Split the party.
Seamus:
oculusverit, you offer an interesting solution to the split party problem. My suggestion is try it out in play and see how it works. If it goes smooth and adds to fun, go with it. If it creates a problem for some of your players, then you don't have to use it. It strikes me as a good tool that can work for the right group of people. The only downside I can think of is if you have players taking on the role of NPCs they would have to have access to that NPCs motivation and knowledge (which could pose a problem in some instances, especially if that kind of information will make it difficult for them to run their regular character).
Splitting the party is something I've been thinking a great deal about lately. I run an ongoing campaign of our mafia game, Crime Network, and because of the nature of the mob genre, the party is split up most of the time (people are running their own rackets or being sent out in small groups to handle different problems). This can lead to boredom for some players. The way I've dealt with it, is to pay close attention to the pace of the shifts in focus from one group to another. I also try to keep an eye out for signs that some of the players are bored. Generally I find, shifting focus a little quicker than feels natural (at least for me) keeps things running pretty good.
oculusverit:
Thanks for all your great ideas, especially you Marshall!
I think I've come up with a pretty good idea, and after writing it up and running it by my gaming group, they seem to like it. I've scrapped the concept of them playing antagonists, since they like to be surprised and feel somewhat committed to having the plot develop without their meta-knowledge. However, I have come up with two new additions, don't know if they qualify as house rules or not. They should work for any system or setting. The assumption is that, before these come into play, the party splits in order to accomplish separate goals, or because of some plot device. So we have two groups during any given scene, the involved players and the uninvolved players.
Meeting on the Road: The uninvolved players roll dice. Whoever rolls highest needs to come up with a concept for a character (stats not necessary at this time) while the other uninvolved player(s) have to come up with a personal complication that this character would bring to the involved player characters. Meanwhile, the GM already has prepared a bit of useful information that this new character can bring to the involved player characters, and if after the scene the player enjoyed the roleplay he has the option to keep his new character and add some quick stats until he or she can properly stat them up, making this effectively their "B" character whereas their original character is their "A" character. The "B" character stays with the involved characters and is now a new member of their party. This can happen multiple times.
The Airship: Eventually, you may get to the point where the party meets back up, but now we have players with both "A" characters and "B" characters (some might have even voluntarily taken on "C" characters!). What to do? Well, to take a page out of Final Fantasy, the idea of the "Airship" is basically some network where these characters can all stay in touch with each other (they don't all have to hang out at one place like the name implies, but they at least need to be reachable, unless the GM has nabbed one for plot complications). This way, when presented with the next choices or pieces of the plot or adventures, the players can basically choose which character they would like to play and mix and match parties to their heart's desire.
Thoughts and opinions? I'm really appreciating all your feedback!
dugfromthearth:
having players play NPC's strikes me as having several problems:
1. the NPC's may need to know more than the PC's, so you have to tell the players too much, or they play the NPC's wrong. In simple scenes this probably isn't a problem. If the players can just ignore what their PC's don't know this may not be a problem - but I don't like doing that myself, I like being more in synch with the character.
2. if the NPC's are successful the party suffers. So doing well as an NPC against one party member is really hurting yourself as a player. If the players are not a party but more like rivals this isn't a problem. Or you can reward the player by doing well as the NPC by giving his character a "fate" point type of thing, that way it is hindering the party but the bonus makes up for it.
3. having the NPC do well against the PC may cause trouble between players. That depends on the maturity of the players.
InkMeister:
For what it is worth, I really like Kinch's ideas of "meeting on the road" and "the airship." Never had the chance to do anything like what people are mentioning throughout this thread, including Kinch's ideas (usually, in the games I've played, splitting the party means half the group gets to be bored for awhile, unfortunately).
It seems to me that Kinch's idea of having the chance to make new characters and rotate which characters you use throughout a campaign could be really cool, and allow for interesting party splitting. I think the big potential hangup to this approach, though, is system complexity. If the system is simple and characters can be created quickly and easily, I think it could be neat. Another potential hangup could come down to character advancement. If you are playing a game like D&D, for example, which tends to emphasize the acquisition of power, then playing different characters at different times could result in weaker characters. The players who manage to play fewer characters will be disproportionately powerful.
Nick
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page