Never. Split. The. Party.

[DRD1812]

So here's an age-old question. How literally do you take the never split the party (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/the-handbook-of-heroes-07) advice? Does it only apply to dungeons? Do you stick together even in settlements, fearing an assassination attempt? When does "good tactics" become "unfun paranoia?"

[chimaeraUndying]

My GMs have always offered a sort of gentleman's' agreement to not attack the party when they willingly split up to, say, wander around a market or city (at least in an actual combat way, pickpocketing PCs and the like is fair game); similarly, if there's a story-related reason that we'd need to be split up it'll be telegraphed to the players beforehand so we don't try and mess with it. I think it's a pretty reasonable policy on both sides of the GM screen, since it lets players avoid a bit of paranoia combat that gets in the way of a GM's worldbuilding.

In combat, I've always found that splitting the party tends to just make it drag on even longer than it already does -- splitting the party approximately doubles your time-to-resolution of the combat, and also can confuse players a lot.

[DRD1812]

if there's a story-related reason that we'd need to be split up it'll be telegraphed to the players beforehand so we don't try and mess with it.

Getting players to pick up on this kind of thing can be difficult. I'm imagining those "supposed to lose" fights as a similar experience, where players might not pick up on the fact that the GM intends for them to run away. Any examples of ways to telegraph the need to split up?

[CharonsHelper]

For me it's not a survival thing so much as it's super annoying for half the table to have to sit there twiddling their thumbs.

The only time as a GM I split the party my buddy and I were co-DMing. Most of the time we shared a character with multiple personalities, but for a short time he was simply absent and we each DMed 1/2 the party, though they came back together pretty quickly.

[Hackulator]

I generally avoid splitting the party for mechanical and time reasons. In dungeons it's dangerous so I avoid it when at all possible. However, if we're in town and we need to run different errands we run off and do them. If we get attacked while separated oh well, I try to run my character like an actual person not a video game sprite.

[Calthropstu]

Attacking the party when they split up is a valid villian tactic. In fact, the adventure path I am running counts on it and even forces it at times.
In my own adventures, I will force it via traps at times. High level creatures and opponents do not get to be so by stupidly allowing bands of adventurers to waltz through "appropriate cr encounters" within their lair while they sit on their thumbs waiting for the group to get to them for the "boss fight."
Divide and conquer should be a main strategy base for any intelligent strategist.

[SirNibbles]

If the party is at the table together, they should be together. Let them split up in their downtime. Dungeons are a slight exception, as it may be necessary to split up.

[chimaeraUndying]

Getting players to pick up on this kind of thing can be difficult. I'm imagining those "supposed to lose" fights as a similar experience, where players might not pick up on the fact that the GM intends for them to run away. Any examples of ways to telegraph the need to split up?

Sometimes we're actually just told outright "hey, your characters aren't gonna win this fight", which usually prompts us to fight more valiantly because it's more fun that way -- if the outcome is predetermined, might as well have fun on the way!

The solutions I've seen and used for handling "supposed to lose" fights that the party does decide to engage in usually boil down to anything from convenient local natural disasters ("All your fighting has destabilized the clifftop church! You've got three rounds to get clear before it falls into the sea.") to the opponent(s) just tying them up and leaving them by the side of the road ("What, you thought she was gonna kill you guys? She's not Evil.") to GMPC intervention of some sort ("A powerful but generally noninterventionalist Wizard teleports you all away, except for Tim's character who you guys now have to rescue").

Re: splitting up, it's usually been conveyed as "okay, you've all got multiple time-sensitive leads to follow up on, so you'd best figure out who's doing what." If the party decides to bust out the hireling table and contract out their plot coupon farming, then those hirelings turn up poor/no results and that's the players' loss (although hirelings are so criminally underused that this hasn't ever really come up).

Getting players to split up in a scenario that threatens combat is much, much harder, to the degree that I honestly think it isn't worth it. If you drop an iron wall down between the party as they explore a dungeon, they will spend the rest of the day chewing through it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I generally avoid splitting the party for mechanical and time reasons. In dungeons it's dangerous so I avoid it when at all possible. However, if we're in town and we need to run different errands we run off and do them. If we get attacked while separated oh well, I try to run my character like an actual person not a video game sprite.
Yeah, basically this. Sometimes in-universe time crunch can make you split up to get stuff done faster, but at the table, that only makes it take more time.

[Calthropstu]

If the party is at the table together, they should be together. Let them split up in their downtime. Dungeons are a slight exception, as it may be necessary to split up.

I disagree, especially for games where black ops are a thing. The hacker should not be charging into the complex with the heavy hitters, the get away driver for a robbery should not be in the bank, etc.
In 3.5, leaving someone to act as a lookout, having a rogue scout ahead, moving through town gathering information... all are good reasons someone would separate from the party.
I see zero reason this should be an "off limits" time for an encounter. In fact, it would, in many circumstances, be exactly what an enemy would look for.

[Geddy2112]

For me it's not a survival thing so much as it's super annoying for half the table to have to sit there twiddling their thumbs.

I generally avoid splitting the party for mechanical and time reasons. In dungeons it's dangerous so I avoid it when at all possible.

In combat, I've always found that splitting the party tends to just make it drag on even longer than it already does -- splitting the party approximately doubles your time-to-resolution of the combat, and also can confuse players a lot

This, but also


However, if we're in town and we need to run different errands we run off and do them.

My GMs have always offered a sort of gentleman's' agreement to not attack the party when they willingly split up to, say, wander around a market or city (at least in an actual combat way, pickpocketing PCs and the like is fair game); similarly, if there's a story-related reason that we'd need to be split up it'll be telegraphed to the players beforehand so we don't try and mess with it. I think it's a pretty reasonable policy on both sides of the GM screen, since it lets players avoid a bit of paranoia combat that gets in the way of a GM's worldbuilding.

This.

Splitting the party is a major pain for the DM, and can leave half or more of the table sitting there twiddling their thumbs for a while. However, the party should have times where they can split up and meet back later, like in a city. So long as the party is reasonably connected and in the same scene, they are together, and what is within the scene depends on the location. For dungeons, this might be staying within the same room or max 1-2 rooms apart. For a city, they should be within the city limits. For a ship, it means on the ship.

A major exception is intentionally splitting the party for a collective goal(like a heist)-but the party is only split by location united for the collective scene.

[DRD1812]

all are good reasons someone would separate from the party.
I see zero reason this should be an "off limits" time for an encounter. In fact, it would, in many circumstances, be exactly what an enemy would look for.

I agree that, in almost every session, there are excellent story reasons why the PCs wouldn't all be in the same place at the same time. Out-of-game concerns rear their heads though. Do you think it could ever be boring for four of six PCs to wait and watch while two PCs engage in combat? Especially at high level when combat can take a while, I'd be concerned about pacing issues for the rest of the group.

[DRD1812]

the party is only split by location united for the collective scene.

The concept of "the scene" is an interesting one to me. Is that your own term, or are you thinking of a game system that explicitly addresses "scenes" as units of in-game activity? If so, I'd be curious to read up on the idea.

[Jormengand]

Don't you know you never split the party (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ)?

That aside, I split the party all the time in a lot of games. Hells, one of the 3.5 modules I made, The Iconoclasm, basically has as a DM's note "Tell the players that this involves splitting the party to shake off the never split the party ideal that they may have." Apart from that, in games which are... basically any game which isn't D&D, splitting the party is just generally a common thing that we do.

(Then there are the massive, multiple-DM games where splitting the party is actually a core mechanic, because there tend to be many missions we need to go on.)

[King of Nowhere]

Splitting the party is a major pain for the DM, and can leave half or more of the table sitting there twiddling their thumbs for a while. However, the party should have times where they can split up and meet back later, like in a city. So long as the party is reasonably connected and in the same scene, they are together, and what is within the scene depends on the location. For dungeons, this might be staying within the same room or max 1-2 rooms apart. For a city, they should be within the city limits. For a ship, it means on the ship.

A major exception is intentionally splitting the party for a collective goal(like a heist)-but the party is only split by location united for the collective scene.

I would add that in a city splitting the party to run errands does not waste time. The wizard would need to buy reagents, llook for scrolls, make research, and it will take the same time to tell those things if he's alone than it would take to tell them if the rest of the party was dragging along. When the cleric and druid go to the temple to gather informations, the rogue (no gather information) and barbarian don't have much to do there. They go instead in a low-life tavern, where the cleric and druid would not fit. In all those scenarios, nothing is gained by assuming all the party is together.

As for encounters, that depends. If a plot-relevant enemy was keeping watch on the party and looking for a moment of weakness, it's the perfect time to attack. In that case it's up to the party to take measures to avoid it. Otherwise, they'll have to resurrect one or two of their members and they will then be more motivated in chasing that recurring villain.
Personally I only attacked a split party once; it was the ghost of a former enemy (whom the party knew had returned as a vengeful ghost, so they were advised), and she had gained no levels from her first appearance, so she would have been badly outmatched against the whole party. It made a good encounter for two players alone (actually it could have been an easy encounter, but it became almost deadly because the cleric couldn't roll more than 8 on five consecutive turn undead attempts)

[Deadline]

I disagree, especially for games where black ops are a thing. The hacker should not be charging into the complex with the heavy hitters, the get away driver for a robbery should not be in the bank, etc.
In 3.5, leaving someone to act as a lookout, having a rogue scout ahead, moving through town gathering information... all are good reasons someone would separate from the party.
I see zero reason this should be an "off limits" time for an encounter. In fact, it would, in many circumstances, be exactly what an enemy would look for.

While I agree that this is certainly thematic, just look at any Shadowrun game with a Decker to see why it doesn't work in real play.

[CharonsHelper]

While I agree that this is certainly thematic, just look at any Shadowrun game with a Decker to see why it doesn't work in real play.

+1 to that.

If a system promotes that sort of thing, the spotlight moments should be extremely streamlined to keep everyone else from getting bored.

[Calthropstu]

While I agree that this is certainly thematic, just look at any Shadowrun game with a Decker to see why it doesn't work in real play.

Actually, I did it quite well one time.
The party needed to get somewhere they could not visualize. The only way was to find someone who had been there who could trigger a teleport scroll.
Lo and behold, a person (6th level wizard) was found who could do so. Yes, he just so happened to be a bbeg plant who had inserted himself into the employ of the bbeg's rival. So, the wizard triggers the teleport, and only brings half the party... the casters.
I trigger initiative, and the casters are put in a dimensional lock while the bbeg teleports into the room they teleported from.
I ran it as a single combat split between those attacking the casters and the attack on the martial characters. My party so didn't see it coming, the casters managed to dispel the dimensional lock just in time to save the martials, simply fleeing the devastating attack that had hit them. It was a very near thing.

When I make traps, they tend to be quite effective.

[SirNibbles]

I disagree, especially for games where black ops are a thing. The hacker should not be charging into the complex with the heavy hitters, the get away driver for a robbery should not be in the bank, etc.
In 3.5, leaving someone to act as a lookout, having a rogue scout ahead, moving through town gathering information... all are good reasons someone would separate from the party.
I see zero reason this should be an "off limits" time for an encounter. In fact, it would, in many circumstances, be exactly what an enemy would look for.

They're all still more or less together with some way to communicate working towards the same objective.

When half the party goes on one quest and another half goes on another, the DM has to constantly split his attention and the one party has to either ignore the other one and wait for their turn (not pay attention to the game), or they pay attention and listen and consciously have to ignore the information that they are getting which their character is not.

Our party was split recently. I listened in on every bit of action that the other half was experiencing. When our party was reuinted, there was no chance for the characters to interact and talk about what they'd gone through. Alternatively, I could've just sat and not paid attention to the game and then found out character-to-character what had happened. Intentionally not paying attention to the game seems like it goes counter to the whole point of being at the table together.

I can only see a split party working out if everyone isn't at the table together after the party is split. Maybe you have the DM run a session for each group and then bring everyone together when they're back, but having half the party constantly just sitting and waiting is boring.

[BWR]

Depends on the group and the situation. If they are exploring the mysterious risen island with cyclopean ruins where a dozen parties entered but haven't returned, then they will be so close that a sneeze means you headbutt the person in front of you. If they are chilling in the city and visiting family etc. then they split.
My current game sees a lot of split party action because they are, in many ways, grown up. They have their own dominions to run, their own families to look after and their own godhoods to aspire to. They are frankly too busy to be joined at the hip. The major issue here is, as some have already noted, that it's not fun for players to sit around with nothing to do while one hogs the spotlight. A little is ok, several sessions is not. there have been some workarounds that have worked well enough.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There isn't such a thing as too much paranoia in D&D; don't split the party.

[Arbane]

Anecdote time: The last big Pathfinder game I'm in was pretty good, but the GM has made sure I will never voluntarily split the party in his game.

The first time a player tried to go solo was out Medusa Witch (yeah, kind of OP), who has an ability that lets her turn off her petrifying gaze and look human, but she needs to petrify something every so often, or something bad happens to her. So, she figured she could do a quick solo adventure. The GM sicced a BLIND Necromancer and his horde of undead on her. (Undead are immune to petrification, of course.) Like I told him, he will never convince that player he's not a killer DM after that.

The second time, it was an accident - the character had fallen through a teleportal. The GM sent two Ghoul Rogues, a dragon, and some sort of fishmonster after him - any ONE of which was only one CR lower than his level. Unsurprisingly, he blew a save and got paralyzed by the ghouls, at which point the dragon swallowed him whole. (Ironically, this probably saved his life, as he has a magic tattoo of immunity to acid, and it meant the ghouls couldn't eat him.)

After that, I'm NEVER splitting the party if we can avoid it. Maybe in town to run errands, but never in the field. I dunno why solo character make him go all Killer GM, but they do...

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I love the fight I have to do in order to get back to the party members that is stuck somewhere else.

I will split the party if my PC don't need to be with them(I will ask the bard to come with me I f I want to buy stuff or the Barb if I want to kill stuff, you know, I will only take the ones I need).

I don't see why I will need 4 guys to hunt when they can set up the camp.

I did left the party that was fighting a constructed(I wasn't able to SA them) and killed the Hydra that was on the way to the party(I made my GM mad because we didn't need to run away from the Hydra after she was dead from 2 snipes, the dice are good to me, it was a full crit(all my dice were max) and the Hydra rulled 1 on my poison super low dc).


The biggest problem of splitting the party as I see it is that it make the GM work to hard sometimes.

[Nupo]

As a DM I have told my players (only half in jest) that if they split the party it won't stay split long. At least one group will die pretty quick.

[rel]

Never in the dungeon not even for bathroom breaks.
In town split but be careful.
Wherever you are, whenever anyone goes out of line of sight and comes back do a quick imposter check before proceeding.

[Pleh]

Games I run seem to invariably split the party. I've gotten skilled as a DM managing multiple simultaneous plot threads (sometimes some of them are combat and sometimes the threads merge back together before the fight finishes).

It's a lot like cooking a meal. Sometimes in the interest of time, you're boiling the noodles, browning the meat, baking the fries, toasting the bread, all at the same time so it all finishes at the same time.

The key to it is setting yourself up to rotate between tasks. I find in my online and tabletop rpgs that usually taking a cinematic approach works well. Right about the time I feel like the TV show would drop a minor cliffhanger and switch back to another character, I just toss out a, "meanwhile" to the players and keep the game moving.

This also buys me time to plan ahead for each separate thread. If I get tired or stuck with what to do next in one story, I pop over to another and play it out for a bit while my subconscious mind chews on the other problem.

[Hiro Quester]

Often we have encounters designed for the whole party, but where one member splits off.

The wizard takes damage and his contingency teleport goes off (and the player recognizes that he would never return without it being re-cast), the meatshield gets dominated and told to flee to another part of the dungeon; the rogue/scout fails to notice the trapdoor/teleport trap and gets whisked to another pat of the dungeon.

This is often where there are fun opportunities for creative problem-solving. It can result in one person at the table having little to do for a while. But it can be a fun extra challenge for the rest of the party to dal with the threat and cover that person's role in the party.

The left-out player can often be given an alternative fun role (running one of the monsters, or NPCs or whatever).

[Jay R]

A good encounter is designed to be a difficult challenge for the party. It therefore follows that it should be too powerful for half the party.