once they've chosen. Players, not NPCs, should be the center of the story.

 

[skinnydwarf]

Update:

When almost everyone else you talk to seems to think you are acting irrationally, it is time to re-examine the situation.

Talked to one of the players; water under the bridge now. He rejoined the group, last nights game was great.

 

[skinnydwarf]

**deleted double post due to silly 'net connection**