Splitting Up Your Party (Intentionally)

[weem]

I had this idea to split my group up and run individual games for them at a point in the story where it would be best suited.

Initially these individual games were going to just be me, running a session for that one person by themselves. I would do one for each player and at the end of each of their sessions, they would end up in the same place/time where during the next session (following the completion of each of their individual sessions), the story would continue with them reunited.

This evolved to an idea of running an individual game for each player (as above), BUT allowing the other players to play NPC's who were involved in that players session. So, for example, on the day I run the Fighter's game, the players would play NPC's who are helping him with some quest(etc) - the idea being that during that time, their own characters are off on their own missions, etc.

The PC's are going to (in the next session, or the one after it) discover the "real" threat, and that it requires quick action to be taken on multiple fronts and in a limited amount of time. This will be the point where they split up, each with their own mission that will require/involve some aspect of their background. Once each has completed said mission, they will reunite in an attempt to subject the threat to a setback.

Also of note - We have been playing 9 months now, 15 games and they are level 8. I want to advance the leveling a bit and am considering bumping them all into Paragon Tier (maybe level 11) after each of their individual games.

Splitting the group up? Nothing new of course - but many people think it is a bad idea, albeit they are usually speaking with regards to splitting up groups within encounters, etc.


Anyway, questions...


1/ Have you done something like this before - and if so, how did it go?

2/ Do you have any fun/creative ideas with regards to how it could be handled/enhanced?

Thanks!



Oh, and my game summaries (here on ENW) can be found via the "Last Lands" link in the sig...

 

[darjr]

thats such a great idea.

I'll have to try it.

One thing that pops into my head is to have betrayal. The NPC's could, one or many, betray the PC in one of many ways.

The NPC's could do strait up 'back stabbing', crazy loon ideas and actions, uncooperative behavior, things that could be annoying or damaging for a PC to do. This might be a way to do it and test the waters for such things in the future.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

We had a game were we started with “Character tree’s” each tree had at least 3 but no more then 5 characters. You could not start more then 2 characters in the same time, and no 2 characters could be in the same place. We had 12 starting players, and 6 starting places, but spread through 4 starting time periods (One of the 6 places was in every time period)

I had a Elvin Fighter/Mage Bladesinger in the elvin high forrest in the past

Her Grand daughter a half elf Sorcerer in the middle time period in the now city were those woods once were

A ½ orc Barbarian in the post apocalyptic future

And A Chronomancer Human who started outside of time.

It was a lot of fun, we kept complex flow charts, and it took hours to get almost any real stuff done, but that game lasted almost 5 months before collapsing. And it gave my fav DM Dave an idea for a cross edition time travel game that rocked.

I think your idea could work, just keep it simple.

 

[weem]

@darjr

The NPC's could do strait up 'back stabbing', crazy loon ideas and actions, uncooperative behavior, things that could be annoying or damaging for a PC to do. This might be a way to do it and test the waters for such things in the future.

Haha, very true. I had considered this to a degree. Basically, I was going to hand out NPC's with a brief description (written) of their motivations, and some of them could be... problematic.

But if I did this, I would make sure it was not something that could bring everything to a halt, or ruin the "focus" players objectives, etc.


@HardcoreDandDGirl

That sounds pretty complex, hehe. My plan was to play loose with time - give each player enough time ingame to do what they need to do and get back - and then explain that they all made it back at the same-ish time.

I think I can do this in the story by havng them agree to a time/place to meet backup - run their games - and then when we get back together, explain that they made it back in time, etc.

 

[Ktulu]

1/ Have you done something like this before - and if so, how did it go?

I've done this before to great success and I'm actually doing it again beginning this weekend. The last one was with only two players in the campaign, so we split them up and created 3 different stories with differing characters. The overall goal was to gain support with neighboring kingdoms, find the heir to the throne, and go to war with the false king.

In the end, it's still probably the best campaign I've ever ran.

2/ Do you have any fun/creative ideas with regards to how it could be handled/enhanced?

I definitely suggest having the other players create characters to make it more of a group thing; especially if the characters are pre-existing NPC's. It's always cool when the player's brother or old mentor becomes a major character for a few sessions.

Things to remember:

Keep it small, focus on 1-2 sessions for each character, don't let it go over. If you don't, it can get out of hand.
The actions should affect eachother. If the fighter's story has some side-effect on the wizard's, this makes the whole thing feel even more fluid and engaging. Sometimes, just the passing mention of what X is doing is enough.
Character A is the main character. The secondary characters should have limited backgrounds and goals. A cursed paladin trying to break free of his demons can be cool to play, but should not over-shadow the rogue's story. Goals that can be fleshed out and resolved or touched on in 1-2 sessions are much better handled. Opposing this is:
Character's should be 3-dimensional. While a 10 page backstory is not necessary, a well-rounded character is much preferred to generic-the-fighter.


That's the best advice I have other than have fun!

 

[Minigiant]

Once my party did the "Let's split up gang" route. We were investigating a large house that teleported from kingdom to kingdom. Half the group entered a haunted house that disappears every month, why the others had to figure out why it disappered in the first place and get to the next stop by the end of the month. The players not in the "haunted house party" got to play as the ghostly residents of the house. The players not in the "detective" party played the ranger and druid scouts we hired to get to the house's next stop in the next kingdom.

There was even a ghost chase scene.

 

[Andre]

...at a point in the story where it would be best suited.

...at the end of each of their sessions, they would end up in the same place/time

...during the next session (following the completion of each of their individual sessions), the story would continue with them reunited.

...This will be the point where they split up, each with their own mission that will require/involve some aspect of their background.

...Once each has completed said mission, they will reunite in an attempt to subject the threat to a setback.

No offense, but I can see all sorts of potential problems with this. Generally, RPG sessions work best when the GM has created a situation and allows the players to determine how their characters react to it. Instead, you seem to have pre-determined both their actions and the results of their actions, which is the quintessential definition of railroading.

For example, what if one of the characters insists on accompanying another, strictly for roleplaying reasons? What challenges will the characters face? Can they be defeated (captured, killed)? Can one character's actions take much longer than the others? If so, how do they suddenly find themselves back together at just the right time?

I won't say this can't work, but I will say that if not handled carefully, it has the potential to blow up in your face. A lot depends on your players and their expectations. I hope my fears turn out to be unwarranted..

 

[weem]

No offense, but I can see all sorts of potential problems with this. Generally, RPG sessions work best when the GM has created a situation and allows the players to determine how their characters react to it. Instead, you seem to have pre-determined both their actions and the results of their actions, which is the quintessential definition of railroading.

Hmmm... I've tried answering this a few times but I blabber on and on, hehe. I think I simply don't have enough details here as to the situation and how they will come into it.

Yes, I am splitting them up (determining they will split up). When they learn what they are about to learn, they will be asked to split up to accomplish many tasks at once in the limited amount of time there is... they will listen to this NPC... consider it a long skill challenge. Nothing says they have to succeed at these individual tasks/quests - their individual outcomes will play a role in the story though.

It's worth noting as well that I mentioned this idea to the players some time ago and all of them were VERY into it (I kept it general/hypothetical so as not to give anything away). It's not something I would be doing if even one of them was not into the idea.

With that said, if at the last minute they wanted to pair up, or go all as one on one of the particular tasks/quests (maybe they feel one is more important than all the others), that would be fine. But, each of the 'path' options relate specifically to each of the players with regards to their backgrounds, contacts, etc - so it would be a tough decision to make to skip your path.

To give you an idea of what I'm I'm thinking, the things that could be asked of them might be...

"[Fighter], you have been in contact with your clan as they rebuild their ranks... might they come to our aid? [Cleric], your clergy has helped in the past... could you convince them to retake the fort at [wherever] from the undead? It would weaken this threat greatly. [Wizard], the Seekers who have accompanied you all here are heading back to their place of study... is it possible you could help them discover a weakness of this threat?"

Anyway, my players will really be into this I'm sure - and the sessions that will revolve around each of those paths will not be predetermined. They will have encounters, skill challenges, etc the outcomes of which won't be known to me until the players complete them.

I did intend on hand-waving their return from these quests so they arrive at the same time(ish). If the fighter takes 1 week (ingame time) and the wizard 9 days (ingame time), I'm not going to worry about it -- but if they as players want to push things farther (2 weeks or more, etC), they will do so with the understanding that they will be late in returning to meet back up with the others... which is up to them.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things - I'm really looking forward to it!

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I've never played in a game where this has happened but it sounds awesome to me. I love heist movies where the team splits apart to do different aspects of the plan and then come together at the end. That's just what this reminds me of.

I definitely suggest having the other players create characters to make it more of a group thing; especially if the characters are pre-existing NPC's. It's always cool when the player's brother or old mentor becomes a major character for a few sessions.

Great suggestion. While some players would be just as excited to watch the other players' stories unfold, having everyone playing in the session is the best way to ensure all players are engaged in the story.

While the plot the OP outlined with the cleric's order and the fighter's tribe provides NPCs to drop into each part of the story, I wonder if the other players could play enemies or neutral NPCs and still have fun. That way you could have the spotlight focus on each character instead of the character and his NPC sidekicks. (But that's coming from the heist point of view. You never see B.A. knock out the guards with the help of two extras while Murdock readies the getaway plane with the help of his two extras.)

The actions should affect eachother. If the fighter's story has some side-effect on the wizard's, this makes the whole thing feel even more fluid and engaging. Sometimes, just the passing mention of what X is doing is enough.

This is my favorite suggestion. Having the blunders or successes of the players' actions affect each others' story is pure gold.

 

[Nebulous]

In 2nd edition i introduced a scenario where a barmaid came up to the PCs and handed them a letter. The letter said that they had all been poisoned by a lethal drug and they had less than an hour to live unless they each accomplished three very specific goals that were outlined (and there was no magical way to quickly purge themselves).

So, the three PCs split up in three directions, and I would follow one for a while, such as the thief breaking into a manor home to steal a painting just as the house guard dog notices him, and then switch to another character. I jumped back and forth between the three of them fairly rapidly so that no one would get bored. By the end they reunited and were able to get the antidote.

It was a lot of fun, but it is not the kind of thing i would run often.