I've done an approach similar to yours and it was very rewarding. I've also done it where the results were less than spectacular. My 2 cents:
1. The size of your PC group will directly impact how successful your approach can/will be. For example, 3 PCs is no problem but 6 could be problematic b/c of the time it takes to bring everyone back together. This can be further compounded if some of the "focus-stories" are cooler than others. [This is a big pet peeve of mine in novels as well.]
2. You're approaching it the right way where you are setting up a scenario where you're placing some boundaries on the individual stories. This helps you to introduce NPCs to give the other players something to do. Which leads me to:
3. Unlike your scenario, impromptu party-driven separation can be much more problematic. Players select individual tasks - some are simple/fast others are involved/long. At this point, cutting back-and-forth between groups/PCs is tough to pull off. It sounds like you're avoiding that pitfall but I think it's always something to keep in mind while GMing.
4. Tag-along NPCs: Do NOT create peers for the "lead" character. Even if it makes sense for the Captain of the Guard to accompany the wizard while the Fighter pursues Quest B, the Wizard's player isn't going to feel like it was "his" story if the NPC can keep on par, or worse, overshadow the PC in his own story. Existing supporting characters, tier 2 new NPCs etc. are better and ideally they conform to the roles of A) Sidekick, B) Red-shirt, or C) Dependent (e.g. the PC must protect the Princess), or D) Plot-device (e.g. the priest can grant the Wizard access to the restricted library).
4a. Make the tag-along NPCs interesting. If your other PCs are going to be running a NPC for an entire session (or longer), give them a character worth caring about. Even if it's 80% personality/background and only 20% game-mechanics-effectiveness that makes them interesting, give them something to work with. This can be a great opportunity for "play-against-type" characters for your players. Let the gal who always plays a wizard run a warrior, let the elf-fan play a half-orc, etc. They get to test-drive another class/race without investing their primary character in it.
5. Kind of obvious, but tailor each of the focus stories to that PCs strengths and/or background. You're giving them a stage alone in the sun, don't waste it on a fish-out-of-water story. Give the knight courtly intrigue and battles of honor, give the thief a mansion to rob, give the priest a heresy to investigate amongst the internal politics of his church/temple.
6. Somewhat off-topic but since examples were given up-thread: Troupe-style play (more than one PC-worthy character per player), IMO, only works if everyone is on-board with it up front. In my experience, eventually, each player will gravitate to their favorite character and use them almost exclusively if they can get away with it. I've tried this 3 times and each time when a PC-death occurred, I had a player ditch the #2 PC in favor of a brand-new PC. Ultimately, it was an idea that worked better on paper than in practice. Troupe-style play using the advice in 4 & 4a yielded much better results for me and my groups.
In any case, it sounds like a great idea. Good luck with it!
1. The size of your PC group will directly impact how successful your approach can/will be. For example, 3 PCs is no problem but 6 could be problematic b/c of the time it takes to bring everyone back together. This can be further compounded if some of the "focus-stories" are cooler than others. [This is a big pet peeve of mine in novels as well.]
2. You're approaching it the right way where you are setting up a scenario where you're placing some boundaries on the individual stories. This helps you to introduce NPCs to give the other players something to do. Which leads me to:
3. Unlike your scenario, impromptu party-driven separation can be much more problematic. Players select individual tasks - some are simple/fast others are involved/long. At this point, cutting back-and-forth between groups/PCs is tough to pull off. It sounds like you're avoiding that pitfall but I think it's always something to keep in mind while GMing.
4. Tag-along NPCs: Do NOT create peers for the "lead" character. Even if it makes sense for the Captain of the Guard to accompany the wizard while the Fighter pursues Quest B, the Wizard's player isn't going to feel like it was "his" story if the NPC can keep on par, or worse, overshadow the PC in his own story. Existing supporting characters, tier 2 new NPCs etc. are better and ideally they conform to the roles of A) Sidekick, B) Red-shirt, or C) Dependent (e.g. the PC must protect the Princess), or D) Plot-device (e.g. the priest can grant the Wizard access to the restricted library).
4a. Make the tag-along NPCs interesting. If your other PCs are going to be running a NPC for an entire session (or longer), give them a character worth caring about. Even if it's 80% personality/background and only 20% game-mechanics-effectiveness that makes them interesting, give them something to work with. This can be a great opportunity for "play-against-type" characters for your players. Let the gal who always plays a wizard run a warrior, let the elf-fan play a half-orc, etc. They get to test-drive another class/race without investing their primary character in it.
5. Kind of obvious, but tailor each of the focus stories to that PCs strengths and/or background. You're giving them a stage alone in the sun, don't waste it on a fish-out-of-water story. Give the knight courtly intrigue and battles of honor, give the thief a mansion to rob, give the priest a heresy to investigate amongst the internal politics of his church/temple.
6. Somewhat off-topic but since examples were given up-thread: Troupe-style play (more than one PC-worthy character per player), IMO, only works if everyone is on-board with it up front. In my experience, eventually, each player will gravitate to their favorite character and use them almost exclusively if they can get away with it. I've tried this 3 times and each time when a PC-death occurred, I had a player ditch the #2 PC in favor of a brand-new PC. Ultimately, it was an idea that worked better on paper than in practice. Troupe-style play using the advice in 4 & 4a yielded much better results for me and my groups.
In any case, it sounds like a great idea. Good luck with it!
