Hey guys, looking for some advice on a situation and wanting to compare notes. This is by no means a unique problem to DnD but its getting to a point where its impeding on half of my party's fun/survivability.
I'm going to give a summary from last night's game:
4 lvl 10 PC's are supposed to protect an NPC. They completely ditched the NPC knowing that things are hunting said NPC for larger plot purposes. A shadowfell incursion (no enemies, no immediate danger) presented itself and they began to investigate. 2 of the players in the party really started to form their own game of DnD at the table: ignoring the other 2 players requests to stop and think, take caution etc, and rushed ahead into the incursion without their characters fully knowing what it is. The other 2 players were then on the backfoot and forced to play catchup and in the rush of things, forgot about the NPC they were supposed to protect.
They leave the incursion and return to see that the NPC was gone. In a panic, they use locate object to find some pieces of her belonging(s) and it is underground. They find themselves in an underground cultist amphitheater like place under the city. Every bit of foreshadowing of how much evil and danger was coming from this place was thrown at them, with their NPC companion even saying "i don't like this. We should reconsider" but the 2 players kept going. They stumble upon a ritual room but without the NPC that was kidnapped in sight. The 2 players, without gathering any information, are about to flashbang out and just kick the door in without the other 2 players being on board or even having a plan. The other 2 players had expressed to me that they were not having fun, that this is forcing their hand, and as a DM it's my job to facilitate and stop this kind of behavior, especially if it is impeding on others' fun. As a player and a DM, I feel like this behavior has potential to tear this game apart if it is not addressed very soon.
This encounter is beyond deadly, and there was never a scenario where it/the bad guys were going to come after them.
Some other factors to consider too:
the party kept forgetting that the NPC existed
Normally, this game plays on a weekday but people are exhausted playing. We switched to a Saturday and suddenly everyone is high energy and firing on all cylinders which changed a year long dynamic the game had.
I had mentioned to the party that because of the inconsistent schedule of things during the holidays and even before the holidays, that this would be a strictly RP session to make sure everyone just gets on the same page, but the 2 players kept pushing buttons once a clue had been presented.
We have not been able to play consistently in any capacity for the past 5 months until now and the game feels like a completely new one now that we have switched to a day that works for everyone (mostly). The dynamic had shifted overnight and some players were thrown off for this.
For context, some players were coming into game exhausted from work, low blood sugar, stressed etc due to the time constraints but now due to the time switch, they're at 100%.
One of the 2 players has a bad track record of splitting from the party in my game and other games and it has almost gotten his character killed in many situations, and now it is possibly going to drag the entire party into it. The other player was getting fed this energy and they decided to head off together in a moment of panic once the NPC was taken understandably. I have heard excuses of "this is what my character would do" from these players and I think by and large those arguments are paper thin.
More context: This party does not like to open up and talk about problems, but I have encouraged and had us talk about many issues at the table over time and each talk has made the game subsequently better. I believe all problems can be solved by talking it out, but this group is very averse to talking things out and have told me so before. But I am starting to feel like some of the players at the table are playing their own version of DnD/not understanding some DnD 101, even as we approach tier 3 of the game and have been playing for a year and its beginning to tear this game at the seams.
I'm thinking to myself that I can go one or two routes and this is where I'd like some feedback. I can either:
Address the concerns at the table, outright spell out that splitting the party and rushing in, especially at higher tiers, can be deadly and unforgiving
I also risk the idea that I am coddling these players and they aren't doing the critical thinking/reflecting themselves (i've had to do a lot of this so far, not sure if this is the norm or not). By this point in the game, I feel like I have had to give too much advice on what to do/how to interact with others and I'm starting to feel like im taken for granted and that im playing the game for them (which I don't want to do)
Or I can:
Just let them go in, their characters can likely get killed, and the other 2 party members can have a way to safely escape and live to fight another day
By doing this process, they learn by absolute pain and this can build resentment toward me for not having an understanding of a fundamental of party splits as they either roll up new characters and/or just quit the game altogether.
This game has been going for a year, and it has been a struggle on my end to keep everyone going with steady momentum. People tend to do their own thing and on top of that just not talk with each other. It came to a boiling point last night and I want to consider my options. I don't know if this was a failure on my end to telegraph more clearly, be overt about clues of danger, or is this on the players for not "getting it" by now. Let me know what you guys think
Regarding the player energy following the change of schedule, what you're now experiencing is what the players want the game to be like, and how they're going to play from now on. You need to adapt to that as DM. I don't think you can say things like "this would be a strictly RP session." The players get to dictate what their characters do and are key to what happens - your job as DM is to give them the world, the story hooks and mechanics, not to tell them what happens in a session. I do think you may be over-considering this - most people's day at work is not akin to running a double marathon.
Regarding the party splitting, these guys are playing level 10 characters. They've been playing them a long while. They should be fully aware that it's safer to go as a party, and if they split off from the group, then that's on them. However, as a DM you can make choices about what happens. You say that the room beyond the door is certain death for them: it simply doesn't have to be. You can change it to whatever you want. Your prior planning is only concrete so long as the game has gone the way you expected it to go. Why does this place exist if the party aren't ever meant to go there? Why did you put certain death into the game, and then allow clues to lead them there? You can either keep the challenge if you think it makes sense, and if they die they die, or you can just change what's behind the door.
Two of the players expressed that they aren't having fun. This is a serious problem, and one that you need to discuss with the table, no matter how averse they may be. The alternative is that one group doesn't enjoy itself. Why aren't they having fun? Could it be the case that actually the two players who are now having fun weren't having fun before? If they aren't having fun, then try to address it by asking what they want from a typical game. It sounds very much to me like two of your players want to play action adventure (when players want to do combats and feel peril, they'll often act recklessly if they feel they aren't otherwise being given access), and the others aren't really interested in that aspect. If that's the case, then the campaign is probably over and you should continue with whichever two players fit your play style more.
While you can talk to players about the concerns of splitting the party and what it involve for DM to manage it, it's always up to players in the end since they control their characters. I always try to keep players agency as best as i can and a good way i found to minimize splitting the party is to always reminds them of how it can be dangerous to do so and if they still do, resolve it as quickly as possible so they can get get back togheter.
Based on the other players coming and complaining, this is a table problem that should be addressed out of game. That said, I have had players who incessantly ran forward, and even if I punished that behavior, they didn't learn from their mistakes.
Disrupting the game because "it's what my character would do" is never acceptable behavior. If the other players are complaining, it's time to have a one-on-one discussion with the problem player and see if you can get them to agree to stop being disruptive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There are several factors at work here and the comments above address most of it. I just have a few additional comments.
1) Since some people have come to you and said they aren't having fun, then you need to talk about it. Player issues need to be resolved with the players, not in the game. Find out exactly what they aren't enjoying. Usually, when splitting the party is a common occurrence, the problem is that the players who aren't active spend long stretches of time bored and doing nothing. Their characters aren't in the scene, their characters are unaware of what is going on, one part of the group is happy getting to play in a very interactive smaller group and the other part is doing nothing.
The DM is always involved no matter what is going on so it can sometimes be harder for them to notice the issue, especially when the DM thinks they are swapping back and forth and fairly allocating time. However, one group could be spending 30 real minutes running a 30 second fight while the other group spends 30 real minutes on several hours of in game exploration or travel.
A split group is usually just not as much fun for anyone - DM or players. It will likely happen sometimes for plot reasons or character decisions but it shouldn't be a common occurrence.
This actually gets back to the "this is what my character would do" comment. Everyone's character is supposed to be in a party, working with their friends or acquaintances to achieve common goals, being there to help their team mates if they need it, heal them if they go down, assist with challenges or fight at their side. Why would ANY character travel or form a group with a character that is always wandering off, causing trouble, getting in fights that risk the lives of everyone in the party? The answer is, that unless there is some overwhelming back story reason to stick with other characters ... then the rest would just tell the character that isn't at least a minimum team player, that seems more interested in getting everyone killed than helping, to go away. There are other adventurers out there and the party can find a replacement that they can work with.
So ... a player that says "I am doing what my character would do" is setting up a situation where that character would not be a part of a party due to their attitudes or action. The simple answer is that the actions the character is taking aren't really "what my character would do" because the character would actually like to have friends or be in a party. On the other hand, maybe they continue to wander off and the player gets to make a new character because the one "who is doing what my character would do" just isn't enough of a team player.
This isn't to step on player agency in terms of character creation ... but there are lots of character concepts that just don't work as a party member unless the player makes sure that the character has some reason for prioritizing the party most of the time.
2) WHY parties split up is usually due to out of game reasons ...
Often, one or more characters are just tired of discussing what to do to reach a consensus. They just want to do SOMETHING and they want to do it NOW. So the player says "my character goes to investigate the planar rift, its what my character would do" (the fact that it isn't really what they would do most of the time was addressed above). Anyone else who is bored and wants to do something NOW joins them. These players are probably also figuring that if the DM put in something interesting then they are meant to go take a look. Why would the DM include anything that isn't interesting?
Other players have lots of reasons for NOT going with the ones who want to split. They might have their own plan. They might want to follow a different plot element provided by the DM (in this case, perhaps keep an eye on the NPC they are supposed to be guarding), they might simply not feel like being a follower and want to decide to do something different.
All it would take is for all the players to agree on one direction for the party to stick together.
The fact that the situations that each might encounter separately might be dangerous or deadly to the characters is often not a significant factor in the decision to split until afterwards.
Sometimes the party will split to achieve multiple goals at the same time as a part of a plan - that is a different sort of party splitting that is usually considered and tactical - and since everyone agreed, most everyone is on board with it.
3) Party splitting is usually the fault of the DM. What happens and any consequences are ALSO entirely up the DM. The players have no idea what is behind the next door or around the next corner.
The DM has either created a scenario that can be best dealt with if the party splits up (eg breaking into a safe house via both the front and back doors at the same time) OR the DM has placed multiple interesting hooks in front of the players at the same time and the players WANT to investigate them at the same time.
In the example here, the DM had the party guarding an NPC that they know the opponents want to kidnap AND the DM then gives the party a cool looking portal into the Shadowfell that may also be a significant threat. Which is the plot hook the party is supposed to follow?
From the description, it is hard to figure out exactly what happened. It sounds like two characters jumped into the shadowfell incursion, the other two felt pressured to follow, they all left the NPC behind. It is unclear whether 2 or 4 returned to check on the NPC and found them gone. Is it 2 or 4 that find the NPC is below the city? They then go to rescue the NPC (which honestly to me sounds like what the DM WANTS the characters to do given the setup, foreshadowing or not) with two characters again running ahead recklessly with the others apparently reluctantly following? (So far it doesn't sound like the party split, rather than specific players are bored and are making reckless decisions that could kill the rest of the party depending on the consequences the DM wants to impose AND the other players don't like it).
What happens is up to the DM.
- The players could find the NPC in a lightly guarded preparation room being readied for a ritual. They could see 100 high level cultists, 20 spellcasters, several high level monsters gathered in rows around an arena in the next room - with a lot of growling and cheering - make it clear to the party that their characters see this and KNOW they would not survive. The noise explains why their fight with guards was not noticed. The party could then choose to commit suicide and enter the arena (in which case game over) or they could try to slip out quickly and quietly with the rescued NPC.
- The players could find a preparation room opening on the room described above except in this case the NPC is in the middle of the arena about to be sacrificed. Any form of rescue is hopeless. The creatures at the ritual would destroy the party in the first combat round. The players get to watch their failure to guard the NPC result in the death (or whatever consequence) of the NPC. If the players still decided to try to intervene, the DM could decide that the creature would accept a party member as sacrifice instead of the NPC. Or maybe the party is taken prisoner for future sacrifices or other purposes.
- The players search for the NPC and find them sitting quietly in an empty room with no bad guys around and no memory of what they are doing there. The bad guys may have infected the NPC with a magical disease or planted some other sort of nasty surprise either in their body or mind. Up to the DM what happens.
There are an infinite number of possibilities of what happens even with the foreshadowing the DM has already supplied. So, "the party dying" is never a foregone conclusion.
In this case, the problem you need to resolve would appear to be a lack of consensus building in the party deciding what to do next and how to do it. Figuring out the next task without spending too long in that process or weighing every possibility since otherwise some of the players will get bored and want something to happen NOW.
I found myself immediately twigging here that this might be a problem built on your rigidity as a DM.
There's a lot of terrible advice out there for DMs especially when it comes to planning and designing the adventures. There are far too many people (WotC included) who frame the DM as a story-teller. They aren't the DM is part referee, part tour guide, part worldbuilder.
I agree with David42 here that splitting the party usually comes as a result of something the DM has done. And your early statement about what the party are 'supposed to do' highlights that nicely. I run two games set in the same adventure world but with their own adventures. Both game groups started out the same way, they had the same adventures for the most part. But something was going wrong with the second group. They weren't tackling challenges the same way. They were being a lot more chaotic and a lot less on engaged that the other party. I knew that the adventure and challenges were good though - the other party had no issues with them. It took me longer than I'm proud to admit to notice - the issue was me. I needed to be realising that no two groups are the same and that you need to understand the nature of each specific group you DM for. They won't all be the same.
The takeaway here is that if you have a party with a propensity for splitting up then offer environments where that works in their favour. Offer them a building with sprawling corridors around a main central room or hall. Have minor challenges in the outer areas, but have all corridors eventually meet at the hall. This way the two halves of the party can reunite and it presents a new challenge. Likewise, only you know what is beyond a door. That room, that location, it doesn't in anyway exist until you've described it to the party. And the beauty of that is that it allows you to change up what's behind that door.
In your example there is no reason there couldn't have been an antichamber where a guard was holding the NPC until they could be transferred to the correct prison/interrogation/ritual space. You have been inflexible there.
Of course it's not just on you. So, when I get this 50/50 split of party intentions, or when I see the party throwing out endless streams of suggestions I'll step in. Give the party a real world timer. They have two minutes per player to make a suggestion, after which we'll hear one suggestion from each player and we'll vote, one by one and the party agrees to go with majority vote. You can aid their process too by calling a bio-break if you feel it's needed. Everyone getting up and getting a drink and a snack can really aid them. It gives them all a moment to think in their heads what they want to suggest and when they come back they're able to refocus.
Players aren't stupid, but they can often get paralyzed by choices. It's the endless scrolling of netflix phenomenon. When you only have three channels to watch you'll watch something, anything, or very quickly decide to do something other than watch TV. When you have a virtually unlimited selection - paralysis often kicks in. Limiting choices (although many player's don't like hearing this) actually helps the players.
So, my suggestions: - Be more flexible in what is behind each door. - Design the environments and world not to suit you as a DM but to suit the playstyle of the players. - Use bio-breaks strategically, to help players take a break and come back fresh and focused. - If you are being less flexible and thinking in terms of 'what they're supposed to do', limit their options. Games do this all the time to aid with the navigation of their open world formats. - Finally, critically reflect on your world building and DM style. Is it actually working for this party. In other words - is the problem you, the player, or the group.
I found myself immediately twigging here that this might be a problem built on your rigidity as a DM.
Did you bother to actually read the OP? The problem isn't that he's failing to cope with players with a propensity for splitting up, the problem is that he's got two groups of players, one of which wants to rush forward, one of which wants to wait and plan.
In my experience this is actually a rather common split among players: there is substantial variance in how much thinking and planning they like to do, ranging from the 'leap first, look second' types to the 'spend multiple sessions working on the Perfect Plan' types, and this frequently results in player issues. Do a lot of planning, and the people who like less planning will get bored and either stop paying attention or start being disruptive. Do minimal planning, and you get a chaotic and inefficient game that annoys the people who like to plan and might be fairly ineffective at accomplishing goals. I would note that this does apply somewhat to the DM as well; if your adventures are carefully crafted challenges that need perfect planning, the leap first type will either produce a TPK or require some fancy footwork, and at the other end of things... too much planning can bore the DM too.
There's no perfect solution, but mixing things up so the action players can get their fix without disrupting longer term plans can help.
I found myself immediately twigging here that this might be a problem built on your rigidity as a DM.
Did you bother to actually read the OP? The problem isn't that he's failing to cope with players with a propensity for splitting up, the problem is that he's got two groups of players, one of which wants to rush forward, one of which wants to wait and plan.
In my experience this is actually a rather common split among players: there is substantial variance in how much thinking and planning they like to do, ranging from the 'leap first, look second' types to the 'spend multiple sessions working on the Perfect Plan' types, and this frequently results in player issues. Do a lot of planning, and the people who like less planning will get bored and either stop paying attention or start being disruptive. Do minimal planning, and you get a chaotic and inefficient game that annoys the people who like to plan and might be fairly ineffective at accomplishing goals. I would note that this does apply somewhat to the DM as well; if your adventures are carefully crafted challenges that need perfect planning, the leap first type will either produce a TPK or require some fancy footwork, and at the other end of things... too much planning can bore the DM too.
There's no perfect solution, but mixing things up so the action players can get their fix without disrupting longer term plans can help.
I did indeed read the OP. That's why I noticed talk of what players are supposed to be doing.
As I said in my post, a DM isn't a storyteller. Its part referee, part guide, part world builder. The vibe I got from that OP was a DM who is inflexible when it comes to their plans getting messed up. One unable to improvise to reflect the movements of players.
However, focusing on the planning propensities of different players, again there are tactics for DMs to employ. I wrote one such strategy above - tactical bio breaks. Intervening as a DM and asking the players to propose one plan each then getting the group to vote for one is a legitimate tactic. It allows everyone their say and more often that not does help in early stages of group formation.
Sadly, as DMs we kinda lead the early stages of the group formation and if we don't provide a scaffold for the party to lean on while they get to know each other - it'll make our jobs down the line so much more difficult. I stand by my assessment, this is a problem that can be resolved by the DM reflecting on their practice, as much as looking for problems with the players.
I found myself immediately twigging here that this might be a problem built on your rigidity as a DM.
Did you bother to actually read the OP? The problem isn't that he's failing to cope with players with a propensity for splitting up, the problem is that he's got two groups of players, one of which wants to rush forward, one of which wants to wait and plan.
In my experience this is actually a rather common split among players: there is substantial variance in how much thinking and planning they like to do, ranging from the 'leap first, look second' types to the 'spend multiple sessions working on the Perfect Plan' types, and this frequently results in player issues. Do a lot of planning, and the people who like less planning will get bored and either stop paying attention or start being disruptive. Do minimal planning, and you get a chaotic and inefficient game that annoys the people who like to plan and might be fairly ineffective at accomplishing goals. I would note that this does apply somewhat to the DM as well; if your adventures are carefully crafted challenges that need perfect planning, the leap first type will either produce a TPK or require some fancy footwork, and at the other end of things... too much planning can bore the DM too.
There's no perfect solution, but mixing things up so the action players can get their fix without disrupting longer term plans can help.
I did indeed read the OP. That's why I noticed talk of what players are supposed to be doing.
As I said in my post, a DM isn't a storyteller. Its part referee, part guide, part world builder. The vibe I got from that OP was a DM who is inflexible when it comes to their plans getting messed up. One unable to improvise to reflect the movements of players.
However, focusing on the planning propensities of different players, again there are tactics for DMs to employ. I wrote one such strategy above - tactical bio breaks. Intervening as a DM and asking the players to propose one plan each then getting the group to vote for one is a legitimate tactic. It allows everyone their say and more often that not does help in early stages of group formation.
Sadly, as DMs we kinda lead the early stages of the group formation and if we don't provide a scaffold for the party to lean on while they get to know each other - it'll make our jobs down the line so much more difficult. I stand by my assessment, this is a problem that can be resolved by the DM reflecting on their practice, as much as looking for problems with the players.
So I can see the supposed to be part and why you could see that as being an issue.... that being said, to a degree even some modules are actually built certain ways (i.e protecting an npc). Now I don't want this to end up being turned into a silly conversation about whether modules or balanced... I am only bringing this up because if you managed to end up in an adventurer's guild situation you would expect to be at a table and play how the module "requires" (also when I say requires I'm using the most basic thought process here, in Curse of Strahd you have to protect Ireenna.... you don't and Strahd gets here... you fail... in this scenario, although maybe not drastic failure mind you, the job was to protect the npc... while I fully don't know the whole story of how that was set up... introducing something like that per se should not be considered a DM failure.
While a DM can and should adjust things to make things work for the players at the table and their composition, to a degree it might not be fun for them based on people's current choices and selections... that also doesn't mean they personally are a bad DM or should consider stopping.. it does mean they might not ultimately fit for the group as a whole who exists at the table unless they can get on the same page.
To the OP: I do think, as a group, the whole table should have a discussion as to the game you would like to run, the game they would like to play, and if the game they are playing fills like a completely different game now that everyone has a night that works for them... maybe, tough as it is, reset the table and start a new story (you can also table what you currently have and figure out a way to tack it on to the new adventure).
I edited this post to add this: I think it's all about getting everyone on the same page, re-align everyone's expectations and try to get to find common ground so the group as a whole can have fun together, especially since you all found a day that has everyone excited.
There is some responsibility on the GM but player choices are player choices.
They know they are leaving the NPC behind. They know they are leaving half the party behind.
The GM gave warnings that bad things lie ahead but the jumpers want to jump.
Now the GM can pause action and ask the other two players if they want to catch up then handwave the process and bunch up the party again. So there is an out to half the party committing suicide. Even then the players might choose to stay back because they think running ahead is foolish.
They are all level 10. They know how to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys, looking for some advice on a situation and wanting to compare notes. This is by no means a unique problem to DnD but its getting to a point where its impeding on half of my party's fun/survivability.
I'm going to give a summary from last night's game:
4 lvl 10 PC's are supposed to protect an NPC. They completely ditched the NPC knowing that things are hunting said NPC for larger plot purposes. A shadowfell incursion (no enemies, no immediate danger) presented itself and they began to investigate. 2 of the players in the party really started to form their own game of DnD at the table: ignoring the other 2 players requests to stop and think, take caution etc, and rushed ahead into the incursion without their characters fully knowing what it is. The other 2 players were then on the backfoot and forced to play catchup and in the rush of things, forgot about the NPC they were supposed to protect.
They leave the incursion and return to see that the NPC was gone. In a panic, they use locate object to find some pieces of her belonging(s) and it is underground. They find themselves in an underground cultist amphitheater like place under the city. Every bit of foreshadowing of how much evil and danger was coming from this place was thrown at them, with their NPC companion even saying "i don't like this. We should reconsider" but the 2 players kept going. They stumble upon a ritual room but without the NPC that was kidnapped in sight. The 2 players, without gathering any information, are about to flashbang out and just kick the door in without the other 2 players being on board or even having a plan. The other 2 players had expressed to me that they were not having fun, that this is forcing their hand, and as a DM it's my job to facilitate and stop this kind of behavior, especially if it is impeding on others' fun. As a player and a DM, I feel like this behavior has potential to tear this game apart if it is not addressed very soon.
This encounter is beyond deadly, and there was never a scenario where it/the bad guys were going to come after them.
Some other factors to consider too:
One of the 2 players has a bad track record of splitting from the party in my game and other games and it has almost gotten his character killed in many situations, and now it is possibly going to drag the entire party into it. The other player was getting fed this energy and they decided to head off together in a moment of panic once the NPC was taken understandably. I have heard excuses of "this is what my character would do" from these players and I think by and large those arguments are paper thin.
More context: This party does not like to open up and talk about problems, but I have encouraged and had us talk about many issues at the table over time and each talk has made the game subsequently better. I believe all problems can be solved by talking it out, but this group is very averse to talking things out and have told me so before. But I am starting to feel like some of the players at the table are playing their own version of DnD/not understanding some DnD 101, even as we approach tier 3 of the game and have been playing for a year and its beginning to tear this game at the seams.
I'm thinking to myself that I can go one or two routes and this is where I'd like some feedback. I can either:
Or I can:
This game has been going for a year, and it has been a struggle on my end to keep everyone going with steady momentum. People tend to do their own thing and on top of that just not talk with each other. It came to a boiling point last night and I want to consider my options. I don't know if this was a failure on my end to telegraph more clearly, be overt about clues of danger, or is this on the players for not "getting it" by now. Let me know what you guys think
Regarding the player energy following the change of schedule, what you're now experiencing is what the players want the game to be like, and how they're going to play from now on. You need to adapt to that as DM. I don't think you can say things like "this would be a strictly RP session." The players get to dictate what their characters do and are key to what happens - your job as DM is to give them the world, the story hooks and mechanics, not to tell them what happens in a session. I do think you may be over-considering this - most people's day at work is not akin to running a double marathon.
Regarding the party splitting, these guys are playing level 10 characters. They've been playing them a long while. They should be fully aware that it's safer to go as a party, and if they split off from the group, then that's on them. However, as a DM you can make choices about what happens. You say that the room beyond the door is certain death for them: it simply doesn't have to be. You can change it to whatever you want. Your prior planning is only concrete so long as the game has gone the way you expected it to go. Why does this place exist if the party aren't ever meant to go there? Why did you put certain death into the game, and then allow clues to lead them there? You can either keep the challenge if you think it makes sense, and if they die they die, or you can just change what's behind the door.
Two of the players expressed that they aren't having fun. This is a serious problem, and one that you need to discuss with the table, no matter how averse they may be. The alternative is that one group doesn't enjoy itself. Why aren't they having fun? Could it be the case that actually the two players who are now having fun weren't having fun before? If they aren't having fun, then try to address it by asking what they want from a typical game. It sounds very much to me like two of your players want to play action adventure (when players want to do combats and feel peril, they'll often act recklessly if they feel they aren't otherwise being given access), and the others aren't really interested in that aspect. If that's the case, then the campaign is probably over and you should continue with whichever two players fit your play style more.
While you can talk to players about the concerns of splitting the party and what it involve for DM to manage it, it's always up to players in the end since they control their characters. I always try to keep players agency as best as i can and a good way i found to minimize splitting the party is to always reminds them of how it can be dangerous to do so and if they still do, resolve it as quickly as possible so they can get get back togheter.
Based on the other players coming and complaining, this is a table problem that should be addressed out of game. That said, I have had players who incessantly ran forward, and even if I punished that behavior, they didn't learn from their mistakes.
Disrupting the game because "it's what my character would do" is never acceptable behavior. If the other players are complaining, it's time to have a one-on-one discussion with the problem player and see if you can get them to agree to stop being disruptive.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Do dumb things, win dumb prizes. If the jump into a fight that is too hard even after warning them about it, let them fight, and let them die.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There are several factors at work here and the comments above address most of it. I just have a few additional comments.
1) Since some people have come to you and said they aren't having fun, then you need to talk about it. Player issues need to be resolved with the players, not in the game. Find out exactly what they aren't enjoying. Usually, when splitting the party is a common occurrence, the problem is that the players who aren't active spend long stretches of time bored and doing nothing. Their characters aren't in the scene, their characters are unaware of what is going on, one part of the group is happy getting to play in a very interactive smaller group and the other part is doing nothing.
The DM is always involved no matter what is going on so it can sometimes be harder for them to notice the issue, especially when the DM thinks they are swapping back and forth and fairly allocating time. However, one group could be spending 30 real minutes running a 30 second fight while the other group spends 30 real minutes on several hours of in game exploration or travel.
A split group is usually just not as much fun for anyone - DM or players. It will likely happen sometimes for plot reasons or character decisions but it shouldn't be a common occurrence.
This actually gets back to the "this is what my character would do" comment. Everyone's character is supposed to be in a party, working with their friends or acquaintances to achieve common goals, being there to help their team mates if they need it, heal them if they go down, assist with challenges or fight at their side. Why would ANY character travel or form a group with a character that is always wandering off, causing trouble, getting in fights that risk the lives of everyone in the party? The answer is, that unless there is some overwhelming back story reason to stick with other characters ... then the rest would just tell the character that isn't at least a minimum team player, that seems more interested in getting everyone killed than helping, to go away. There are other adventurers out there and the party can find a replacement that they can work with.
So ... a player that says "I am doing what my character would do" is setting up a situation where that character would not be a part of a party due to their attitudes or action. The simple answer is that the actions the character is taking aren't really "what my character would do" because the character would actually like to have friends or be in a party. On the other hand, maybe they continue to wander off and the player gets to make a new character because the one "who is doing what my character would do" just isn't enough of a team player.
This isn't to step on player agency in terms of character creation ... but there are lots of character concepts that just don't work as a party member unless the player makes sure that the character has some reason for prioritizing the party most of the time.
2) WHY parties split up is usually due to out of game reasons ...
Often, one or more characters are just tired of discussing what to do to reach a consensus. They just want to do SOMETHING and they want to do it NOW. So the player says "my character goes to investigate the planar rift, its what my character would do" (the fact that it isn't really what they would do most of the time was addressed above). Anyone else who is bored and wants to do something NOW joins them. These players are probably also figuring that if the DM put in something interesting then they are meant to go take a look. Why would the DM include anything that isn't interesting?
Other players have lots of reasons for NOT going with the ones who want to split. They might have their own plan. They might want to follow a different plot element provided by the DM (in this case, perhaps keep an eye on the NPC they are supposed to be guarding), they might simply not feel like being a follower and want to decide to do something different.
All it would take is for all the players to agree on one direction for the party to stick together.
The fact that the situations that each might encounter separately might be dangerous or deadly to the characters is often not a significant factor in the decision to split until afterwards.
Sometimes the party will split to achieve multiple goals at the same time as a part of a plan - that is a different sort of party splitting that is usually considered and tactical - and since everyone agreed, most everyone is on board with it.
3) Party splitting is usually the fault of the DM. What happens and any consequences are ALSO entirely up the DM. The players have no idea what is behind the next door or around the next corner.
The DM has either created a scenario that can be best dealt with if the party splits up (eg breaking into a safe house via both the front and back doors at the same time) OR the DM has placed multiple interesting hooks in front of the players at the same time and the players WANT to investigate them at the same time.
In the example here, the DM had the party guarding an NPC that they know the opponents want to kidnap AND the DM then gives the party a cool looking portal into the Shadowfell that may also be a significant threat. Which is the plot hook the party is supposed to follow?
From the description, it is hard to figure out exactly what happened. It sounds like two characters jumped into the shadowfell incursion, the other two felt pressured to follow, they all left the NPC behind. It is unclear whether 2 or 4 returned to check on the NPC and found them gone. Is it 2 or 4 that find the NPC is below the city? They then go to rescue the NPC (which honestly to me sounds like what the DM WANTS the characters to do given the setup, foreshadowing or not) with two characters again running ahead recklessly with the others apparently reluctantly following? (So far it doesn't sound like the party split, rather than specific players are bored and are making reckless decisions that could kill the rest of the party depending on the consequences the DM wants to impose AND the other players don't like it).
What happens is up to the DM.
- The players could find the NPC in a lightly guarded preparation room being readied for a ritual. They could see 100 high level cultists, 20 spellcasters, several high level monsters gathered in rows around an arena in the next room - with a lot of growling and cheering - make it clear to the party that their characters see this and KNOW they would not survive. The noise explains why their fight with guards was not noticed. The party could then choose to commit suicide and enter the arena (in which case game over) or they could try to slip out quickly and quietly with the rescued NPC.
- The players could find a preparation room opening on the room described above except in this case the NPC is in the middle of the arena about to be sacrificed. Any form of rescue is hopeless. The creatures at the ritual would destroy the party in the first combat round. The players get to watch their failure to guard the NPC result in the death (or whatever consequence) of the NPC. If the players still decided to try to intervene, the DM could decide that the creature would accept a party member as sacrifice instead of the NPC. Or maybe the party is taken prisoner for future sacrifices or other purposes.
- The players search for the NPC and find them sitting quietly in an empty room with no bad guys around and no memory of what they are doing there. The bad guys may have infected the NPC with a magical disease or planted some other sort of nasty surprise either in their body or mind. Up to the DM what happens.
There are an infinite number of possibilities of what happens even with the foreshadowing the DM has already supplied. So, "the party dying" is never a foregone conclusion.
In this case, the problem you need to resolve would appear to be a lack of consensus building in the party deciding what to do next and how to do it. Figuring out the next task without spending too long in that process or weighing every possibility since otherwise some of the players will get bored and want something to happen NOW.
I found myself immediately twigging here that this might be a problem built on your rigidity as a DM.
There's a lot of terrible advice out there for DMs especially when it comes to planning and designing the adventures. There are far too many people (WotC included) who frame the DM as a story-teller. They aren't the DM is part referee, part tour guide, part worldbuilder.
I agree with David42 here that splitting the party usually comes as a result of something the DM has done. And your early statement about what the party are 'supposed to do' highlights that nicely. I run two games set in the same adventure world but with their own adventures. Both game groups started out the same way, they had the same adventures for the most part. But something was going wrong with the second group. They weren't tackling challenges the same way. They were being a lot more chaotic and a lot less on engaged that the other party. I knew that the adventure and challenges were good though - the other party had no issues with them. It took me longer than I'm proud to admit to notice - the issue was me. I needed to be realising that no two groups are the same and that you need to understand the nature of each specific group you DM for. They won't all be the same.
The takeaway here is that if you have a party with a propensity for splitting up then offer environments where that works in their favour. Offer them a building with sprawling corridors around a main central room or hall. Have minor challenges in the outer areas, but have all corridors eventually meet at the hall. This way the two halves of the party can reunite and it presents a new challenge. Likewise, only you know what is beyond a door. That room, that location, it doesn't in anyway exist until you've described it to the party. And the beauty of that is that it allows you to change up what's behind that door.
In your example there is no reason there couldn't have been an antichamber where a guard was holding the NPC until they could be transferred to the correct prison/interrogation/ritual space. You have been inflexible there.
Of course it's not just on you. So, when I get this 50/50 split of party intentions, or when I see the party throwing out endless streams of suggestions I'll step in. Give the party a real world timer. They have two minutes per player to make a suggestion, after which we'll hear one suggestion from each player and we'll vote, one by one and the party agrees to go with majority vote. You can aid their process too by calling a bio-break if you feel it's needed. Everyone getting up and getting a drink and a snack can really aid them. It gives them all a moment to think in their heads what they want to suggest and when they come back they're able to refocus.
Players aren't stupid, but they can often get paralyzed by choices. It's the endless scrolling of netflix phenomenon. When you only have three channels to watch you'll watch something, anything, or very quickly decide to do something other than watch TV. When you have a virtually unlimited selection - paralysis often kicks in. Limiting choices (although many player's don't like hearing this) actually helps the players.
So, my suggestions:
- Be more flexible in what is behind each door.
- Design the environments and world not to suit you as a DM but to suit the playstyle of the players.
- Use bio-breaks strategically, to help players take a break and come back fresh and focused.
- If you are being less flexible and thinking in terms of 'what they're supposed to do', limit their options. Games do this all the time to aid with the navigation of their open world formats.
- Finally, critically reflect on your world building and DM style. Is it actually working for this party. In other words - is the problem you, the player, or the group.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Did you bother to actually read the OP? The problem isn't that he's failing to cope with players with a propensity for splitting up, the problem is that he's got two groups of players, one of which wants to rush forward, one of which wants to wait and plan.
In my experience this is actually a rather common split among players: there is substantial variance in how much thinking and planning they like to do, ranging from the 'leap first, look second' types to the 'spend multiple sessions working on the Perfect Plan' types, and this frequently results in player issues. Do a lot of planning, and the people who like less planning will get bored and either stop paying attention or start being disruptive. Do minimal planning, and you get a chaotic and inefficient game that annoys the people who like to plan and might be fairly ineffective at accomplishing goals. I would note that this does apply somewhat to the DM as well; if your adventures are carefully crafted challenges that need perfect planning, the leap first type will either produce a TPK or require some fancy footwork, and at the other end of things... too much planning can bore the DM too.
There's no perfect solution, but mixing things up so the action players can get their fix without disrupting longer term plans can help.
I did indeed read the OP. That's why I noticed talk of what players are supposed to be doing.
As I said in my post, a DM isn't a storyteller. Its part referee, part guide, part world builder. The vibe I got from that OP was a DM who is inflexible when it comes to their plans getting messed up. One unable to improvise to reflect the movements of players.
However, focusing on the planning propensities of different players, again there are tactics for DMs to employ. I wrote one such strategy above - tactical bio breaks. Intervening as a DM and asking the players to propose one plan each then getting the group to vote for one is a legitimate tactic. It allows everyone their say and more often that not does help in early stages of group formation.
Sadly, as DMs we kinda lead the early stages of the group formation and if we don't provide a scaffold for the party to lean on while they get to know each other - it'll make our jobs down the line so much more difficult. I stand by my assessment, this is a problem that can be resolved by the DM reflecting on their practice, as much as looking for problems with the players.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
So I can see the supposed to be part and why you could see that as being an issue.... that being said, to a degree even some modules are actually built certain ways (i.e protecting an npc). Now I don't want this to end up being turned into a silly conversation about whether modules or balanced... I am only bringing this up because if you managed to end up in an adventurer's guild situation you would expect to be at a table and play how the module "requires" (also when I say requires I'm using the most basic thought process here, in Curse of Strahd you have to protect Ireenna.... you don't and Strahd gets here... you fail... in this scenario, although maybe not drastic failure mind you, the job was to protect the npc... while I fully don't know the whole story of how that was set up... introducing something like that per se should not be considered a DM failure.
While a DM can and should adjust things to make things work for the players at the table and their composition, to a degree it might not be fun for them based on people's current choices and selections... that also doesn't mean they personally are a bad DM or should consider stopping.. it does mean they might not ultimately fit for the group as a whole who exists at the table unless they can get on the same page.
To the OP: I do think, as a group, the whole table should have a discussion as to the game you would like to run, the game they would like to play, and if the game they are playing fills like a completely different game now that everyone has a night that works for them... maybe, tough as it is, reset the table and start a new story (you can also table what you currently have and figure out a way to tack it on to the new adventure).
I edited this post to add this: I think it's all about getting everyone on the same page, re-align everyone's expectations and try to get to find common ground so the group as a whole can have fun together, especially since you all found a day that has everyone excited.
I wish you the best of luck.
There is some responsibility on the GM but player choices are player choices.
They know they are leaving the NPC behind. They know they are leaving half the party behind.
The GM gave warnings that bad things lie ahead but the jumpers want to jump.
Now the GM can pause action and ask the other two players if they want to catch up then handwave the process and bunch up the party again. So there is an out to half the party committing suicide. Even then the players might choose to stay back because they think running ahead is foolish.
They are all level 10. They know how to play.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale