Would you enjoy this? Please explain the how and why.
The DM has a dungeon, or a few (2-3 tops), that are specifically designed to split the party and isolate people and has designed CR appropriate 1 on 1 battles, or puzzles and traps and such designed for the characters once split, and these have to be completed to progress to either story (for 1) or optional treasure (for the other 1-2).
Adventuring as a party has always been about keeping the party together, primarily in a dangerous area. Going alone feels so wrong, I think the party wouldn’t even be able to comprehend they were being forced to split up unless the DM said so straight up. Then it would feel like the DM saying “When I kill you, I don’t want anyone around to be able to help.”
I like the concept. It sounds potentially fun. Each character gets the moment in the spotlight and all that.
The problem is that while person A is in the spotlight, B, C, D, and E are just sitting there listening and not doing anything. Can't do anything without meta-gaming. If each character has, say, a 10 minute mission to do, then with a 5-player team, the other guys have to wait 40 minutes to get their turn. Or after having already gone, have to wait 30 or 40 minutes till their next turn. And so on.
Consequently every time I have split up the party and done individual side-quests, as a GM, I've come to regret it... as the other players doze off, get bored, etc. And this was back in the 1980s before the advent of smartphones. Today I'd imagine them just getting on their smartphone and shopping or something while waiting for their turn to come around.
So I'd say this -- it can be done, and it can be cool, but you have to find some way to keep the non-spotlight people engaged. One way I've seen it work is to split them into pairs instead of singles. And give each pair something to work on. So while person A and B are working out a lever puzzle on their own in the corner, C and D are with me as a GM trying to disarm a trap. This gives everyone something to do and helps prevent boredom.
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.
I like the concept. It sounds potentially fun. Each character gets the moment in the spotlight and all that.
The problem is that while person A is in the spotlight, B, C, D, and E are just sitting there listening and not doing anything. Can't do anything without meta-gaming. If each character has, say, a 10 minute mission to do, then with a 5-player team, the other guys have to wait 40 minutes to get their turn. Or after having already gone, have to wait 30 or 40 minutes till their next turn. And so on.
Consequently every time I have split up the party and done individual side-quests, as a GM, I've come to regret it... as the other players doze off, get bored, etc. And this was back in the 1980s before the advent of smartphones. Today I'd imagine them just getting on their smartphone and shopping or something while waiting for their turn to come around.
So I'd say this -- it can be done, and it can be cool, but you have to find some way to keep the non-spotlight people engaged. One way I've seen it work is to split them into pairs instead of singles. And give each pair something to work on. So while person A and B are working out a lever puzzle on their own in the corner, C and D are with me as a GM trying to disarm a trap. This gives everyone something to do and helps prevent boredom.
I like the concept. It sounds potentially fun. Each character gets the moment in the spotlight and all that.
The problem is that while person A is in the spotlight, B, C, D, and E are just sitting there listening and not doing anything. Can't do anything without meta-gaming. If each character has, say, a 10 minute mission to do, then with a 5-player team, the other guys have to wait 40 minutes to get their turn. Or after having already gone, have to wait 30 or 40 minutes till their next turn. And so on.
Consequently every time I have split up the party and done individual side-quests, as a GM, I've come to regret it... as the other players doze off, get bored, etc. And this was back in the 1980s before the advent of smartphones. Today I'd imagine them just getting on their smartphone and shopping or something while waiting for their turn to come around.
So I'd say this -- it can be done, and it can be cool, but you have to find some way to keep the non-spotlight people engaged. One way I've seen it work is to split them into pairs instead of singles. And give each pair something to work on. So while person A and B are working out a lever puzzle on their own in the corner, C and D are with me as a GM trying to disarm a trap. This gives everyone something to do and helps prevent boredom.
without going into too much detail, in case they ever come on here and see this and spoil the surprise...
task A, cannot be completed unless something specific happens in task D, the task D thing requires an action from both task B and Task F.
theres a lot of bouncing back and forth. It’s not like your perceived 10-20 minutes in the spotlight
its more like. 10-20 spotlights, for each person, of 1-3 minutes long.edit: I even have chess clocks to track the time each person has spent, on my end, for things to keep the timelines accurate. Which means maybe someone moves slower, so somethings doesn’t happen when a player expects it to, so now they get told something like “nothing happens, what do you do?”
I advise caution. As has probably been mentioned in other comments (didn't even try to read them), balancing attention given to players can be difficult. Not all players enjoy sitting on the side and watching others do stuff without them (cue pulling out phones).
If the players are cool with the idea and enjoy watching the other characters play (perhaps a heavy "in character" group), then by all means go ahead.
Even at 1-3 minutes, there’s decent length stretches of not doing anything.
And make sure there’s a back up solution. If I’m understanding correctly, if one person fails (an unlucky die roll and the rogue can’t pick the lock, or the fighter drops in combat) everyone else is left staring at the walls, since that one failure means the next person can’t do their thing, and then there’s a cascading effect. One of the advantages of a group is if one person fails, the others are there to pick up the slack. If they’re separated, there’s no one to help them.
I think this can definitely be cool, I think I'd run it like combat, everyone rolls initiative and then gets to take an action in their respective locations, whether that means combat, roleplaying, whatever. It would be no more downtime between players than there would be in combat.
We had a dungeon like this in my current campaign, and it was pretty intriguing. The dungeon was actually a trial set by the Gods to test our worth, and part of the trial involved each of us entering down different hallways where we were tested by illusions tailored to our characters' specific backstories. There wasn't a lot of skill challenges and the combat at the end of each characters hallway was more about learning to resolve conflicts without simply relying on violence... it was 90% just roleplay challenges. It was a good way to help all the players evolve a bit and think more about their characters, but I'd imagine that in a roleplay-lite campaign this would be a huge bummer.
If a player checks out then they may miss something from the others and it fall apart. It's extremely difficult to bounce back and fourth and keep everyone engage. Heck even when everyone is together sometimes keeping people engaged can be hard. You know your players the best though and you know your skills as a DM so assess carefully and decide if you want to do it. The problem is if task A requires something from task D and task D checks out it affects more than just one person. In combat my players know if they aren't ready they automatically take the dodge action and get skipped. But in this scenario there isn't a reason to keep someone entertained if you spend more than 5 minutes on others and they can't do anything.
Even at 1-3 minutes, there’s decent length stretches of not doing anything.
And make sure there’s a back up solution. If I’m understanding correctly, if one person fails (an unlucky die roll and the rogue can’t pick the lock, or the fighter drops in combat) everyone else is left staring at the walls, since that one failure means the next person can’t do their thing, and then there’s a cascading effect. One of the advantages of a group is if one person fails, the others are there to pick up the slack. If they’re separated, there’s no one to help them.
I think this can definitely be cool, I think I'd run it like combat, everyone rolls initiative and then gets to take an action in their respective locations, whether that means combat, roleplaying, whatever. It would be no more downtime between players than there would be in combat.
Seeing how most people want to make comments or suugestions on assumptions about my group. Vs, answering the question of "would YOU like it as a player", I will provide details of the group.
We are all 28-56 years old.
There are 3 girls 4 males (myself included)
It's a cellphone free group. no cells at the table, we bring potluck food, 3 of us have very young children as well who "playdate" during this time too.
The sessions are typically 8 hours long.
Some of us are engineers, we have access to 3-d printers, there's a specific room set up that's akin to "full immersion". Even if we couldn't just 3-d print out all thats neeeded, its quite easy for the group of us, to just gather togethr 7 tablets, with individual maps and grids and such of the dungeon, for each player to be handed as the time is right, so they can see their portion and their portion only. I have clue cards, i have notes written in paper in "actual dwarven" or whatever language, with QR codes set up, that can be scanned by the tablets and translated, if they don't already use their language translation cue cards to begin with.
We are a group that takes our D&D quite beyond the casual level. we're people that travel to, and dress up for, comic cons. Some do part-time renaissance fair work, the gnome wizard in particular is a professional Jouster as well as his day job.
The group consists in game of: Tabaxi Swashbuckler, Wood Elf circle of Shepard Druid, Forest Gnome Divination Wizard, Kenku Wild Magic Sorcerer, Dragonborn Conquest Paladin, Halfling Arcane Trickster, Human Champion - dex based archery focused. I could give further backgrounds and such too if that makes any impact of how THEIR CHARACTERS would effect YOUR PERSONAL experience.
You guys remember FF IV (2 NA), for SNES, when Cecil goes in after defeating Scarmiglione, and has his "paladin trial" - Ever seen that done in a game, when a Paladin seems to be wavering on their tenets? well... if you were in our group, you would.
Shaylic, DxJxC - SO. now that you know about THEM. would YOU, enjoy it as a player? as per the question. I know my group would... I am doing this per request, because it was requested to make the dungeons more troublesome, more challenging. And this seems to me a perfect way to do so, while doing char growth and development RP moments.
DxJxC - SO. now that you know about THEM. would YOU, enjoy it as a player? as per the question. I know my group would... I am doing this per request, because it was requested to make the dungeons more troublesome, more challenging. And this seems to me a perfect way to do so, while doing char growth and development RP moments.
I would probably enjoy it just fine. I am the kind of player that likes watching other PCs have their personal moments.
Obviously, it does depend on the group. My group does have a few players that zone out when their character is not in scene.
Would you enjoy this? Please explain the how and why.
The DM has a dungeon, or a few (2-3 tops), that are specifically designed to split the party and isolate people and has designed CR appropriate 1 on 1 battles, or puzzles and traps and such designed for the characters once split, and these have to be completed to progress to either story (for 1) or optional treasure (for the other 1-2).
In a vacuum, it could be fun. In practice, what will the logistics look like? I've seen games where players lose interest in what is going on unless it's there turn. My gut feeling is that this would either require a DM for each group that is split off or individual sessions for each group. Otherwise, I fear that it would 1) not feel different enough to really make an impact, 2) would take too long between players to keep everyone engaged, or 3) feel too disjointed to make a coherent narrative. 1 & 3 are basically concerned with the detail available between players to set the scene. 2 is concerned with getting the detail right but losing the other players.
With the right group, this could be awesome. My guess is that a fair share of groups would find that it falls flat. It sounds like you're planning on sticking to the 1 & 3 range of my possible concerns and that you're planning on having it be more RP than combat/skill based (from your FFIV reference). I'd be intrigued at the least, but it could go either way.
I'll throw in again - sure, I think it would be fun if executed well. Basically - even if it's not combat, have everyone roll initiative and take turns to keep it all moving, so it's not "watch the rogue spend an hour checking a room for traps and secret doors and try to figure out if that bookcase is a mimic." :)
I might suggest giving the players a way to communicate in game with each other while separated to keep them engaged. Like they are separated by iron bars or some such, or hell, a communication device/spell. That way, if one party needs to complete something in one room for something to happen in another, they can communicate to relay results and such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would you enjoy this? Please explain the how and why.
The DM has a dungeon, or a few (2-3 tops), that are specifically designed to split the party and isolate people and has designed CR appropriate 1 on 1 battles, or puzzles and traps and such designed for the characters once split, and these have to be completed to progress to either story (for 1) or optional treasure (for the other 1-2).
Adventuring as a party has always been about keeping the party together, primarily in a dangerous area. Going alone feels so wrong, I think the party wouldn’t even be able to comprehend they were being forced to split up unless the DM said so straight up. Then it would feel like the DM saying “When I kill you, I don’t want anyone around to be able to help.”
That sounds fun! You could tailor the encounters to the player’s needs.
jack l p
That’s my intention in my idea.
I like the concept. It sounds potentially fun. Each character gets the moment in the spotlight and all that.
The problem is that while person A is in the spotlight, B, C, D, and E are just sitting there listening and not doing anything. Can't do anything without meta-gaming. If each character has, say, a 10 minute mission to do, then with a 5-player team, the other guys have to wait 40 minutes to get their turn. Or after having already gone, have to wait 30 or 40 minutes till their next turn. And so on.
Consequently every time I have split up the party and done individual side-quests, as a GM, I've come to regret it... as the other players doze off, get bored, etc. And this was back in the 1980s before the advent of smartphones. Today I'd imagine them just getting on their smartphone and shopping or something while waiting for their turn to come around.
So I'd say this -- it can be done, and it can be cool, but you have to find some way to keep the non-spotlight people engaged. One way I've seen it work is to split them into pairs instead of singles. And give each pair something to work on. So while person A and B are working out a lever puzzle on their own in the corner, C and D are with me as a GM trying to disarm a trap. This gives everyone something to do and helps prevent boredom.
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.
That’s really smart!
jack l p
without going into too much detail, in case they ever come on here and see this and spoil the surprise...
task A, cannot be completed unless something specific happens in task D, the task D thing requires an action from both task B and Task F.
theres a lot of bouncing back and forth. It’s not like your perceived 10-20 minutes in the spotlight
its more like. 10-20 spotlights, for each person, of 1-3 minutes long.edit: I even have chess clocks to track the time each person has spent, on my end, for things to keep the timelines accurate. Which means maybe someone moves slower, so somethings doesn’t happen when a player expects it to, so now they get told something like “nothing happens, what do you do?”
I advise caution. As has probably been mentioned in other comments (didn't even try to read them), balancing attention given to players can be difficult. Not all players enjoy sitting on the side and watching others do stuff without them (cue pulling out phones).
If the players are cool with the idea and enjoy watching the other characters play (perhaps a heavy "in character" group), then by all means go ahead.
Even at 1-3 minutes, there’s decent length stretches of not doing anything.
And make sure there’s a back up solution. If I’m understanding correctly, if one person fails (an unlucky die roll and the rogue can’t pick the lock, or the fighter drops in combat) everyone else is left staring at the walls, since that one failure means the next person can’t do their thing, and then there’s a cascading effect. One of the advantages of a group is if one person fails, the others are there to pick up the slack. If they’re separated, there’s no one to help them.
I think this can definitely be cool, I think I'd run it like combat, everyone rolls initiative and then gets to take an action in their respective locations, whether that means combat, roleplaying, whatever. It would be no more downtime between players than there would be in combat.
We had a dungeon like this in my current campaign, and it was pretty intriguing. The dungeon was actually a trial set by the Gods to test our worth, and part of the trial involved each of us entering down different hallways where we were tested by illusions tailored to our characters' specific backstories. There wasn't a lot of skill challenges and the combat at the end of each characters hallway was more about learning to resolve conflicts without simply relying on violence... it was 90% just roleplay challenges. It was a good way to help all the players evolve a bit and think more about their characters, but I'd imagine that in a roleplay-lite campaign this would be a huge bummer.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If a player checks out then they may miss something from the others and it fall apart. It's extremely difficult to bounce back and fourth and keep everyone engage. Heck even when everyone is together sometimes keeping people engaged can be hard. You know your players the best though and you know your skills as a DM so assess carefully and decide if you want to do it. The problem is if task A requires something from task D and task D checks out it affects more than just one person. In combat my players know if they aren't ready they automatically take the dodge action and get skipped. But in this scenario there isn't a reason to keep someone entertained if you spend more than 5 minutes on others and they can't do anything.
Your secret is safe with my indifference - Percy
I just came in to say... I've seen it done, and pretty well:
Grog's One-Shot: Bunions and Flagons
“message”
😉 seems like you are on the same page.
Seeing how most people want to make comments or suugestions on assumptions about my group. Vs, answering the question of "would YOU like it as a player", I will provide details of the group.
We are all 28-56 years old.
There are 3 girls 4 males (myself included)
It's a cellphone free group. no cells at the table, we bring potluck food, 3 of us have very young children as well who "playdate" during this time too.
The sessions are typically 8 hours long.
Some of us are engineers, we have access to 3-d printers, there's a specific room set up that's akin to "full immersion". Even if we couldn't just 3-d print out all thats neeeded, its quite easy for the group of us, to just gather togethr 7 tablets, with individual maps and grids and such of the dungeon, for each player to be handed as the time is right, so they can see their portion and their portion only. I have clue cards, i have notes written in paper in "actual dwarven" or whatever language, with QR codes set up, that can be scanned by the tablets and translated, if they don't already use their language translation cue cards to begin with.
We are a group that takes our D&D quite beyond the casual level. we're people that travel to, and dress up for, comic cons. Some do part-time renaissance fair work, the gnome wizard in particular is a professional Jouster as well as his day job.
The group consists in game of: Tabaxi Swashbuckler, Wood Elf circle of Shepard Druid, Forest Gnome Divination Wizard, Kenku Wild Magic Sorcerer, Dragonborn Conquest Paladin, Halfling Arcane Trickster, Human Champion - dex based archery focused. I could give further backgrounds and such too if that makes any impact of how THEIR CHARACTERS would effect YOUR PERSONAL experience.
You guys remember FF IV (2 NA), for SNES, when Cecil goes in after defeating Scarmiglione, and has his "paladin trial" - Ever seen that done in a game, when a Paladin seems to be wavering on their tenets? well... if you were in our group, you would.
Shaylic, DxJxC - SO. now that you know about THEM. would YOU, enjoy it as a player? as per the question. I know my group would... I am doing this per request, because it was requested to make the dungeons more troublesome, more challenging. And this seems to me a perfect way to do so, while doing char growth and development RP moments.
I would probably enjoy it just fine. I am the kind of player that likes watching other PCs have their personal moments.
Obviously, it does depend on the group. My group does have a few players that zone out when their character is not in scene.
In a vacuum, it could be fun. In practice, what will the logistics look like? I've seen games where players lose interest in what is going on unless it's there turn. My gut feeling is that this would either require a DM for each group that is split off or individual sessions for each group. Otherwise, I fear that it would 1) not feel different enough to really make an impact, 2) would take too long between players to keep everyone engaged, or 3) feel too disjointed to make a coherent narrative. 1 & 3 are basically concerned with the detail available between players to set the scene. 2 is concerned with getting the detail right but losing the other players.
With the right group, this could be awesome. My guess is that a fair share of groups would find that it falls flat. It sounds like you're planning on sticking to the 1 & 3 range of my possible concerns and that you're planning on having it be more RP than combat/skill based (from your FFIV reference). I'd be intrigued at the least, but it could go either way.
I'll throw in again - sure, I think it would be fun if executed well. Basically - even if it's not combat, have everyone roll initiative and take turns to keep it all moving, so it's not "watch the rogue spend an hour checking a room for traps and secret doors and try to figure out if that bookcase is a mimic." :)
I might suggest giving the players a way to communicate in game with each other while separated to keep them engaged. Like they are separated by iron bars or some such, or hell, a communication device/spell. That way, if one party needs to complete something in one room for something to happen in another, they can communicate to relay results and such.