I currently have a player in my campaign that seems completely uninterested in sticking with the party– and in fact, seems to change their mind and split off to do something else if the party tries to stay with them. I'm not necessarily bothered by this behavior, it's their character and their choice, after all! The thing that seems troublesome about it is trying to narrate two different portions of the story at the same time... one for what the player is doing, and one for the rest of the party. I imagine it's not very fun for any of the players to have to play this way.
So, what do you do if one of your players does this– do you set up traps to dissuade them from leaving the party? Or perhaps encourage their exploration and make it work for the rest of the team? Would love to hear your stories! :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
I would really love to hear people’s advice on this, bc none of my party will stay together. I’ve resorted to having them take turns to describe what they do with their day. Curse. You. Sandboxes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi, I am not a chest. I deny with 100% certainty that I am a chest. I can neither confirm nor deny what I am beyond that.
I used to portray Krathian, Q'ilbrith, Jim, Tara, Turin, Nathan, Tench, Finn, Alvin, and other characters in various taverns.
I have a talk with them. Players need to buy in to the conceit of the game for it to work. Things don't work well if most of the players are trying to play a collaborative game and another player is constantly trying to derail that experience by trying to go off and do their own thing. It's rude.
At bare minimum, I would explain to the player that I would rather not have these disruptions in-game, if they choose to wander off, not to expect special treatment or rewards for this behavior unless it somehow fits in to or serves the narrative that I and the other players at the table are trying to weave.
I'm not opposed to party-splitting, as long as there is a relevant reason for it other than randomness or boredom. I would also ask the player if they are just not getting what they want out of the game and if that is what is causing them to break from the main story to try to force something they want instead. If I can accommodate the player, then it might resolve the issue. However, they need to be willing to work with me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
As with a lot of thing I think the answer is communication.
Firstly, ask the other players if this annoys them and if they would prefer the party to stick together.
And secondly speak to the player in question and explain how its disruptive and makes the session hard to run.
I think there's nothing wrong with players splitting off on occasion and going on their own little adventures, but I try to keep that to downtime activities and general investigative work, were you can spend a little time on each splinter group and it can be very fun. I think the problem arises when the whole party is trying to follow the main plot and one person is doing anything but that.
No idea if that is helpful, but I hope you work out how to make sure the whole table is having the most fun they can!
I'm not opposed to party-splitting, as long as there is a relevant reason for it other than randomness or boredom. I would also ask the player if they are just not getting what they want out of the game and if that is what is causing them to break from the main story to try to force something they want instead. If I can accommodate the player, then it might resolve the issue. However, they need to be willing to work with me.
Firstly, ask the other players if this annoys them and if they would prefer the party to stick together.
And secondly speak to the player in question and explain how its disruptive and makes the session hard to run.
I think there's nothing wrong with players splitting off on occasion and going on their own little adventures, but I try to keep that to downtime activities and general investigative work, were you can spend a little time on each splinter group and it can be very fun. I think the problem arises when the whole party is trying to follow the main plot and one person is doing anything but that.
I think both of these are excellent points: communication with the player in question being key (as well as asking how the other players feel about their behavior). I definitely intend to speak with them all and make sure we can all continue to have fun :)
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for are fun, in-game ways to encourage everyone to stay together (other than death). Traps, curses, etc? Or maybe ways to allow everyone to separate from time to time... like Sending Stones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
Talk to them out of game. If that doesn’t work simply don’t give them the limelight. Just carry on with the main characters and plot. Give the player a brief description of what they see. Keep it neutral without any encounters or treasure etc and then leave the player sat there unable to join in with the main group or do anything until they come back to the party.
If the player changes their mind when the rest of the party go along with that player's original plan, then that player is probably trying to have a SOLO game rather than play in a co-operative MULTI-PLAYER game.
They just need to be told the difference between the two gaming styles.
You could try something to the effect of giving each player a half a hour of time, anytime the party splits. So if three players are staying together they get a hour and half, and he gets a half hour. Just make sure the time starts when he leaves the party, that way he can't take advantage of it.
You really just need to have a talk with them. This is part of the unspoken agreement when playing this kind of game.
The assumption is that you are going to play together and cooperate. Explain that when he constantly goes off solo it is forcing everyone else to be a passive audience to what ever he decided to go off to do on his own.
There is nothing wrong when the party splits on occasion, especially when it makes sense narratively or they decide to do it as a group or are off just narrating what they do in their down time or in towns. However when one player constantly does it in dungeons or in combat they are really kind of breaking that unspoken agreement to play the game as a group cooperatively.
This kind of thing tends to happen with newer players and if that's the case it can really be fixed fast by giving them this kind of birds eye macro perspective of the game. Things like going off solo, stealing party loot, going murder hobo are some things that a lot of new players try without really understanding how it impacts the game. If they aren't a new player, or refuse to change, there is some chance they are the kind of person you don't want at your table.
Other than the talking option, which can help but is dependent on how much self-awareness the player has, remember that just because someone goes off on their own doesn't mean the adventure needs to follow. You can just ignore them. Or have them run into an encounter that's a fair challenge for the entire party and thus tramples them when they're solo.
Talk to them out of game. If that doesn’t work simply don’t give them the limelight. Just carry on with the main characters and plot. Give the player a brief description of what they see. Keep it neutral without any encounters or treasure etc and then leave the player sat there unable to join in with the main group or do anything until they come back to the party.
This is what I’d do. Talk/warn, then consequences.
”Their character, their choice” only goes so far. At some point, they need to realize they are playing a game with a few other people, and it’s simply rude to make everyone else wait while they do their own thing.
And honestly, this seems like a pretty big red flag. I’d be really watching for other annoying behavior and consider kicking them if they don’t straighten up.
Pretty much in agreement with the consensus. "D&D is a team sport" if someone tries to invent themselves a solo spinoff, they'll see themselves fading into the background while the game focuses on the party. They're free to catch up as the ride leaves.
I actually do have the occasional bandwidth to allow PCs solo sidequest type opportunities, but I'd only want to brew that up for a player whose earned their distinction among the ensemble, and the idea would allow the PC to bring back something significant to the group (in other words, I have to like the player and it's gotta make sense). But that's not during group game time. Moreover most DMs probably don't have that luxury of time and inclination, so trying to turn an ensemble experience into a solo showcase is just bad sportsmanship (going back to the DM liking the player point).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Think I'd be asking myself if the player would preferer a solo campaign, personally I think I'd really dislike having to DM the situation you're describing but DM'ing a solo campaign with them is something I might find far more enjoyable. Obviously you need to talk with them, interesting what the players motivation behind it is am thinking it either "I'm not really close with the other players" or "I'm a loner playing a lone wolf" or quite possibly " I want to play an evil character and kill sabotage the other players PC's" otherwise I can't make any sense of it, seems almost like just making DM life hard, would have thought that was bloomin obvious to everyone.
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
In my opinion, if a group wants to split up, then you should let them. They of course need to accept the understanding that they'll be in half as many of the scenes (or less), and that they've put an imposition on you to do a lot more work. If everyone is fine with that, then I think it can make for a perfectly good game. Especially when the two groups meet back up again and update each other on what they've accomplished.
Of course, if the reason that one player wants to peel off the group has nothing to do with advancing the plot, then maybe allow it, but suggest they turn that character into an NPC, and have them make a character who actually is invested in staying with the group.
If the party wants to split I let them. It's a valid tactic in many scenarios. The issue becomes then, what to do with this lonewolf player. If they are on a task that they belive will be an asset to the party and are acting in good faith, there's not much of a problem. So long as the player knows that sooner rather than later the group will need to be involved for something. Be it a decision, tactical assistance, healing, whatever.
If however the player insists that their path is the only "right way" to overcome the in game challenge and have decided to split themselves from the group, are acting on behalf of the group without their in game consent, or are just acting in bad faith, it's conversation time. Social contract, game and group expectations, all that jazz.
I find myself posting this quite frequently lately....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for are fun, in-game ways to encourage everyone to stay together (other than death). Traps, curses, etc? Or maybe ways to allow everyone to separate from time to time... like Sending Stones.
I'd just make the world dangerous. Heroes have a lot of potential, and it makes sense for villains to stomp them out early. Make it clear that there are bounty hunters that would love to pick them off one by one as they split up. The best reason to stay together is because you are strong together.
Although I agree with the others that this needs some out of game discussion. The DM and the players need to be on the same page when it comes to expectations for the game.
I certainly wouldn't be cool with my party just deciding to split into 5 different storylines at once for the whole session, and honestly I don't know why they would either. I wouldn't sit through a 4 hour game just to have 30 minutes playing my character. To me that's just being disrespectful of everyone's time. If you want to play that way let's do it through email between sessions.
I've actually been trying to open up one of my storylines (basically, investigating a bunch of disappearances) to being open to splitting the party. It allows for the players to be in multiple places at once, which potentially allows them to cover more ground simultaneously, and it's mostly gone well because I've been careful to limit it (only two groups, fairly short interactions in each destination unless the party is all together). I think there are a few things that need to be very straightforward when it comes to splitting the party and how it impacts gameplay:
You can't split the party all the time. If you have a player that is *constantly* separate from the party, they're not playing in the same group. They might as well be playing a different campaign. If you want to work on a goal that the entire party shares, but do so in a different direction from the party, that's good and perhaps an interesting way to flesh out one character separate from the rest. However, if you're just playing a whole different game of D&D, that's a problem. It forces the DM to prepare much more content and balance around a loose cannon, which is unfair to the DM, and it takes away a bunch of time that could be "shared" together to focus on a single player doing something that the rest of the table doesn't care about. If your player absolutely refuses to do anything with the group, then you might need to have a heart to heart about the fact that you're DM'ing for a group, not just them, and you can't screw the rest of the group out of playing to run their own personal session in the middle of the group's scheduled session.
Time should be distributed roughly equitably. This doesn't always work out- sometimes some things just naturally flesh out more than others and take longer to get through, and that's fine, especially if it's not a frequent thing. But, if you have five players and one keeps running off, the four remaining players should receive the vast majority of screentime- about 4/5ths of the session time during the split- so that they're engaged and able to participate. A player shouldn't be rewarded with more session time because they want to focus specifically on their own character to the detriment of the rest. Now, you can do things to make this feel less bad and keep players engaged- rotate through the active group(s) by putting things on pause so that no one sits for inordinately long stretches of time- but ultimately if a player wants to go off on their own, one consequence is that they don't participate in the rest of the session. Don't focus so much on the player going off on their own that you forget the group is more important- it's surprisingly easy to do if you have a frustrating or show-stealing player.
You shouldn't coddle a player running off on their own. I was playing in a campaign once with a DM who I respect quite highly, and we had a player who wanted to go off alone. The DM, having done an obscene amount of prep, was entirely prepared to handle that, but the player, ironically, was not- they were killed a couple sessions in because of their lack of preparation and going off alone. Although that may have ended the character's storyline, the player's next character was more of a team player and it fixed the session flow. Sometimes, the way to encourage the lone wolf type is to remind them that they *can't* always go it alone- they might need a rogue to pick locks, a sorcerer or bard to talk their way into places, a fighter or barbarian to perform acts of strength, etc. Give them situations where they would want to ask another party member for help, but without necessarily saying "No, you can't do that." If you get stuck on a problem you can't solve, and you don't give them an "easy" out that they can deal with on their own, it might encourage them to play together with the rest of the party. Worst case scenario, they wind up over their head in combat and get captured/killed and get to learn the lesson the hard way.
Splitting the party is perfectly fine game play if it's an agreed upon strategy and the DM can support it. Investigations, as SquireZed is saying I think, are perfect for "dividing and conquering". Real investigators "canvas" an area for witnesses, clues etc, and will divide up into smaller groups for task and purpose. A party procuring equipment and advice for a coming expedition would be another example. Sometimes team work requires splitting up, and DMs can juggle that (there's lots of D&D instructional videos on how to utilize cinematic "cut" styles to make sure everyone has adequate "screen time", cuts can also be used for dramatic tension).
The OPs dilemma isn't that. This is a character who is with a party on a course of action, decides "nope" and take self into a different direction. Some party members try to stick with him and when that happens, player decides "nope" and invents some other task to do on their own. On the second course redirection, as a DM I would have called foul, explain to the player that lone wolfing to the degree they're doing is indicative of a character who would have never been in a party in the first place, then launch into my "D&D is a team sport" pep talk and will then encourage the player to reintegrate with the group or I'll presume the character is sitting the session out for some "personal reasons'" or what have you. If they say there are things the character wants to do on their own, I'll tell them to write me a paragraph, just a paragraph, on what they think they're doing and we'll see how it plays out probably as a downtime skill check since the character is literally taking themselves into the background of the game's main action.
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for are fun, in-game ways to encourage everyone to stay together (other than death). Traps, curses, etc? Or maybe ways to allow everyone to separate from time to time... like Sending Stones.
I'd just make the world dangerous. Heroes have a lot of potential, and it makes sense for villains to stomp them out early. Make it clear that there are bounty hunters that would love to pick them off one by one as they split up. The best reason to stay together is because you are strong together.
I like the bounty hunter idea :) might also be sort of intimidating if I start making rolls behind the screen every time they wander off...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
I currently have a player in my campaign that seems completely uninterested in sticking with the party– and in fact, seems to change their mind and split off to do something else if the party tries to stay with them. I'm not necessarily bothered by this behavior, it's their character and their choice, after all! The thing that seems troublesome about it is trying to narrate two different portions of the story at the same time... one for what the player is doing, and one for the rest of the party. I imagine it's not very fun for any of the players to have to play this way.
So, what do you do if one of your players does this– do you set up traps to dissuade them from leaving the party? Or perhaps encourage their exploration and make it work for the rest of the team? Would love to hear your stories! :)
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
I would really love to hear people’s advice on this, bc none of my party will stay together. I’ve resorted to having them take turns to describe what they do with their day. Curse. You. Sandboxes.
Hi, I am not a chest. I deny with 100% certainty that I am a chest. I can neither confirm nor deny what I am beyond that.
I used to portray Krathian, Q'ilbrith, Jim, Tara, Turin, Nathan, Tench, Finn, Alvin, and other characters in various taverns.
I also do homebrew, check out my Spells and Magic Items
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons, even death may die"
I have a talk with them. Players need to buy in to the conceit of the game for it to work. Things don't work well if most of the players are trying to play a collaborative game and another player is constantly trying to derail that experience by trying to go off and do their own thing. It's rude.
At bare minimum, I would explain to the player that I would rather not have these disruptions in-game, if they choose to wander off, not to expect special treatment or rewards for this behavior unless it somehow fits in to or serves the narrative that I and the other players at the table are trying to weave.
I'm not opposed to party-splitting, as long as there is a relevant reason for it other than randomness or boredom. I would also ask the player if they are just not getting what they want out of the game and if that is what is causing them to break from the main story to try to force something they want instead. If I can accommodate the player, then it might resolve the issue. However, they need to be willing to work with me.
As with a lot of thing I think the answer is communication.
Firstly, ask the other players if this annoys them and if they would prefer the party to stick together.
And secondly speak to the player in question and explain how its disruptive and makes the session hard to run.
I think there's nothing wrong with players splitting off on occasion and going on their own little adventures, but I try to keep that to downtime activities and general investigative work, were you can spend a little time on each splinter group and it can be very fun. I think the problem arises when the whole party is trying to follow the main plot and one person is doing anything but that.
No idea if that is helpful, but I hope you work out how to make sure the whole table is having the most fun they can!
I think both of these are excellent points: communication with the player in question being key (as well as asking how the other players feel about their behavior). I definitely intend to speak with them all and make sure we can all continue to have fun :)
I suppose what I'm mainly looking for are fun, in-game ways to encourage everyone to stay together (other than death). Traps, curses, etc? Or maybe ways to allow everyone to separate from time to time... like Sending Stones.
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
Talk to them out of game. If that doesn’t work simply don’t give them the limelight. Just carry on with the main characters and plot. Give the player a brief description of what they see. Keep it neutral without any encounters or treasure etc and then leave the player sat there unable to join in with the main group or do anything until they come back to the party.
If the player changes their mind when the rest of the party go along with that player's original plan, then that player is probably trying to have a SOLO game rather than play in a co-operative MULTI-PLAYER game.
They just need to be told the difference between the two gaming styles.
You could try something to the effect of giving each player a half a hour of time, anytime the party splits. So if three players are staying together they get a hour and half, and he gets a half hour. Just make sure the time starts when he leaves the party, that way he can't take advantage of it.
You really just need to have a talk with them. This is part of the unspoken agreement when playing this kind of game.
The assumption is that you are going to play together and cooperate. Explain that when he constantly goes off solo it is forcing everyone else to be a passive audience to what ever he decided to go off to do on his own.
There is nothing wrong when the party splits on occasion, especially when it makes sense narratively or they decide to do it as a group or are off just narrating what they do in their down time or in towns. However when one player constantly does it in dungeons or in combat they are really kind of breaking that unspoken agreement to play the game as a group cooperatively.
This kind of thing tends to happen with newer players and if that's the case it can really be fixed fast by giving them this kind of birds eye macro perspective of the game. Things like going off solo, stealing party loot, going murder hobo are some things that a lot of new players try without really understanding how it impacts the game. If they aren't a new player, or refuse to change, there is some chance they are the kind of person you don't want at your table.
Other than the talking option, which can help but is dependent on how much self-awareness the player has, remember that just because someone goes off on their own doesn't mean the adventure needs to follow. You can just ignore them. Or have them run into an encounter that's a fair challenge for the entire party and thus tramples them when they're solo.
This is what I’d do. Talk/warn, then consequences.
”Their character, their choice” only goes so far. At some point, they need to realize they are playing a game with a few other people, and it’s simply rude to make everyone else wait while they do their own thing.
And honestly, this seems like a pretty big red flag. I’d be really watching for other annoying behavior and consider kicking them if they don’t straighten up.
Pretty much in agreement with the consensus. "D&D is a team sport" if someone tries to invent themselves a solo spinoff, they'll see themselves fading into the background while the game focuses on the party. They're free to catch up as the ride leaves.
I actually do have the occasional bandwidth to allow PCs solo sidequest type opportunities, but I'd only want to brew that up for a player whose earned their distinction among the ensemble, and the idea would allow the PC to bring back something significant to the group (in other words, I have to like the player and it's gotta make sense). But that's not during group game time. Moreover most DMs probably don't have that luxury of time and inclination, so trying to turn an ensemble experience into a solo showcase is just bad sportsmanship (going back to the DM liking the player point).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Think I'd be asking myself if the player would preferer a solo campaign, personally I think I'd really dislike having to DM the situation you're describing but DM'ing a solo campaign with them is something I might find far more enjoyable.
Obviously you need to talk with them, interesting what the players motivation behind it is am thinking it either "I'm not really close with the other players" or "I'm a loner playing a lone wolf" or quite possibly " I want to play an evil character and kill sabotage the other players PC's" otherwise I can't make any sense of it, seems almost like just making DM life hard, would have thought that was bloomin obvious to everyone.
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
In my opinion, if a group wants to split up, then you should let them. They of course need to accept the understanding that they'll be in half as many of the scenes (or less), and that they've put an imposition on you to do a lot more work. If everyone is fine with that, then I think it can make for a perfectly good game. Especially when the two groups meet back up again and update each other on what they've accomplished.
Of course, if the reason that one player wants to peel off the group has nothing to do with advancing the plot, then maybe allow it, but suggest they turn that character into an NPC, and have them make a character who actually is invested in staying with the group.
If the party wants to split I let them. It's a valid tactic in many scenarios. The issue becomes then, what to do with this lonewolf player. If they are on a task that they belive will be an asset to the party and are acting in good faith, there's not much of a problem. So long as the player knows that sooner rather than later the group will need to be involved for something. Be it a decision, tactical assistance, healing, whatever.
If however the player insists that their path is the only "right way" to overcome the in game challenge and have decided to split themselves from the group, are acting on behalf of the group without their in game consent, or are just acting in bad faith, it's conversation time. Social contract, game and group expectations, all that jazz.
I find myself posting this quite frequently lately....
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I'd just make the world dangerous. Heroes have a lot of potential, and it makes sense for villains to stomp them out early. Make it clear that there are bounty hunters that would love to pick them off one by one as they split up. The best reason to stay together is because you are strong together.
Although I agree with the others that this needs some out of game discussion. The DM and the players need to be on the same page when it comes to expectations for the game.
I certainly wouldn't be cool with my party just deciding to split into 5 different storylines at once for the whole session, and honestly I don't know why they would either. I wouldn't sit through a 4 hour game just to have 30 minutes playing my character. To me that's just being disrespectful of everyone's time. If you want to play that way let's do it through email between sessions.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I've actually been trying to open up one of my storylines (basically, investigating a bunch of disappearances) to being open to splitting the party. It allows for the players to be in multiple places at once, which potentially allows them to cover more ground simultaneously, and it's mostly gone well because I've been careful to limit it (only two groups, fairly short interactions in each destination unless the party is all together). I think there are a few things that need to be very straightforward when it comes to splitting the party and how it impacts gameplay:
You can't split the party all the time. If you have a player that is *constantly* separate from the party, they're not playing in the same group. They might as well be playing a different campaign. If you want to work on a goal that the entire party shares, but do so in a different direction from the party, that's good and perhaps an interesting way to flesh out one character separate from the rest. However, if you're just playing a whole different game of D&D, that's a problem. It forces the DM to prepare much more content and balance around a loose cannon, which is unfair to the DM, and it takes away a bunch of time that could be "shared" together to focus on a single player doing something that the rest of the table doesn't care about. If your player absolutely refuses to do anything with the group, then you might need to have a heart to heart about the fact that you're DM'ing for a group, not just them, and you can't screw the rest of the group out of playing to run their own personal session in the middle of the group's scheduled session.
Time should be distributed roughly equitably. This doesn't always work out- sometimes some things just naturally flesh out more than others and take longer to get through, and that's fine, especially if it's not a frequent thing. But, if you have five players and one keeps running off, the four remaining players should receive the vast majority of screentime- about 4/5ths of the session time during the split- so that they're engaged and able to participate. A player shouldn't be rewarded with more session time because they want to focus specifically on their own character to the detriment of the rest. Now, you can do things to make this feel less bad and keep players engaged- rotate through the active group(s) by putting things on pause so that no one sits for inordinately long stretches of time- but ultimately if a player wants to go off on their own, one consequence is that they don't participate in the rest of the session. Don't focus so much on the player going off on their own that you forget the group is more important- it's surprisingly easy to do if you have a frustrating or show-stealing player.
You shouldn't coddle a player running off on their own. I was playing in a campaign once with a DM who I respect quite highly, and we had a player who wanted to go off alone. The DM, having done an obscene amount of prep, was entirely prepared to handle that, but the player, ironically, was not- they were killed a couple sessions in because of their lack of preparation and going off alone. Although that may have ended the character's storyline, the player's next character was more of a team player and it fixed the session flow. Sometimes, the way to encourage the lone wolf type is to remind them that they *can't* always go it alone- they might need a rogue to pick locks, a sorcerer or bard to talk their way into places, a fighter or barbarian to perform acts of strength, etc. Give them situations where they would want to ask another party member for help, but without necessarily saying "No, you can't do that." If you get stuck on a problem you can't solve, and you don't give them an "easy" out that they can deal with on their own, it might encourage them to play together with the rest of the party. Worst case scenario, they wind up over their head in combat and get captured/killed and get to learn the lesson the hard way.
Splitting the party is perfectly fine game play if it's an agreed upon strategy and the DM can support it. Investigations, as SquireZed is saying I think, are perfect for "dividing and conquering". Real investigators "canvas" an area for witnesses, clues etc, and will divide up into smaller groups for task and purpose. A party procuring equipment and advice for a coming expedition would be another example. Sometimes team work requires splitting up, and DMs can juggle that (there's lots of D&D instructional videos on how to utilize cinematic "cut" styles to make sure everyone has adequate "screen time", cuts can also be used for dramatic tension).
The OPs dilemma isn't that. This is a character who is with a party on a course of action, decides "nope" and take self into a different direction. Some party members try to stick with him and when that happens, player decides "nope" and invents some other task to do on their own. On the second course redirection, as a DM I would have called foul, explain to the player that lone wolfing to the degree they're doing is indicative of a character who would have never been in a party in the first place, then launch into my "D&D is a team sport" pep talk and will then encourage the player to reintegrate with the group or I'll presume the character is sitting the session out for some "personal reasons'" or what have you. If they say there are things the character wants to do on their own, I'll tell them to write me a paragraph, just a paragraph, on what they think they're doing and we'll see how it plays out probably as a downtime skill check since the character is literally taking themselves into the background of the game's main action.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like the bounty hunter idea :) might also be sort of intimidating if I start making rolls behind the screen every time they wander off...
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air, I am he that walks unseen.
Agreed. Sometimes the unspoken things need to be spoken.
Have a conversation with the player and the group.