So, the other day I was playing in a one-shot with a relatively new DM. He had some really good points and a couple of less great points, but one thing in particular bothered me (which wasn't really his fault but was compounded by his inexperience). After the intro, the party comes together to visit a circus. There were four of us, and we were offered three choices: a freak show, a gaming area and a circus show. Not liking gambling, I immediately voted for the freak show. The Paladin and Fighter agreed, while the Rogue decided to go in the game area, splitting the party.
The problem was...we were constantly switching back and forth, which really interfered with the progression of our story. Worse, while when the Paladin or Fighter did stuff it felt like my story was progressing (even when I was silent and doing nothing), it just felt like nothing was happening when the narrative was with the Rogue. Most likely because if I was quiet during a period in the freak show side of things, I could be thinking about my character and how he'd be reacting etc, while in the game area, there wasn't anything that I could do, and I was just sitting there waiting for him to finish. The most fun I had was when the party reunited to get into the plot itself - it was just a small part of the three hour session, maybe 20 minutes.
It's not being in the spotlight that bothered me, it just felt like it was two different games - and there's a reason why I don't watch a lot of Critical Roll. It's not that I wasn't the centre of attention - I think I actually got a larger share of the overall spotlight time than when the party was together - it just felt broken and like half the time was irrelevant to me and my character.
So, I guess, I have two questions:
Was my feeling reasonable? Or was I just being selfish or something? Sometimes it's hard to have perspective in these types of things.
What would you have done?
I didn't say anything at the time because I wanted to see if it would improve and I didn't want to be that guy. Is it worth saying anything in the future? We've split the party before, but because it was less role play based and more problem solving, the other, more experienced DM, found it easier to bounce things around. This time, there was a substantial amount of personal interaction going on, so you couldn't do the few-second snippets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A party split of this kind is probably the single most difficult situation to DM for - even more difficult than in-party disagreements. It is really hard to balance giving the “on” player good gameplay experience and the “off” players an enjoyable enough show that they do not get bored. It can work really well, even with a “substantial amount of personal interaction going on”—but you need a DM who is competent and has a strong pulse on the party’s particular interests.
For your two questions:
1. It is a bit hard to speak to the first without knowing the actual situation. I think it is fair to feel frustrated, but whether you were being selfish or not depends on how your frustration manifested. You probably should lighten up a little - any realistic game is going to have party splits sometime, and your frustration with the concept of splitting the party seems to shine through your post and is quite unreasonable in all but the most “stay together at all costs” tables. Especially since the party was only split for a paltry 20 minutes - hardly that big of a deal.
2. Personally, I would have sat back and either enjoyed the show or, if it was poorly done and not enjoyable, only paid half attention while reading my character sheet, twiddling my thumbs, or thinking about something else. This was a one-shot with a new DM - that is about as low stakes as one can get. If it were longer than 20 minutes, poorly executed, and/or part of a long campaign, I might have talked to the DM after the session and shared all the tricks and rules I use in this kind of situation. If they wanted to run another one shot, I might consider giving them some polite pointers as well.
A DM who entertains, so to speak, splitting the party needs to have a really good knack for story beats, like part screenwriter part DJ edit, cut and mix skills. Secondarily they should also be able to keep everyone paying attention engaged, even when it's not their turn.
This could be simply new DM not having their timing figured out, it's also possible the DM figured there's no way the PCs will cover the circus the DM put so much work into so the only way to properly "tour" the DM's world building is through splitting the party. Another way of calling this sort of scenario "overwrought."
Regardless, I don't think you think the DM was bad intended, but there was a failure in the design or the running in your not feeling engaged. Sometimes with a new DM, there just isn't a spark. A new DM may welcome "notes/comments" on the adventure and it's completely fair to candid reflect on your experience. But in game there's really nothing you can do. I mean if you're past your neck in contempt for the game, you can always just excuse yourself, but there's really no player intervention convention where a player can protest the running of the game in the middle of the game without at minimum the player coming off bad and worst case your displeasure tramples everyone else's experience of a good time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
your frustration with the concept of splitting the party seems to shine through your post
It's possible that it's just that I was trying to be clear in what I disliked about the situation. At least - I'm not sitting here stewing over it. I enjoyed the evening overall, I just found that dragged it down from a great evening to merely enjoyable. I'm just trying to analyse how I should have reacted and whether it's something that's reasonable. It's possible there's an undercurrent that you're picking up on.
and is quite unreasonable in all but the most “stay together at all costs” tables. Especially since the party was only split for a paltry 20 minutes - hardly that big of a deal.
I think you misunderstood what I meant - the party was split for all but 20 minutes out of the 3 hours - we were split for about 2 and a half hours. If the patch I didn't like was only 20 minutes, I probably wouldn't have thought much of it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think the DM did a good job of engaging the party that was "on". His impersonations were entertaining and there was a pretty entertaining spontaneous series of events that had everyone in stitches at points as we bounced off of each other. As MidnightPlat surmised, I don't think they're terrible, the problem stemmed from the party being split, which the DM didn't plan for (there was a note of surprise when the Rogue decided he was doing his own thing). This isn't me looking down on him - I couldn't do it very well either, if I tried. I'd be uncomfortable splitting the party for any extended period though, due to how it went.
I'm glad that there is a consensus that it was best not to mention it at the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, outside of actual safety boundaries being crossed, I think DM performance issues are better brought up during a "performance review" moment. I always sincerely ask, "so how you all think that went?" at the end of the session. Just like any other entertainment, including participatory ones, it's just sort of bad etiquette to either heckle, backseat DM, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, the other day I was playing in a one-shot with a relatively new DM. He had some really good points and a couple of less great points, but one thing in particular bothered me (which wasn't really his fault but was compounded by his inexperience). After the intro, the party comes together to visit a circus. There were four of us, and we were offered three choices: a freak show, a gaming area and a circus show. Not liking gambling, I immediately voted for the freak show. The Paladin and Fighter agreed, while the Rogue decided to go in the game area, splitting the party.
The problem was...we were constantly switching back and forth, which really interfered with the progression of our story. Worse, while when the Paladin or Fighter did stuff it felt like my story was progressing (even when I was silent and doing nothing), it just felt like nothing was happening when the narrative was with the Rogue. Most likely because if I was quiet during a period in the freak show side of things, I could be thinking about my character and how he'd be reacting etc, while in the game area, there wasn't anything that I could do, and I was just sitting there waiting for him to finish. The most fun I had was when the party reunited to get into the plot itself - it was just a small part of the three hour session, maybe 20 minutes.
It's not being in the spotlight that bothered me, it just felt like it was two different games - and there's a reason why I don't watch a lot of Critical Roll. It's not that I wasn't the centre of attention - I think I actually got a larger share of the overall spotlight time than when the party was together - it just felt broken and like half the time was irrelevant to me and my character.
So, I guess, I have two questions:
I didn't say anything at the time because I wanted to see if it would improve and I didn't want to be that guy. Is it worth saying anything in the future? We've split the party before, but because it was less role play based and more problem solving, the other, more experienced DM, found it easier to bounce things around. This time, there was a substantial amount of personal interaction going on, so you couldn't do the few-second snippets.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A party split of this kind is probably the single most difficult situation to DM for - even more difficult than in-party disagreements. It is really hard to balance giving the “on” player good gameplay experience and the “off” players an enjoyable enough show that they do not get bored. It can work really well, even with a “substantial amount of personal interaction going on”—but you need a DM who is competent and has a strong pulse on the party’s particular interests.
For your two questions:
1. It is a bit hard to speak to the first without knowing the actual situation. I think it is fair to feel frustrated, but whether you were being selfish or not depends on how your frustration manifested. You probably should lighten up a little - any realistic game is going to have party splits sometime, and your frustration with the concept of splitting the party seems to shine through your post and is quite unreasonable in all but the most “stay together at all costs” tables. Especially since the party was only split for a paltry 20 minutes - hardly that big of a deal.
2. Personally, I would have sat back and either enjoyed the show or, if it was poorly done and not enjoyable, only paid half attention while reading my character sheet, twiddling my thumbs, or thinking about something else. This was a one-shot with a new DM - that is about as low stakes as one can get. If it were longer than 20 minutes, poorly executed, and/or part of a long campaign, I might have talked to the DM after the session and shared all the tricks and rules I use in this kind of situation. If they wanted to run another one shot, I might consider giving them some polite pointers as well.
A DM who entertains, so to speak, splitting the party needs to have a really good knack for story beats, like part screenwriter part DJ edit, cut and mix skills. Secondarily they should also be able to keep everyone paying attention engaged, even when it's not their turn.
This could be simply new DM not having their timing figured out, it's also possible the DM figured there's no way the PCs will cover the circus the DM put so much work into so the only way to properly "tour" the DM's world building is through splitting the party. Another way of calling this sort of scenario "overwrought."
Regardless, I don't think you think the DM was bad intended, but there was a failure in the design or the running in your not feeling engaged. Sometimes with a new DM, there just isn't a spark. A new DM may welcome "notes/comments" on the adventure and it's completely fair to candid reflect on your experience. But in game there's really nothing you can do. I mean if you're past your neck in contempt for the game, you can always just excuse yourself, but there's really no player intervention convention where a player can protest the running of the game in the middle of the game without at minimum the player coming off bad and worst case your displeasure tramples everyone else's experience of a good time.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's possible that it's just that I was trying to be clear in what I disliked about the situation. At least - I'm not sitting here stewing over it. I enjoyed the evening overall, I just found that dragged it down from a great evening to merely enjoyable. I'm just trying to analyse how I should have reacted and whether it's something that's reasonable. It's possible there's an undercurrent that you're picking up on.
I think you misunderstood what I meant - the party was split for all but 20 minutes out of the 3 hours - we were split for about 2 and a half hours. If the patch I didn't like was only 20 minutes, I probably wouldn't have thought much of it.
That said, you make some good points.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think the DM did a good job of engaging the party that was "on". His impersonations were entertaining and there was a pretty entertaining spontaneous series of events that had everyone in stitches at points as we bounced off of each other. As MidnightPlat surmised, I don't think they're terrible, the problem stemmed from the party being split, which the DM didn't plan for (there was a note of surprise when the Rogue decided he was doing his own thing). This isn't me looking down on him - I couldn't do it very well either, if I tried. I'd be uncomfortable splitting the party for any extended period though, due to how it went.
I'm glad that there is a consensus that it was best not to mention it at the time.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, outside of actual safety boundaries being crossed, I think DM performance issues are better brought up during a "performance review" moment. I always sincerely ask, "so how you all think that went?" at the end of the session. Just like any other entertainment, including participatory ones, it's just sort of bad etiquette to either heckle, backseat DM, etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.