Party Keeps splitting and then blame me when things go awry

[~Nye~]

Hey,
I have a bunch of experienced and inexperienced players in a group I have recently started DMing for again. Currently we have had 3 sessions when the party has been split, we have 5 members so they seem to think that it's perfectly safe to do so. I do not pull out the big guns when they split because that is a negative way to play. Instead they choose to investigate dangers in 2's or 3's when stuff is bound to go down.

This has happened in 2 instances.
Firstly the party bard ran off into the city to investigate the thieves guild, as a result he split the party and ran about questioning people looking for a secret entrance. Once he found it, he beat up a few theives then continued to explore the entrance of the guild, he ended up being caught then released after making a bargain with the guild leader. As a result the players all flamed me for giving alot of face time to the bard in the session when they all wanted to play. I argued I cannot railroad or control you, they all proceeded to blame me anyway.

The second time:
The payers are investigating a group of missing children, they find a forest in the woods, so decide to knock on the door. 2 of the partys 3 small members were disguised as children and pretended they were lost. Another member watched safely from a distance incase anything bad happened. The owner of the house a good natured witch (who has far too many run-ins with adventurers to know they stab first and ask questions later) decided to let them in and play a trick on them. She decided to invite them in for a cup of tea and cake to 'calm their nerves' the goblin alchemist was periodically swigging from a beaker to maintain his disguise the other small member was disguised through other means. Eventually the alchemists potion runs out and cuts because he doesn't want their cover to be blown. Leaving the other one alone with the witch who then proceeded to baleful polymorph him. He escaped through a cat flap. The one who was watching outside failed to see in which direction the frog fled, so as a result ran away. The party then flamed me saying I split the party again.

Please tell my players that this CLEARLY is not my fault. When time and time again they split the party and abandon each other. Please say whether it's my fault or theirs and then discuss why.

I ended up defending myself in this witch hunt with meta-game knowledge which ruined the game because I didn't like being witch hunted by my players (no pun intended). They say I have ruined the game by splitting the party and putting them against OP enemies. When really the witch only had 1 lvl and only had a ring which did the spell effect.

Arguably, yes baleful polymorph is a powerful spell to use against low level players, but at DC 16 with only one use per day isn't game breaking let alone unfair when the fight would be 5 v1 anyway. -_-

[Con_Brio1993]

For the bard instance, this is why I find a timer ideal. If a player/group splits off you have a timer set to X amount of time and whenever the timer goes off you put that character's screentime on hold and switch to the other groups or players.

You could make X proportional to the number of people in each group.

[~Nye~]

I have tried using the timers before, but they players say that restricts options. This is mainly because time in game and time being played are not the same because of skill checks and actions taken sometimes go longer than intended.

[Con_Brio1993]

I have tried using the timers before, but they players say that restricts options.

Hide the timer from the players then.

[RoseyNZ]

Ok, so I have an issue with a game where the more vocal of the party gets more face time with the GM. But I don't mind, as if I wanted more face time, I'd need to put in more effort and speak louder.

In regards to that though, what I would have done, is stop after each "step" that the bard took & ask the rest of the party "what are you doing now?" - I find that this spreads the time around the party, if they come up with something interesting to do, then they get "play time" as well, if they can't figure out what they want to do, then that is their problem. It also gives the Bard a chance to think for a few minutes in order to decide what he's doing next.

For the witch encounter, totally their fault. As soon as the party gets invited inside, they have the choice of if they split the party. Again I would go back to the rest of them.

Eg: The witch invites you inside for tea & cake, do you go in? "Yes, we walk inside" - at this point, they have the opportunity to signal the watching party member, they have the choice to say No!

You switch to the watching party member, have they listened in? or received a signal? Either way you open up with "you're watching the witch, when after a few moments, the party members go inside, they have/ haven't made a signal, what do you do?"

It gives the other member and chance "I go up to the house and watch through the window / listen at the back door" They could look for entrances / exits, perhaps break in & surprise the witch while she is busy with the other party.


You can highlight the party splitting each time they make a decision to split, and remind them "Ok, that choice means you are splitting the party, are you sure that is what you want to do?" It might be annoying & slightly meta gaming, but I think when it comes down to it, it is their choice to split up & they need to be reminded that they chose that option. It's not that you forced them to split up, like if they were following 2 people and those two people split up, that would be more like forcing them, although they could only choose to follow 1 person.

[RoseyNZ]

In regards to timers ( long post above = intermediate posts )

Don't really stick to x minutes, just give them a few steps instead. The bard attacks a couple of thieves, ok, you're done. Next person, "the bard has wandered off asking questions, what are you doing"

We go around the table, so each person gets an equal chance to do something, it's generally 1 or 2 things. People who really know what they want to do might get a few minutes longer, but it will certainly only take a few rounds for others to figure out, "If I want more play time,I have to come up with something" The big thing I find hard to control, is what characters know, rather than players.

Although my group tends to do well with that. I sometimes have to remind them that they weren't there, so don't really know what is happening, or they don't know that piece of information. Etc.

[Con_Brio1993]

In regards to timers ( long post above = intermediate posts )

Don't really stick to x minutes, just give them a few steps instead. The bard attacks a couple of thieves, ok, you're done. Next person, "the bard has wandered off asking questions, what are you doing"

We go around the table, so each person gets an equal chance to do something, it's generally 1 or 2 things. People who really know what they want to do might get a few minutes longer, but it will certainly only take a few rounds for others to figure out, "If I want more play time,I have to come up with something" The big thing I find hard to control, is what characters know, rather than players.

Although my group tends to do well with that. I sometimes have to remind them that they weren't there, so don't really know what is happening, or they don't know that piece of information. Etc.

Yeah I like this idea better than mine.

[~Nye~]

Ok, so I have an issue with a game where the more vocal of the party gets more face time with the GM. But I don't mind, as if I wanted more face time, I'd need to put in more effort and speak louder.

In regards to that though, what I would have done, is stop after each "step" that the bard took & ask the rest of the party "what are you doing now?" - I find that this spreads the time around the party, if they come up with something interesting to do, then they get "play time" as well, if they can't figure out what they want to do, then that is their problem. It also gives the Bard a chance to think for a few minutes in order to decide what he's doing next.


This is what I try to do, we do have the problem that some players are more vocal, but additionally, one of my players is quite shy and he doesn't know the rest, so I try to get him involved as much as possible.

The main issue with dealing with "steps" , which I am having is that as time flows and the party is split it is very hard to give players set time. For example while the bard was gallivanting around, the wizard was writing a spell into his book, however I have changed the rules for this because it takes a whole day to write a spell into a spellbook. I have said it's 1 hour per spell level. so lvl 9 spells take the entirety of daylight hours for example. But this meant I turned from the bard to the mage, and he explained he was writing spells, I gave him some flavor text but that was all I could do.

[Emmerask]

1)
You should not allow the bard player to steal all the "screentime"
as other have said, tell him "okay you investigate", then face the other players and ask them what they want to do in the meantime.

So what you should do is actively discourage party splits by always giving the majority of the players the most screentime, not the loner who cant resist to do his own thing (there are some exceptions but in general this holds true).

After some time the loner will realize that the action is with the party, not with his own side adventure and stop doing it.

2)Well its not really your fault, but save or die spells in general are not fun and that is both for players and for dms. Its a very major flaw with d&d imo.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Hey,
I have a bunch of experienced and inexperienced players in a group I have recently started DMing for again. Currently we have had 3 sessions when the party has been split, we have 5 members so they seem to think that it's perfectly safe to do so. I do not pull out the big guns when they split because that is a negative way to play. Instead they choose to investigate dangers in 2's or 3's when stuff is bound to go down.

This has happened in 2 instances.
Firstly the party bard ran off into the city to investigate the thieves guild, as a result he split the party and ran about questioning people looking for a secret entrance. Once he found it, he beat up a few theives then continued to explore the entrance of the guild, he ended up being caught then released after making a bargain with the guild leader. As a result the players all flamed me for giving alot of face time to the bard in the session when they all wanted to play. I argued I cannot railroad or control you, they all proceeded to blame me anyway.I had a similar problem with my party's druid going off on a solo adventure when there was no way the other PCs could join in once it started and nothing interesting they could do for me to cut between.

The best answer I've found is to tell the bard you'll deal with whatever happens to him later on and to fast forward to when the party meets back up. It isn't a perfect solution as the bard may gain or lose some items during hs solo adventure or have gotten some information that would change what he does next and it guarentees that he'll make it out of the solo adventure unharmed, but it does keep the rest of the group from having to sit on their hands for an hour or more. If you're clever you can come up with reasons the enemies let him live (if it comes to that) or that he didn't use the information he gained immediately (maybe make it something useful later but pointless right now or have him be given the information in some kind of code with the key to deciphering it to be delivered by some secure means later.)


The second time:
The payers are investigating a group of missing children, they find a forest in the woods, so decide to knock on the door. 2 of the partys 3 small members were disguised as children and pretended they were lost. Another member watched safely from a distance incase anything bad happened. The owner of the house a good natured witch (who has far too many run-ins with adventurers to know they stab first and ask questions later) decided to let them in and play a trick on them. She decided to invite them in for a cup of tea and cake to 'calm their nerves' the goblin alchemist was periodically swigging from a beaker to maintain his disguise the other small member was disguised through other means. Eventually the alchemists potion runs out and cuts because he doesn't want their cover to be blown. Leaving the other one alone with the witch who then proceeded to baleful polymorph him. He escaped through a cat flap. The one who was watching outside failed to see in which direction the frog fled, so as a result ran away. The party then flamed me saying I split the party again.The only solution I can give to this is to point out when it looks like this kind of thing is likely to happen. Come right out and say "If you guys wait here while they go on ahead, they'll probably have more going on and a harder time handling it han if everyone was there. Are all of you ok with that?"


I ended up defending myself in this witch hunt with meta-game knowledge which ruined the game because I didn't like being witch hunted by my players (no pun intended). They say I have ruined the game by splitting the party and putting them against OP enemies. When really the witch only had 1 lvl and only had a ring which did the spell effect.All you can do is point out that they chose to split up and that things would have been easier if they hadn't. In the future, be sure to remind them of this any time they decide to split up.


Please tell my players that this CLEARLY is not my fault. When time and time again they split the party and abandon each other. Please say whether it's my fault or theirs and then discuss why.

Arguably, yes baleful polymorph is a powerful spell to use against low level players, but at DC 16 with only one use per day isn't game breaking let alone unfair when the fight would be 5 v1 anyway. -_-I'd say the blame is split to some extent, but mostly with the players.

1) The players do have to realize that encounters will be harder when there are fewer people. If you decide to go into a dangerous situation at less than full strength (whether it's because only part of the party is going or because of some other disadvantage) things will be harder to fight and overcome. Splitting the party doesn't always lead to disaster, but it does make everything you do more risky. Sometimes it bites you, sometimes it doesn't.

2) The DM has to be clearer about the risks the players are taking and reward players for trying to minimize those risks. Splitting up isn't an inherently bad idea, just an inherently risky one. Careful players can minimize this risk and it sounds like your players were at least taking a few steps in that direction.

When one player is keeping watch specifically in case something bad happens, be sure to give him plenty of chances to step in when things do go wrong. When the alchemist cut and ran, the character keeping watch should have had a chance to spot him, meet back up and find out what was going on. When the witch cast her spell, give him a spot check to see something out of the ordinary through the window (strange lights from the spell, for instance.) Maybe even have some false alarms, like the witch crying out in pain because she accidentally burned her hand making tea. He may not have been able to stop the spell, but he could have brought the rest of the party in for a 4 on 1 against the witch instead of letting things get even further out of hand.

That said, the watching player had all kinds of options (sneak closer, listen at the door, watch through a window, try to signal those insider, sneak in a back door or window, knock and bluff his way in, kick down the door because it's taking too long, etc.) Any of the things I mentioned above, the player could have asked about ("Do I see the alchemist coming out?" "Can I tell she's casting a spell from out here?") but didn't. The DM can give players opportunities and maybe a little prompting, but at the end of the day it was his decision not to get more involved.

As for the spell, I think Baleful Polymorph was a little much but not too far over the top. I might have had the witch Hold Person the PC and tie him up while she decided what to do and let the person watching decide it was taking too long. Also, why did the frog run in a random direction? A Baleful Polymorphed creature keeps its memories so its player should have at least had the option to head toward whereever it was that his ally was watching from.

[~Nye~]

Lord Il Palazzo, thanks for your insight, lots of good stuff there, I especially like the the idea of making the players jump a little when the witch burnt her hand making tea. :smalltongue:

The alchemist went out the back door, because he couldn't go out the front because he would have been spotted. this was an oversight they hadn't foreseen. The guy who got polymorphed (who was in fact the bard) did retain all his memories but ran from the cat-flap, into the long grass by the house where he hid, the guy watching from outside tried to find him, but the bard hid in the grass instead of revealing himself to the watcher (the rogue). SO inevitably caused the rogue to run away.

The rogue was initially hiding from a behind the tree from a distance, the players did signal they were heading inside (the alchemist did this by feigning dropping his beaker). He then moved closer and was sitting watching through a window outside. I have explained to them countless times that splitting the party is a bad idea, but being experienced they decided to not heed my advice and continue anyway.

I decided that baleful polymorph was the best spell effect to use because it was flavourful, the players meta-knowledge in fact caused them all to over-react because they all thought this witch was uber. Additionally, Hold person's duration is only in rounds and 6 seconds isn't really enough time to tie somebody up. :smallfrown:

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Lord Il Palazzo, thanks for your insight, lots of good stuff there, I especially like the the idea of making the players jump a little when the witch burnt her hand making tea. :smalltongue:Thanks. I like keeping players on their toes. I just wish I could think of things like this better during sessions.


The alchemist went out the back door, because he couldn't go out the front because he would have been spotted. this was an oversight they hadn't foreseen. The guy who got polymorphed (who was in fact the bard) did retain all his memories but ran from the cat-flap, into the long grass by the house where he hid, the guy watching from outside tried to find him, but the bard hid in the grass instead of revealing himself to the watcher (the rogue). SO inevitably caused the rogue to run away.

The rogue was initially hiding from a behind the tree from a distance, the players did signal they were heading inside (the alchemist did this by feigning dropping his beaker). He then moved closer and was sitting watching through a window outside. I have explained to them countless times that splitting the party is a bad idea, but being experienced they decided to not heed my advice and continue anyway.Wow. That sounds like the perfect storm of things going wrong for the players. It happens sometimes but it's wtill very frustrating for all involved.


I decided that baleful polymorph was the best spell effect to use because it was flavourful, the players meta-knowledge in fact caused them all to over-react because they all thought this witch was uber. Additionally, Hold person's duration is only in rounds and 6 seconds isn't really enough time to tie somebody up. :smallfrown:If she can cast Baleful Polymorph, she has at least 9 rounds with Hold Person and binding someone takes 10 so it's possible. Either way, the exact thing she did could easilly vary, I just used Hold Person as a handy example; she could have Charmed them and asked them to "Be a dear and fetch me a jar of honey from the cellar" and then locked them in the basement or used Deep Slumber and locked them in an old armoire (bound or not) or any number of other things. (Maybe she could have gone out to her garden once they were trapped to pick some carrots and potatoes for a nice meaty stew.) My point is that I'd have gone with something less likely to cause the character lasting harm and more likely to have given the others time to intervene, save the bard and start the big old fight it sounds like you were planning on.

I'll admit, Baleful Polymorph is flavorful and shouldn't be a lasting problem unless the magic to cure such things is really hard to come by in your setting. I'm admittedly a bit trigger shy about things that could kill PCs or make them permanently unplayable so take my advice and opinions as you wish. (There's a rule of thumb in my group that I've taken save-or-die and similar spells and effects off the table for NPCs to use against PCs. Any PC is free to use them at any time, but that puts them back in play for me up to use them as well.)

[~Nye~]

Also, Since these part splits occur often, I have decided to add more players. The players who have been added were going to join from the first session but one was unable to make it, and the other was on holiday. But the issue of facetime occured and then a massive arguemtn arose.

This is why I have posted this thread to mainly deal with the issues I am current;y having.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Also, Since these part splits occur often, I have decided to add more players. The players who have been added were going to join from the first session but one was unable to make it, and the other was on holiday. But the issue of facetime occured and then a massive arguemtn arose.

This is why I have posted this thread to mainly deal with the issues I am current;y having.Fair enough. (I'll admit I got sidetracked in my last post by the specific situation when it's already to late to change it.)

It sounds like the kind of thing that you need to have a good serious talk about with your players. Try to keep the tone of it neutral, not blaming them so much as saying that things could have been handled better all around. If the conversation turns into "here's what you did wrong" rather than "we could all do better", they'll likely get defensive and dig in their heels. Explain your perspective, regarding designing enemies for the full party to face and struggling to give face time to everyone when one person's gone off solo and ask for suggestions. You could also bring in ideas from this thread "I was thinking we could [RoseyNZ's idea]. Does that sound more fair?"

Be clear that splitting up is risky in your game but do listen to any suggestions about making the it work better if it happens in the future. It's pretty obvious that it's a style of play the party's interested in; try to find ways to make it work at least sometimes. I'm absolutely not saying it should be the answer every time, but occasionally make it clear that there are two or more goals the PCs could be pursuing and let them handle it accordingly. Maybe you could try designing fights that can scale more easily (e.g. have a fight be with a leader-style enemy (bard? buffing cleric?) plus 2 weaker followers for each PC who's there and an extra leader if the whol party came along. The followers can all be the same or you can have 2 "models" to mix things up.)

On a side note, have the fights when everyone's there been at about the right challenge level? If the players are concerned about more than just the split party fights being over-powered, you might want to listen to them. (I'm not saying it's true, but throwing 5th level spells at "low level players" could definitley make them worry, even if you did plan it carefully to not overwhelm them. This goes doubly if it happens often.) If it's just the fights when the party was split that have them crying foul, explain again that those fights were designed for the full party so going without everyone would naturally make them harder.

Be careful adding more players at a time like this. If the ones who are already there are worried about not getting enough face time, having more come in could make a tense situation worse.

[Greenish]

Don't you know… (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUMCIn2swTU)

[~Nye~]

Yes, I am aware of the facetime issue with having more players. But I encourage the players to roleplay with eachother if we are currently doing solo facetime moments. Say for example during the travel time in which the players are moving towards the shop they discuss their goals or motives, or rather the opposite if they want to conceal their thoughts and motives.

The issue is really this, the witch was basicly supposed to be helping them, but they instead thought she was a threat. She was supposed to be a scapegoat for the real culprits which are a covey of hags. She is a witch yes, but I feel that giving her mulitple tell tale signs would ultimately cause them to see her as the culprit.

The issue with hold person is that the duration is in rounds, and she is only lvl 1 so she could only hold the victim for 6 secs. Which is barely enough time to wrap rope around a victim twice. Additionally I was expecting the players to investigate the area the children went missing as opposed to investigate this character who they had heard about.

The encounter with this witch was meant to be more of and RP session, than a fight, but I gave her the ring as a means of defending herself if the worst were to happen, she turned the bard into a frog as a punishment for the players deception. The moment occured where he was alone, and I thought anyone with half a brain would use that as a moment to punish those trying to mess with them.

If anyone in my session is reading this do not read this unless you intend on spoiler raping yourself:
The players were gonna fight a covey of hags which the witch above used to be part of but left because they didn't see eye to eye. As a result she keeps out of their business if she keeps out of theirs.

[~Nye~]

Don't you know… (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUMCIn2swTU)

I do, they do not it seems =)

[RPGuru1331]

Reminder: If none of this works out, politely telling your players to knock it off, because you can't handle it party splits, is an option. It's just really hard to manage RL.

[nedz]

My players split up occasionally, but they never blame me for it.
Part of DMing is managing the group dynamic, and their expectations.
Your lot obviously need to learn that splitting up is bad — which is something you have to teach then, and that probably means the hard way.

I'm not sure what you could have done about the Bard other than make life hard for him. This would probably still have eaten quite a bit of time. One approach might have been to put his actions on a back burner and run his actions off line. Having him sit out the session would have left you with one annoyed player rather than four. If he complained then you could simply say "Well you ran off to do your own thing".

The frog thing was a bit harsh, but they were all involved in the action. I don't see any reason for them to complain about it. They chose to split up and follow that particular course of action.