I'm incorporating something into my campaign where the players can get some information if they go to point a but the lose out on information on point b or they can go to point b but they'll lose out on information on point a or they could split the party and lose out on nothing. Should I have an NPC say something seems odd or off and they should split the party or let them figure it out on their.
That's a good idea let there be a consequence of losing information but also make them feel like if they would have done the other thing it could have gone a lot worse. thanks, also thanks for the other pointers too.
My advice is, try to work it out differently so that they don't have to split the party. Except for very short periods, it's usually quite difficult to make a split party work out in game play. It's a common technique in writing to raise suspense -- you get to a cliffhanger with one point-of-view character, switch to another. Keep the reader hanging. But in game play, it means half the players are sitting there watching the other half play D&D. And we don't come to a session to watch D&D -- we come to play it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm incorporating something into my campaign where the players can get some information if they go to point a but the lose out on information on point b or they can go to point b but they'll lose out on information on point a or they could split the party and lose out on nothing. Should I have an NPC say something seems odd or off and they should split the party or let them figure it out on their.
That's a good idea let there be a consequence of losing information but also make them feel like if they would have done the other thing it could have gone a lot worse. thanks, also thanks for the other pointers too.
My advice is, try to work it out differently so that they don't have to split the party. Except for very short periods, it's usually quite difficult to make a split party work out in game play. It's a common technique in writing to raise suspense -- you get to a cliffhanger with one point-of-view character, switch to another. Keep the reader hanging. But in game play, it means half the players are sitting there watching the other half play D&D. And we don't come to a session to watch D&D -- we come to play it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.