What's wrong with splitting the party?

[Crothian]

We all know the saying: "Never split the party."

But why is it bad?

Is it because it's a pain in the ass on the DM to have to worry about two or more smaller groups at once?

Is it a metagame thing that people beleive the encounters they run into need everyone to defeat, and half the part y just won't cut it?

Is it just because it goes against the party structure of the game?

Does it always end in no fun TPK?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's because it slows down the game and many DMs do a bad job of keeping both halves entertained.

It's a lot less trouble online, for what it's worth. Heck, I'd encourage splitting the party online, since everyone gets more of a chance to shine and it's not a big slow-down on things.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because enough people have heard or internalized the lesson of "Divide et empirum"..."Divide and conquer," or understand the symbolism of the fasces, etc.

Most players are savvy enough to realize that if they get split up, its easier to pick them off.

(Oh, yeah- and its a hassle for the DM to run unless he's trying to split them up and is prepared for it.)

 

[Lanefan]

We all know the saying: "Never split the party."
But why is it bad?
Is it because it's a pain in the ass on the DM to have to worry about two or more smaller groups at once?

From a table context, it can be. Particularly if one group can't know what the other group is doing but there's no spare room to stash the non-active players in, thus requiring everythng to be done by note...that's a pain.

Is it a metagame thing that people beleive the encounters they run into need everyone to defeat, and half the party just won't cut it?

Sometimes. Depends on the situation...sometimes sending out a scouting party makes sense, other times, it's suicide.

Is it just because it goes against the party structure of the game?

I don't think so, particularly if the party is splitting into sub-parties (e.g. 4 heavy fighters and wizards stay put, 3 quiet types go out to scout).

Does it always end in no fun TPK?

No, though sometimes one part of the split group never gets seen again...

And for added fun, try splitting a party into 3 or more groups, any of whom can unknowingly influence by their actions any or all of the others...now *that* gets messy!

Lanefan

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I dislike it from the perspective that it means that half the table is always sitting there doing nothing. If you don't physically split the players up some players can't resist the temptation of offering suggestions or trying to get their PC to "sense" that the other PC's are in trouble and rush off to help them. Too much trouble for very little gain in my opinion.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Dog Moon]

On this current campaign I'm playing in, two people decided to go on their own. They got owned by a fiendish Octopus and both died. Had there been all five us, especially 2 of the 3 tanks who DIDN'T go, it wouldn't have been nearly so difficult and in fact, we killed it in two rounds, even without those two losers.

 

[frankthedm]

Plus combats go fast. One group could be just a small distance away and a combat that breaks out could result in...

Surprise round 1/2 party suffers an ambush.

Round one 1/2 party begins to fight back. Other half starts running if they heard the ambusher's attacks.

Round two 1/2 party is in bad shape. Other half is halfway back.

Round Three1/2 party is nearly defeated as the other half are almosy there.

Round 4 The other half arrive to see the remainder of the 1/2 party being CDGed.

 

[el-remmen]

My last campaign began with the five characters split up and strangers in the same city and over the course of two sessions cut back and forth from scene to scene, bringing two together here, having them see another there, but not hook up. . . until they were all together.

Over the next five years of the campaign, the party split up several times and never to detrimental effect (though once it led to a temporary defeat of half the party).

It is all about having a DM who can balance it and having players who are patient and polite and are as interested in what goes on with other characters as their own (or at least nearly so).

 

[Kalshane]

It all depends on how the players and the DM handle it. Obviously, split-party combats is different, but if the party splits up for other reasons, one thing our group tends to do is let other players jump in and play minor NPCs that have no real effect on the plot while we're dealing with the other half of the party.

Personally, I try to avoid splitting the party myself as DM, becuase I have trouble keeping it interesting for both groups and keeping track of what they're doing.

That said, I had one 2e campaign where the number of players just got to be too many and I actually split the party into two groups that met on different nights. Which worked pretty well until I got burned out from trying to do too much.

However, it did result in an instance where one group got their butts handed to them by a giant slug (mostly due to really bad die rolls and the party's main fighter falling into the pool in the slug's lair and not having taken Swim as a NWP, meaning the party had to divide their attention between the slug and saving him from drowning).

The other group decided to show them up by taking on the great wyrm red dragon I'd setup as a sort of "side quest" via ye old buff and teleport, taking it down pretty handily. The first party was not amused.

 

[jdrakeh]

It's because it slows down the game and many DMs do a bad job of keeping both halves entertained.

That's the conventional wisdom, as I understand it -- one group receives all of the GM's attention, while the others suck down Cheetoes and gets bored until it's "their turn".

It's a lot less trouble online, for what it's worth.

Honestly, it's not much trouble in any game with delayed turns (e.g., PBM, PBP, PBEM, etc). It, IME, only becomes an issue in games that require immediate response to keep everybody entertained (e.g., F2F, IRC, etc).