What's wrong with splitting the party?

[MarkB]

So, characters will always enter combat? I think it can equal more death, but that is by no means the only outcome to splitting the party.

Characters don't need to deliberately enter combat in order for combat to occur. Fewer party members = fewer Spot and Listen checks = easier ambushes by the opposition.

Mitigated somewhat by the fact that fewer Hide and Move Silently checks reduces the chance of detection, but only if the split-off party members have at least some aptitude for stealth.

 

[Terwox]

Splitting the party stinks because the people watching aren't necessarily having fun, unless the stuff the rest of the party is doing is really cool.

I split the party once during my Cthulhu game I just ran. That was while one of the PC's, driven mad, murdered another one of the PC's while the rest of the party was upstairs. Actually I didn't setup the split, they did it to themselves.

As a player, I hate split party, as I've had many DM's who will split the party for hours... and I get rather bored.

 

[Bagpuss]

I've personally got no problem with splitting the party when I'm GMing. That example of where the player did the tower test while the rest of the party did nothing for 3 hours is just bad GMing, not a problem with splitting the party.

When the party splits you just need to keep swapping between the groups to make sure they are both busy doing something, there is no reason why players can't be just as involved (if not more so) when the party is split as when they are together.

For example when the party is together you often get one player/character that acts as the 'faceman' for the group and does a lot of talking to the NPCs, while the other watch on. With the party split the group without this faceman are forced to be more involved in an NPC encounter, than they would be if the group was together.

There are tactical reasons why it's better to keep your party together, but I don't think split attention of the GM should be a reason, because even if the group is together the GM can only deal with one player at a time.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've personally got no problem with splitting the party when I'm GMing. That example of where the player did the tower test while the rest of the party did nothing for 3 hours is just bad GMing, not a problem with splitting the party.

...

There are tactical reasons why it's better to keep your party together, but I don't think split attention of the GM should be a reason, because even if the group is together the GM can only deal with one player at a time.

In the unlucky case that combat happens to both parties at once, not even the best GM in the world is going to run it smoothly enough IMO

 

[Gold Roger]

In the unlucky case that combat happens to both parties at once, not even the best GM in the world is going to run it smoothly enough IMO

Actually, I'd say this one is especially easy, since in combat the attention is split already anyway. Just treat it as one big combat, with one initiative listing, that just so happens to be split.

 

[greywulf]

I've split a party intentiionally several times in ooooo...30-odd years of gaming. It can be done, and work very well, if handled carefully.

One Call of Cthulhu game I forcibly split the party by having a Tentacled Horror errupt out of an alleyway just as the party passed by. The party was split down the middle. I put half the players in one room and the other half in another. I ran between the two. One team stayed to fight while the other guys continued to the Ancient Bookstore to research what they were fighting against. It worked well, with 3 guys steadily losing HP (and ammo!) while the other team raced against time to find what they needed and return. It put real pressure on both sides, especially as I wouldn't let them communicate at all The bookstore guys half expected to return to the sight of mutilated corpses!

Heck, splitting the party is a part of the fun in horror gaming. Put a cellar in any building and there's bound to be one player who wants to go down there on his own. It's the Done Thing.

In a HERO superhero game splitting the party isn't the problem if they have some form of instant communication. That way they're not really split, even though they might be physically separated. I've gamed sessions where one player was the HomeBase tactical computer; he never went on adventures per se, but co-ordinated the attacks using long range radar, etc. Work well until he went insane and took over the base......but that's another story.

Same for D&D really (apart from the insane computer taking over the base bit). As long as the characters can communicate remotely, there's no problem. I ran the Githyanki Invasion where the players were a strike force that cut supply lines, fireballed weapon stores, etc. Kinda Twilight-2000 meets the Lich Queen. They all had Bonded Rings that telepathically linked them together, making for very effective strike tactics. The rings were a gift from some Githzerai. I recommend them for any party of adventurers above 6th level as it gives the party a much greater effective range; they don't all need to be within shouting distance of each other during combat.

So yes, spltting the party /is/ possible, but it takes some forward planning to run effectively.

 

[JoeBlank]

While I certainly understand concerns about weakening the party by splitting, I don't understand the concerns about half the players being bored.

Are we all so entertainment-focused that we can't go a few minutes without sensory input? The average American football player, at just about any level, spends more time standing on the sidelines than he does on the field. If he plays defense, then when the offense or special teams is on the field then he is not in the game. Baseball players wait their turns at bat.

But if an RPG player is left out of the action then all too often you hear stories of him going to play a video game, or watch television, or find some other form of entertainment.

Unless the split of the party involves some deep dark secret, I have usually seen it handled by everyone remaining at the table and trusting the players not to metagame based on knowledge not available to the PCs.

 

[Psion]

1) In game, it's a tactical error if you are in a situation where there are multiple hostiles (e.g., your typical site based adventure.) A party is usually built around the mutual support ideal, and you typically can't offer each other support and are exposing yourself to more risk.
2) Out of game, it's poor time management. I usually only have 4 hours a week to play. Those hours are much less efficient (and for the non-participants, much more boring) than situations in which the whole party can act.

I can see PbP situations where this principle can be broken with, but for tabletop gaming, it's the smart thing to do AFAIAC.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

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

QFT. Couldn't say it better myself.

 

[Umbran]

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

But why is it bad?

In general, it leads to a situation where one group of players is sitting around doing nothing while the GM works with the other group. If you were reading a book, or going to a movie, and had to spend half your time staring at the ceilling rather than engaging in the entertainment, would you be happy?

Also, it is usually a tactical error.