If you've already made up your mind, then why are you asking us?

I don't think it's a bad idea for a special circumstance like this one.

I just meant, as a general way of doing things, it seems like it would promote taking a group of friends playing together and then just splinter them up into separate groups.

Is that fun? It seems like you either play separately, in which case you lose the social aspect, or you still play together but everyone spends 90% of the game watching other people play separate 1-player games essentially.

I've seen people "check out" and get bored, start looking at their phones, etc., once they basically have to spectate for too long.

Or was it different in your experience?

It was very different.  We all ran multiple groups of multiple players, and their composition varied from time to time.

Yes it's more work, but it makes for a far more lively, dynamic world.

You mean different GMs, all in the same setting? Or one GM, multiple groups?

I was thinking of doing a sandbox hexcrawl where it was basically different groups in one game that I'd GM, but it would still be "party joined at the hip" stuff except for when the Rogue has to scout or something.

Also after the advice from this thread I started doing a 1 on 1 with the Paladin player. Looks like he got KO'd and taken hostage so far.

It would be same setting, likely same DM, multiple groups. People can play more than one character, just not at the same time.

The "West Marches" style of play which you might have heard about is an effort to recreate that dynamic.

I think a lot of players today are not aware they could act independently and a lot of DM's just don't have the chops to run more than one group and/or actively dissuade players from ever getting the idea in the first place. Some people don't want to play alone, even temporarily. Add in the usual tiresome blather about time and scheduling impossibilities and so it's rare to see. Despite these failures of imagination, it does still happen though.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996336I just meant, as a general way of doing things

In the general sense:

Existing players get first dibs on recurring game sessions.  So in this example, if one player split off their paladin and wanted to know what happened next then I'd also run a solo session to see if paly made it out alive.  

The player would now have a free-floating character in the campaign world.  If he wanted to continue playing with the group, then a new character(s) as you've described.

If that player wanted to continue playing the paladin character - solo or otherwise - then we'd have to see if both of us had time to support additional game sessions.  The player might recruit new players, or the other players might want to have a 2nd group adventuring parallel to their primary group.  Or the paladin player might just want to adventure solo.

It all comes down to how much time you as DM have to give.  But I'm personally fine with sporadic play sessions for alternate PCs.

This sounds like New Character Time.

I agree with Omega's idea about the abstraction if you want to have the PC rejoin.

Save vs. Death. If you save, great, you make it back to the group. If not, you're dead. Maybe the PCs can find your corpse, maybe your loot shows up in a future NPCs' hands.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996074Run the adventure for the Paladin's player, and what happens, happens.

"One Band Of Brothers Tied At The Hip" needs to die anyway.  Yeah, it's more work with multiple parties, but for 2x work you get 10^x fun.

I disagree.

Today, for whatever reason, gamers have limited RPG time and running a solo or dividing up group time to appease a special snowflake isn't practical for the majority of gaming groups.

It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.

They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.

Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.

This sort of thing happens to my group all the time.  The latest example about a month ago, I had two characters flee the group and dungeon because the rest were charmed by 1 faction in the dungeon and sent against a different faction.  The 2 characters fled to try to get some help to un-charm their companions somehow, while the rest of the group was trying to carry out their mission.  So I told the rest of the group to roll up new characters and I have now been DMing two different groups that will eventually ...maybe...come back together....and its been AWESOME!  So I would do a solo adventure with the guy, or tell the group there is going to be a one off night where they can join with new characters or take a break.  Otherwise, if you just roll to see if they survive or not...and if they fail and are pronounced dead...why would any of them spend any amount of time on their future characters?

Quote from: Spinachcat;996352It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.

They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.

Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.

That's exactly what happens in mine. Even when they ARE all together, if say combat is very long and there is a long time between turns, you'll have people basically stop paying attention until it is their turn. I mean, I can't blame them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;996352It's one thing for the group to split into 2 for an encounter or two, or even for a single PC to have their own 15 minutes, but very soon you lose the group as a whole to their cell phones because attention spans are microscopic today.

They don't need to be tied at the hip, but they do need to be going in the same direction 90% of the time.

Not because that's the best solution, but because 2017 has too many instant entertainment options and without focus by the entire group, the game will destruct.

Yes, it's difficult.  But once you get it going the excitement and fun should be enough to outweigh the distraction.

The day I'm not more interesting than a TV show or a tablet game, I quit this fucking hobby for good.

Along the same lines something similar to this thread happened a few years back with my group.

We couldn't agree as a group so we split up. The DM handled it by rolling up NPCs for each "faction" as it were. One week we'd focused on one faction of the PCs while the players of the other characters played the NPCs. The following week we'd switch. It actually all worked out quite well.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996275Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign.  People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more.  If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.

I just mentioned two examples previously.

And before 5e I was in a big 8+ player AD&D group and after introductions everyone promptly split up into smaller groups or off on their own. Two got killed and had to bring in new characters. Eventually we all reconvened except for a pair of thieves who decided to head out early to grab the reward for themselves and promptly got eaten and were rolling up new characters. The bard later split off from the group and got et. and from there the group dwindled as they got to the site, squabbled and again split up into smaller groups. And met various unfortunate ends.

Same with the Gamma World campaign I ran and the Star Frontiers one and the Spelljammer one and so on.

Fractious disorganized groups has been the norm for me since just about the start. Id love to see one of these mythical joined at the hip friends for life groups.

Quote from: Omega;996433I just mentioned two examples previously.

And before 5e I was in a big 8+ player AD&D group and after introductions everyone promptly split up into smaller groups or off on their own. Two got killed and had to bring in new characters. Eventually we all reconvened except for a pair of thieves who decided to head out early to grab the reward for themselves and promptly got eaten and were rolling up new characters. The bard later split off from the group and got et. and from there the group dwindled as they got to the site, squabbled and again split up into smaller groups. And met various unfortunate ends.

Same with the Gamma World campaign I ran and the Star Frontiers one and the Spelljammer one and so on.

Fractious disorganized groups has been the norm for me since just about the start. Id love to see one of these mythical joined at the hip friends for life groups.

Heh, sounds similar to my groups.  We are ALWAYS splitting up.  We currently have 5 different groups in one campaign because of some party members splitting up, surviving, hooking up with new party members, and going after new goals or agendas.  We stick with one group, get them pass an adventure or good stopping point, then we switch to one of the others.  Makes the world feel more alive.  About once a year or three, some run back into each other and there may be some pvp, but its usually a long buildup with a good RP story that goes with it.

Only thing, I don't know if I would be too interested in a 'joined at the hip friends for life group'...that sounds incredibly boring.  Are all of them the same alignment or something?

That's rough Omega. I've tried to play in groups like that, but it usually devolves into PvP very quickly. I think its more of a player issue than a character one. Like there's no commitment from the get go to play as as a party, starting with chargen.

But be assured there is a happy medium to be found that allows for cohesive, collaborative group play and character independent actions within the same campaign.

That's rough Omega. I've tried to play in groups like that, but it usually devolves into PvP very quickly. I think its more of a player issue than a character one. Like there's no commitment from the get go to play as as a party, starting with chargen.

But be assured there is a happy medium to be found that allows for cohesive, collaborative group play and character independent actions within the same campaign.