@Nick Williams, I disagree. I find that if I as a DM am asking "Are You Sure?" undermines my players decisions. Sometimes I realize that I haven't gone into enough detail and that is why they do that, and so I'm not affraid to clear up misconceptions, but asking "Are you sure you want to do that?" doesn't feel right to me.
ChickenDragon "Are you sure you want to do that?" is supposed to highlight to the player that they are not taking something into account, without flat-out telling them what the "solution" is. So, for example, a player who's character is trying to stealthily take out a sentry might get a "AYS?" if their weapon of choice is Thunderwave.
If their choice is thunderwave, then they can live with the consequences. They need to know the limits of their spell. I'm not going to doubt their choice of spell for them. If however if it is something on my end that might not have been explained well, I'll explain a little bit more and then ask if they want to proceed in spite of that.
For my two cents' worth, the classically "Cheap" fix is to pepper in a few "Are you sure"s just to bump up the tension a notch... for no reason what so ever. ;o)
One of my favorite sessions was in Pathfinder. I was playing a bard and my friend was a rogue. We ended up saving a town from a group of zombies that was meant for our full party of five, and surprisingly only lost one villager. Our group still calls it our El Dorado session.
One of my favorite moments in DnD as a DM was when my players decided to split the party. There was a massive orc and goblin encampment defending a small opening in a cave that my players suspected held the item that they were after, and it was in a canyon with an elevator that went down. Only thing is, they all knew that they weren't stealthy enough to all go through the encampment, and that they needed to get the item before it was used by the orc shamans. So they decided to send in the ranger and rogue from the canyon to sneak into the encampment, steal the object before the orc shamans finished their ritual involving it, and the rest of the party, the cleric, barbarian and sorceror, were going to climb up the canyon walls, secure the elevator partially as a distraction, and they were all going to try to escape from there. And you know what? They pulled it off and had a blast doing so. I would spend about 5-10 minutes with each group before switching to the other and we all had a blast. That was 6 years ago and whenever that group in the rare moon is able to get together to socialize for a bit, that session still comes up as we lament in our inability to play as often as we did then. That was my first time splitting up the party and gave me a lot of confidence in my ability to DM afterwards, and I've only done it a handful of times afterward. Everytime it does happen, though, I get a bit of an adrenaline rush as I prepare to improv essentially two DnD sessions.
After 3 years of playing D&D, I finally had a roleplaying experience. My character and my friend's character went shopping and talked over frozen yogurt. It was awesome.
A big part of this channel is me just giving folks permission to try things they might not otherwise try. So folks will watch this and they'll say "Ok, but HOW?" Even though I've done my best to explain how, "the principle of rising action," etc... But really you just need to see it. That's what the stream will let us do!
I've never been against splitting the party. A lot of the time my players do it on their own. I did one where the players split into 3 groups and attacked a siege camps. I ran 3 encounters at once. I did what you were discussing, cutting from scene to scene. Yeah a couple of the players almost died doing this.
Love your work Matt. This is the first video of yours I've watched in a while though, because your "running the game" series wound up touching on the Critical Role finale. which I haven't reached yet.
My first D&D session: “Okay let’s split up the party” Two minutes later: *sound of us being owned by bandits* Next session: “Okay so we’re starting over with a new plot”
Okay. The thing about splitting the party in DnD specifically is that it has the tendency to expose one of the few, true weak points in the system's design. There's this weird incongruence between game mechanics and storytelling, where the latter can reasonably call for or be enhanced by the party to splitting up, while the former punishes them for doing to in almost 100% of combat-based situations. DnD's action economy means that more people is more power-- in often dangerously exponential ways. For proof, look no further than one of the most popular 4th level spells in the game; after all, what is "Banishment" if not "split up the enemy party: the spell?" So. We know this. But, we're DMs-- our games are our own creation. So how do we fix it? One answer-- my answer-- is to adjust the combats I prepare if/when they are encountered by fewer PC's than I anticipated. I know that for some people, this messes with their verisimilitude; they want their world to be as deterministic as possible, a living, breathing place that the PC's simply encounter as it is. And while I respect that style of play, I know my group. I know why we show up to game, and it's for the story. So if, bottom line, I can tell a better story by altering what's behind that door-- AND, if my players either don't know or don't care I did? Then why should I feel bound by decisions I made with less knowledge-- about who's playing, what they can do, and what will make things suitably dramatic for them-- than I have now?
Well said. I think that as a dm it’s always reasonable to make dynamic difficulty adjustments and there are narrative ways to do so. If behind the door opened by a full party of 4 than the 6 guards are sober, alert and sharpening their weapons.If the door is opened by 2 players they are hung over, Distracted and 3 of the 5 are in a side room. The players never need to know until they get there. Also making players aware of their decreased efficacy in terms of number of actions should make them think about which characters go and which tactics they use when they get there. 4 pcs can go in wands blazing, while 2 might need to be much sneaker so maybe let the paladin clank around somewhere else or take off their armor exposing them to danger at a lower ac while enabling some degree of stealth
the thing about action economy in general is: the exponential growth (it usually is a quadratic function until actors can't influence the situation anymore) is very true to a system with comparable physics and mathematics to ours. The strength in numbers is basically what makes civilization worthwhile. I by myself am always happy to see heavy use of of crowd control for that simple matter. The good thing is: Action economy and the like can be regulated very well by the DM. the other problem I see, is how much party splitting can elongate everything to the point where it feels like there is no progress at al after like 3 hours of playing.
I'm not disagreeing or saying there is anything invalid about what you're saying. This is a perfectly fine way of approaching it. Myself I prefer an approach in which we don't always have to assume that the encounters must happen. When the players split up, it makes sense for them to act accordingly. To be more cautious, and less prone to engaging in combats, because they know that they're less effective with fewer numbers. This creates an entirely new type of encounter that's just as, if not more interesting, than your standard combat.
Great information as always, Matt. What I really appreciate about your videos and insight is that it makes me think about things more deeply and consider trying things that I previously might not have been open to doing. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and inspiring other DMs! 👊
I've split my party.. I gave them NPCs that they played as for an encounter or two. They liked having control over their new allies and I didn't have to scale down the baddies.
I just let them suffer whatever happens. If the wizard goes away in the dungeon for whatever reason and manages to kill the terrible beast roaming in a place because of Desintegrate or whatever, good. If he gets killed, then he knows who's to blame. The last 3 sessions almost everyone got ambushed because they kept going alone in dangerous places (mainly a forest filled with evil fey), despite they better knowledge. I almost killed 4 PC's, one of them 3 times almost in a row. Plot twist, they had a blast, and it was very cool see the Magus conjure a dire bat to fly away when he got ambushed.
I've had a situation like this in my recent game and while I'm not particularly happy with how I've managed it (I'll get to why in a moment). I won't get into the very detail. But basically one party split to find their sorcerer friend (a player who was missing the previous session) in a weird freaky tower, while the other two members of the party were saving a city from a siege by weird robots, with the help of a small army of retired (and mostly crippled) adventurers. We ended the previous session at the point where two of the players were just reaching the weird tower. While the other players were quite literally charging on horseback into battle. It was great, I was amazingly happy with how things have unfolded that session and I was super hyped for the next session. We play every 2 weeks online so I had some time to decide if I want to play the games separately or both at once. In the end I've decided on simultaneous action with some switching in between. I've created some battle rules and we started with the siege. It was going alright and I've explained the nature of the various battle rolls to the players. I've also asked one of the players involved to read up on mounted combat rules to act as a helper for me (I totally recommend doing that to interest newer players in the more specific rulesets btw). We did some rounds, I've announced ahead of time that we'll do 3 rounds of combat, and after those 3 rounds we'll roll for "battle" with modifiers depending on how well they've performed in those 3 rounds. They seemed to like the idea and it all went rather alright. The fighter player had a blast being a beast, and the bard player felt useful because HAVING A BARD GIVE A WHOLE ARMY A BOOST IS AMAZING. We cut to the 2 fellas at the tower and quite intentionally the speed changes from high-octane battle action to this slow crawl and exploration of a weird malformed tower. The players were cautious and there were no real combat encounters (as all the units were off sieging a nearby city duh) . I've focused on creating eery atmosphere and the players did a fantastic job of tossing some in-character banther between one another. I ended on them finding their sorcerer friend and him failing (rather spectacularly) a reflex save against a tentacle about to eat his face. I did this back and forth about 2 more times each way and afterwards the players return from their successful rescue of both their friend AND the city to exchange stories of that transpired and decide on what to do next. All in all the session was a success. **HOWEVER** This might be the nature of my play (we play online with maptools and talking over discord) but hearing the other players talk about what they do or watching tokens move around in maptools is not as engaging as being there in person and being fully engaged. For my uses I **Should have** created something for the players to do quietly while I was running the narrative for the other group. The battle group could have been left off with a tactical situation to figure out a resolution to, and the tower party should have been left with some puzzle they could figure out without having to ask me for details. All in all I still l think this was a success. And I frankly recommend any confident DM try it. It teaches you a lot about the players at your (physical or virtual) table, and what is the best way to keep them engaged.
Haha love the running taboo theme of the latest videos. This one was especially comprehensive with covering the pros and cons of STP. Really appreciated the two sine waves analogy advice. I have a future video topic suggestion. Could you talk about different types of playing groups? Like generic private home groups, beer and pretzels, adventurers league, other game store pick up games, one shots, campaigns, west marches, online groups, streaming, professional groups, etc. There’s so many ways for groups to form and approach playing nowadays. I’d love to hear your experiences, pros, cons, and advice for DMing and playing across this spectrum.
@@Shrooblord He's everyone's favorite uncle. I find his approach a refreshing alternative to the elitist Gatekeepers that plague the hobby. Thanks to him I was able to get my parents and nephew to start a home game.
Usually I find the issue with a split party is that the DM hasn't designed for a smaller party and thus they end up wiping against previously made encounters.
Yeah, I figure a simple way to 'design around' this, if the DM wants? Just halve the number of enemies or whatever challenges are in their way, for the sake of drama.
Depends on the players and the encounters in my opinion. My friends character split off from his group because of an in game time crunch to achieve all their objectives, so they ended up with him fighting one encounter (the players didn't know there was going to be a problem that required a fight) and the other 4 fighting another encounter. My mate is much more tactically minded then the people he was playing with so he was able to complete his objective and escape (barely and with some good luck), but the other 4 wiped against their encounter due to some bad luck and a couple of bad choices. No one was upset, and the wipe resulted in them asking him and me for some advice on in combat decision making because no one had realised how reliant they had been on him shoring up their weak spots. (side note: I've not had the chance to play D&D yet, I know the rules though RPing a character is something I've not yet tried. We all occasionally play Warhammer together which is why they know/think I'm good with strategy. So if anything I've said seems wrong or out of place in D&D it's probably because of that or because I'm inaccurately repeating what was told to me of what happened.)
It just depends on how it's done. I dm for a group that splits up a lot and usually the decision to split up is at the end of the session, then I design the encounters for the next one. The key to a lot of this, is letting the party know what they're up against (in game) through them scouting, or talking to allies or whatever, so they can plan accordingly. Splitting up in the middle of a dungeon is usually a bad idea unless you're going to be stealthy, because that next room might have twenty goblins in it. Splitting up, so one group can infiltrate the evil wizards tower and steal his spell book, and the other group can act as a distraction is a lot cooler, and more likely to work, the difference is planning.
It goes both ways really. If a DM is inflexible with their encounters they will have trouble adapting to what the players do - this will result in problems, not just with encounters. On the other hand if the players are being stupid or go into dangerous places unprepared and then make it worse by splitting the party then yeah... it's all on them. If there is some renowned big baddie who's suddenly half as powerfull because only half the party showed up.. well that'd be weird.
"When you don't have to worry in town, for instance" I let my party split, somehow half alerted the royal guards in an assassination attempt to the mayor, the other one triggered a shady gang and started fighting. I went insanely crazy
It is difficult, but my group has been split for 8 months and our two groups have been playing once a week (Sunday and Monday nights) and I am so excited because this week they are finally going to regroup! It is going to be epic!
I’m currently playing through Lost Mines of Phandelver, and we recently did Cragmaw Castle, which is a kind of mini-dungeon in the middle of the adventure. We were outside the castle for a while deciding what to do, and eventually we decided to split the party in half, with all the beefy melee fighters going to the front gate to create a distraction while the other characters snuck in a side entrance looking for the dwarf we were there to rescue. This approach actually worked (miraculously), but it had the unintended effect of turning an entire dungeon into one huge encounter, where half the party had a no-holds-barred brawl in the front, and the other half snuck their way through the back. By the time we met in the middle, we had basically cleared the whole dungeon, aside from the Boss’s quarters, which the sneaky half wisely decided not to investigate alone. We were helped by the fact that the sneaky party inadvertently released a caged owl bear, which massacred almost a dozen goblins who the front party had pushed back by setting a door on fire. Eventually the two groups met in the middle, somehow none of us had died and we had cleared the whole dungeon aside from the boss! It was maybe the most memorable dungeon run I’ve ever been a part of, and would never have happened if we hadn’t split the party. I say go for it, as long as you’re willing to accept the consequences, it can be very fun.
For the "switching cameras" technique Matt talks about, I find it's always best to cut just before or as the climax of a particular point of action comes about.
Funny you should mention rising action and it being difficult to run a split combat. Recently had half of my group imprisoned and ran the group inside and outside of the prison simultaneously with a 10 minute timer that had me switching between groups frequently. Eventually both groups got into combat and i had them all roll initiative. I set up two white boards and ran the combats simultaneously like they were in the same room. Technically the timing was off and it would have taken the outside group considerably longer to get into combat if each group was on real world time, but a little handwaving of the world's rules made for a very dramatic night when they both fought guards to eventually meet up in the center and all escape into the night. I was told later that it was the most intense battle I've ever run as the cleric was so focused on rushing to the aid of the other half of the party to heal the paladin who was down to around 5 health.
So happy you touched on this Matt. I absolutely love when the party splits. It’s so much more interesting. It also gives you a chance to see characters that don’t interact with each other as much get forced to work together and develop their relationship.
Matt, your videos are always very informative and well spoken. Thank you so much for making them and for making me a better DM! Side note: your hair is slick as hell my dude.
This could just be me but it seems like the noise suppression or something is getting a little aggressive and cutting off words. It's not enough to be unintelligible and I may just be whining but it produces a weird effect that sounds very odd.
i remember a handful of parties where as the small statured feytouched woman with a high intelligence and high charisma, that i had to separate from the party to speak with the local nobles because noble descent, and often had to buy pretty clean clothes and a special bath and beauty treatment for these things i mean, i was allowed to keep a dagger inside my sleeve as the party rogue for in case of the risk of combat, but i had to do all the diplomacy at the party and make allegiances that helped the group out, because lots of people dumped charisma and had no social skills, in addition to carrying a walking armory. so they usually assumed me the one they were charged with protecting. even though i was a rogue in spidersilk clothes. because spidersilk is amazing.
I mean.. it was the basis for Silksteel in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and they managed to make it plausible too. "The highest tensile strength of any substance known to man".
Started my first game as a DM 2 months ago we are on our 11th Session thanks to your help Matt! This video came out at the best time, I run a two party campaign from session 1, there are two factions in my setting and each party contained the opposite of the two, the fought, argued, stole, and lied to each other it's great but recently they have started to fight more often and combat is 'nearly' impossible. I find that most times I end the game exhausted, agitated and even the RP has suffered because with all the new choices my players talk so much but I don't get to hear what they are doing. One day a party becomes a background party the next they are the heroes, your video has really helped me figure out its not my fault, thanks man your wisdom always guides me in such dark times :)
My experience with splitting the party goes hand in hand with the current map they're on. They tend to stick together during roleplaying sections, but split when combat nears. I then proceed to manage the different small groups at the same time according to initiative rolls and then they manage to come together by the end for the boss fight. Most of the times. One time one of my players literally was looting at the other side of the dungeon while the party fought.
I'm a fairly new DM with only a couple dozen games under my belt, but I found myself starting my latest campaign with a split party within my opening fishing village. As I jumped from one player to the next, each one finding something to do within a short amount of time, they gradually found themselves interested in the same event, for different reasons. And as they came to meet each other, by chance or circumstance, everyone seemed very engaged and happy with what they had accomplished alone through role-playing before they all eventually came together as a party by the end of our second game with a better idea of who their characters were. Splitting the party made the opening of my campaign more dynamic and memorable, as my players to this day talk about the drama and tension built up from jumping from one group to another (both initially actively working against each other). Really was fun for me and everyone involved. It helps if you can accidentally foreshadow events on the fly or use previously superfluous information as a springboard for events to come, like a PC paladin hearing a wave crash and a cry at the end of their turn to the next PC walking along the beach and being inundated with water and driftwood, letting out a yelp of surprise, leading to a chance encounter with some do-gooder paladin, investigating the sound. I didn't plan that, nor did the second player, but everyone involved enjoyed even that little bit of tension and release as it played out from different perspectives. Great episode as always. Nice to see a take that isn't never split the party, because even as a newbie, it's not impossible and it can be fun with a level of trust established.
The City of the Glass Pool is the finale of the Night Below campaign boxed set. It's truly a high level area filled with the toughest and strangest creatures.
This video reminded me of a game I was playing once. We were in a dungeon that used to be some type of prison after defeating the stone golem guards, my character attempted to take a short rest while two others went to investigate a suspicious jail cell and the last player investigated a trapped giant purple worm. The DM managed this by telling the two characters (and us) major backstory via an ancient storm giant prisoner who was in the jail cell. Then very thoughtfully and comedically cut to the player who was investigating the giant purple worm, who the DM knew would inevitably release the giant purple worm. Which woke up my character. We were all super engaged and it worked out exactly like how you said. Thanks for the advice because I'm always looking for new ways to engage new and old players!!!
Well, I have to say, I ran a two combat Encounter with the two Groups at the Table at the same Time. Why? ... because the Player decided to split up. Not because they knew what was going to happened, but just to see what would happened. It was interresting, I created some really nice Cliffhanger during the Battle while switching from one Group to the other. And as a Bonus, the small Group saved the bigger Group, by accident. Without my doing they killed the Necromancer just in that Round as the Undead in the Celler were killing the bigger Group. Taxing but Rewarding in the End - Not in D&D btw. ^^
I've been in a convention game that had split-party combat and it worked just fine. We weren't running D&D either though, so I can't say it would work with a system that clunky. This might be more of a system problem than an RPG problem.
@@tomasxfranco Pathfinder is basically just D&D 3.75. There is a whole world of systems out there and most of them don't even use a d20 for anything but maybe a table or 2. My example was Savage Worlds.
I just loved this video! I never thought about when I should shift focus from one group to another. I was just doing this on instinct, but now you've given some goals to improve this. Thanks!
dual combat is not as hard as you think, you already ran combat with a team against multiple enemies, just use a single initiative table and go round in that order, it just has the enemies and friendlies fight same as always, but without the teamtactics they usually ignor... i mean.... utilise
This I what I was going to suggest, I've had to do it a couple of times (I ran a party of 7 for a while, they liked to split) a single initiative for 2 combats was fine. I was able to make it more interesing by having the combats affect each other. The best example was in a mimic mansion, where the whole thing was one big mimic. As one group battled its "brain" and the other its "heart", stunning the "brain" had no direct effect on their combat but instead affected the "heart" encouter. It was fanatastic to see the 2 groups interact once they figured it out. Impossibe for every encounter, but really fun when it can be done.
I have done dual combat a couple of times, and also combats where most of the party is X turns (generally between 2 and 3) away from one or two characters that have to survive while they wait and it's very fun.
Thanks for this video Matt. After 20 years dming I now do various forms of party splitting very frequently. It adds lot of tension and player choice. Sometimes it's as little as 1 player scouting so I just whisper to them online or pull them into another room in person
@@VSLteen My players are terrified of splitting the party because I don't softball encounters for a partial party. So when the plot forces them to split, they're more paranoid than a schizophrenic methhead. It's delicious.
Wow! I just got back from watching the Twitch stream about running evil characters. It's really great and I think it would probably be worth posting on UA-cam for folks. It has a lot of the stories from your gaming history that I've wondered about, and a lot of the insights you share could really help new gamers.
Matt, you’re the best. I played lots of D&D prior to discovering your channel, but I never dreamed of DMing until I started watching your videos. Now I’ve watched them all, many multiple times. Cheers
Last time the party split it was a Starfinder game. I run 3 people in one location in the city and 2 people on the opposite side of the city. They were finding hidden cell towers all over the city giving off an evil mind control signals. I played an hour with 1 group until they hit a battle. Then 45min with the other group then they hit a battle. At that point with their communicators I allowed them to talk in real time as I set up what I called ( a mega combat) I rolled initiative for everyone in 2 separate battles. But ran it as 1 continous battle scene switching the POV from one group to the next depending on whose turn it was. I guess this would only work if your split party has simultaneous battles but it was pretty great! The one with 2 party members got the objective and ran from the enemies just escaping by jetpack one unconscious brought back to 1hp and the last PC at 3hp ...I almost killed 2 PCs that session. Very epic we all remember
Think the whole idea of 'never split the party' is because most encounters are tuned to be against a full party. That in itself is 'meta' gaming, a good dm would balance the fights if they decide to split. This builds trust with the DM won't completely punish the players for trying something different.
It doesn't make sense to me to have monsters just poof into nothing because the party decided to split up. If the party does split up, they have voluntarily halved their combat Strength. Dealing with that problem is *their* job. They'll have to get creative; sneaking around encounters, luring single guards away from patrols, setting traps.
@@Msoulwing If your group is there for the storytelling, I agree. If they love combat, that's not a good idea. In the end, we play because it's fun, and if the players love combat, it's a small sacrifice to "nerf " some encounters.
@@Msoulwing If the DM is the only one who currently knows some monsters are nearby, do they in fact exist? My party split a few weeks back with the ranger and druid babysitting an npc while the cleric and barbarian went and started a bar fight. I'm quite sure there were originally 'supposed to be' many more villagers is the tavern, but since there were only the two pcs, some were never narrated into existence in our game.
@Shiroe-san Well, if your players are just there for combat, I don't see why they'd split up in the first place. I suppose they might do so thinking they can take the encounter on their own, but then they're actually asking for it. @GeneralFarrar They exist about as much as anything exists in a fictional universe. Granted, I use Roll20 and I have tokens already made and placed for pretty much every encounter, so I think my creatures have a tinge more permanency than ones that are only narrated. Here's the thing about my GMing style: if my players do something, they will face the logical consequences of their actions. Let me elaborate. In a recent game, my players were in a mountain pass. Early on, they found an elevated path they could climb to instead of following the main path. Now, by doing this, they completely bypassed an encounter and several pit traps. In a dungeon later on, there were four separate potential high-challenge encounters. They managed to sidestep *every single one.* Not by chance, mind you, but by not taking foolish risks. These are two examples of the party acting intelligently and being able to achieve their objective without too much trouble as a result.If the party decides to do something stupid (like split up in a dungeon with an unknown monster count) the opposite will naturally happen and they'll have a harder time.
@@Msoulwing Well, you see, there's a difference between being there "only" for combat and combat being the "main focus". If these players love combat more than the other pillars, but still RP true to their characters, so they actually care about them, splitting up could happen. Also, there may come a moment where some things have to happen at the same time. In those moments, who knows how they'll split up. I may have a hardcore encounter, only for the party to split the wizard and the cleric from the fighter and the barbarian, in some very interesting development. Now, if you keep the encounters unchanged, and they get destroyed, that might inhibit future interesting split ups, since "we need a melee and a caster together, even if our characters don't really get along or I'm currently very interested in some alone time with X". So I believe it's a little more complex than just "no changes" or "always adjust". There is a time for both, is what I'm getting at.
I Just want to thank you for all your hardwork on your content. I played 3.5 when I was a teenager and have a bit of experience being a DM. Recently a group of friends have shown interest after I acquired the players handbook for 5e, I was the only one with experience to run a game but it had been years and this was a new system. We've run our first game which went well and I've ordered additional books. You've really given me a lot of insight on how to make things more fun not only for my players but also for myself.
The videos in the new space just have a new fresh vibe and style. And, even though I haven't been able to catch them, the streams are a really great way of doing things for a channel like this. I really feel that this amazing channel is in the elbow of an exponential curve. And it''s .3 seconds from taking off. Really love your stuff Matt
Nice, one of my players always sticks to the "never split the party" rule, even if it can be advantageous, i am eager to know what do you have to say about this
Force him, and give him the lesson that it doesn't backfire. I'm not playing DnD, but Shadowrun. I sometimes require my people to be in two places at the same time. In DnD it could be two Dishes that need to be pressed down at the same moment, to unlock a secret door in a dungeon? Dunno, sth like that. Depending on your Charakters it might even involve fighting on that dish while the 3rd guy needs to cross a bridge. Stepping of the dish lets the bridge crumble. This could mean two people fighting to stay on the dish with an opponent for each dish to press them off of it. While a third Partymember prays to good, the bridge isn't crumbling underneath his feet. I'm quite sure this situation is stressfull and adrenaline inducing for everyone involved ;). This whole mission then teaches them that splitting up might be necessary. First you force them. Then you give them more and more situation that are less forceful than before until they reach the point, in which they are as comfortable with splitting as you want them to be.
He has basically talked about it, only not under the "splitting the party" denomination. Players are risk-averse, you can't let that principle rule them completely. It's good to tempt them and/or force them away from the safety they crave. From collapsing doorways to subtly placed bad guys, pick your tools. Split them up, and make sure not to immediately punish them for it.
The two responses really disturb me. It's not the DM's job to teach players lessons or decide to punish or not punish players. You built an adventure (hopefully appropriate to the parties level) you know whats down path a and path b. If they split and can handle part a and part b great! If it turns out to be advantageous to split the party even better. If one path leads directly to the big bad and the part of the party that goes that ways dies so be it. The players take their own lessons away from the experience.
I disagree. When you master for Players regularly, then they will gain experiences. They learn from these experiences. But sometimes they might draw bad conclusions, that hurt the game. Sure, you can suffer through it, but i don't enjoy that. On the other hand i don't like complaining about something. So i give them new experiences that contradict the "bad conclusions" so that they can adjust them.
"Players are risk-averse" Some have been trained to be. That is the fault of GMs of their past, if that risk has rarely paid off when successful. I sometimes have characters who behave rather rashly, and take risky actions often. As a player I often support splitting the party, or my risky character will take off into the fray leaving the rest of the party behind. Otherwise the party will stand in some narrow hallway, tank-and-spanking each enemy they can until something smarter than them sends in a cone of acid or something. I'd rather force the issue, make the rest of the party move, create some chaos on the battlefield, surprise the enemy, make the DM scratch his head and think about how our foes would react. I want our fighters to actually use the things inside their helmets and try doing some things other than "I swing, I swing, I swing." I want those mages out there between casts thinking about how they can alter the battlefield to our advantage rather than sitting behind a meatwall. I want those clerics really invested in this battle! I want those rogues to get a chance to do that backstab! Sometimes concentration of force is the answer, sometimes it is not. When it is not, the battles can be way more fun! Splitting the party doesn't always have to be long term, it can start out just with a few rounds in mind, just to get their feet wet.
My 3 player party split up last session in an rescue mission on a cloud giant castle. One player decided to go distract the countess while the other players would go for the rescue while the countess was distracted and I swapped between them as you said and it was fantastic. It was super dramatic and the players loved it.
Hey, I love your videos. The content is amazing 11/10. I have a suggestion on how the quality of the video could be improved though. You should EQ the audio, the 's' sound is extremely prominent so maybe tune down the high frequencies :)
My god yes. You really nailed something that had been bugging me for the longest time! Couldn't really put a finger on it until now. During my last campaign, Skies of Mythos, the players had besieged the holy tower of their former companion turned self-proclaimed god. Turns out the guy has laid out his tower like a series of challenges, except there are many routes one can take to reach the top, where they all reunite. Half the party goes one route, half the other, eventually splitting up again until there are three groups of two people, each in their own, crazy adventures, culminating with some character specific highlights of the campaign, where everyone's development finds a satisfying conclusion. Now, one of my players stated that this one thing was what he had disliked the most about the campaign, claiming that he had lost so much goodness because we had to split up (we were on discord and roll20, so many a mini-sessions only had the two direct participants present). Now I think this is because of how the party is, player wise. They are not so much for telling, for recounting in a role-savvy, satisfying way, they want to be there period. And that's ok. This means, however, that while me and you (Matthew) both really like retelling the cool events, and believe it adds panache to the story, it isn't necessarily true for all players. But perhaps there's a way to make it work, even for them, that's the cool thing about role-playing games, right?
"I've been doing this... since 1988... " Wait. You mean I started playing D&D *before* Matt Colville? That's disturbing. I started with the Red Box and playing during recess circa 3rd grade.
I think you're wrong about those Twitch videos being "less entertaining" - you have a voracious audience, myself included, who would LOVE to digest any and all of your content. Much love!
I think Chris Perkins in Dice Camera Action does a good job with handling the party being split on numerous occasions, and as you mentioned, switching between the groups at dramatic moments to heighten the tension until it’s their turn again. While it’s fun to joke around that you should never split the party, there are certainly some golden moments that can come from it. I like your idea about the city map, as I do have the player or two that decides they want to try to be everywhere. Sounds like a good idea to show them that they aren’t nearby.
I'm a dnd player that is trying to become a Dungeon Master. Your videos on running the game have helped so much, and I'm currently writing my own short campaign now.
I like the idea of splitting the party because of all the interesting combos and scenarios that you just can't replicate with the whole party. It can feel good to solve a problem that would normally be a piece of cake for another party member, allowing you to feel self reliant for not needing their help, but getting to appreciate what they do contribute to the party.
Your lighting seems a little intense (you're a little washed out--maybe the fill lighting is too bright, or perhaps the lights are just generally a little too harsh), but things are looking great. Also, good treatment of what is, to many, probably the scariest scenario to DM.
In one of my games we ended up with two GMs, that was pretty fun because it made it possible to somewhat separate the party to do different things in town or even on different part of a ''battlefield''. That is an unorthodox way to split the party that made it really interesting in the end
There's a fairly simple way of running multiple combats simultaneously, when the party is split. When the first group triggers a fight, the scene with them shifts to the other (or next, in the case of multiple splits) and their narrative pauses -- you'll want to make a note regarding roughly how much time it took to get there. You then go backward in narrative time to the moment the split occurred, and roleplay the events that occur with the new group. Repeat this until all groups have triggered a combat. Then simply roll Initiative for all groups and treat it as one giant fight. As each group finishes their respective fracas, they go off-camera. Once all groups are done, resume the normal course of split-party narrative switching until the next fight.
Raikirah I’ve done exactly this as well. It’s worked fine every time. I’ve even done this with minis... draw a line dividing the map into 2 separate areas for each group , but handle everyone in the same initiative order.
Okay, I usually do something similar... BUT there's a caveat or two... and it gets a little weird. First, how I generally handle combat is a thing... I don't run initiative every round or turn... I've had real-world observations and experience, so I know that combat (boxing for instance) involves a fair amount of toe-to-toe repetition... and I reflect that by "Role playing Combat narratively" and only rolling/re-rolling initiative with purpose... (so there's that) In general RP, we just kind of follow the "order" of combat's last initiative until there's a reason to change it... It's a little simpler, or maybe unconscious tradition until someone pointed it out... but we do that... SO in split-party situations, out of combat, it's just a matter of "narrative convenience" and occasionally "cliffhangers" because "cliffhangers" (PC-groans) Split-party Combats, I tend to let the ebb and flow of repetitive toe-to-toe (figurative) kind of dictate the precisely when and where(s) of rotation between "sub-groups" of PC's... until any particular group is "officially out of combat" while I wind up the rest... With flexibility of narrative time-references in mind, and just to keep the whole table interested in-game, I've been known to give non-combat Players a choice on turns occasionally even while "winding up" others' if their combats end up drawing out more than expected... It just keeps the rotation as "approximately fair" as I can manage most of the time. AND don't forget to allow yourself to breathe and fudge or monkey it up occasionally. Things get muddled in the midst of trying to run one campaign that's turned into two or three or four... as the case may be... even temporarily. ;o)
It’s awesome to see weekly videos and twitch streams from you again. It feels like awaking from a long, Matt-less hibernation! Thanks for all the sweet content you make. Can’t wait for Strongholds & Followers!
I pledged for the gaming supplement I am going to recieve, which looks like it is worth what I paid for it and more from the previews. I also paid to support my favourite youtuber who has provided me with hours and hours of up til now free entertainment. The stream is a pleasant bonus, and I think if Matt wants to work to make the audio visual quality high because he feels it is worthwhile that is cool, but I do not expect him to. I do not feel that Matt Colville owes me anything other than Strongholds and Followers.
Great video; I've had some different experiences than what Matt Colville has had. My newest player was the one most interested in doing what his character would do, even risking his life going alone into a vampire lair, while a different party only split the party when I gave them objective downtime, and even then they cracked jokes. I nipped that a bit by introducing secret information to each character while the party was montage-ing their way through a haunted forest, but still interesting how the newest player had the most "maturity," as Matt put it.
I’ve come back and watched this one for years. I’m now comfortable running A, B, C, D plots and splitting the party up individually. They love it, and it allows for me to do things like capture one. Confront them individually, talk to one and let them share previously unshared opinions. I think most importantly, it lets us share a character’s backstory with the audience but not the characters.
Constructive criticism Matt: I'm not a lighting expert, but the light seems so vibrant that it kind of takes me out of the experience? I don't know how to word it, really.
Oh no. The major thing this video did for me was just get me exciting to hear your bit on fudging! (Largely because you have told many of these stories because and they're super useful, but I knew them). But yeah. I'm hyped for next week and really loving the new studio and videos! Keep it up Matt.
Quick comment about the framerate. The higher frame rate that everyone hated with the Hobbit actually works very well for this format I think. Whereas it robbed a certain cinematic quality from the film, when used in this sort of "chat/class/conversation" format it makes it SO MUCH MORE IMMEDIATE. I love it, I can only imagine what it would look like in a tabletop game stream. The immediacy would make it feel like we were right in the room with you. I love it. Well done.
Video suggestion/request: Don't be mad at your DM if your party starts raising your voices in the middle of the dungeon/labyrinth/Underdark and arguing, and this attracts one or more "wandering monsters". The DM didn't force you all to argue, and if you all keep stopping the campaign by arguing about anything in dangerous territory, how are you surprised that your actions attracted the attention of a "wandering monster" encounter. Especially if you end up the slaves of the Drow... ...again.
While in principle I disagree - if there's a problem at the table, open communication of concerns should be the first recourse, not passive aggressive gaming - I do also see merit in the approach. If nothing else, there should be a risk to spending too much time in a dungeon doing anything. It's why random encounter tables exist. So if the game gets halted for several minutes due to deliberation or argument, it might be time to shake things up with a monster attack. It's also a good thing to roll for if the characters decide to commit themselves to time-consuming tasks, or ones that could be loud. Like, for instance, using mason's tools to break down a door, or the spellcaster stopping everything to ritual-cast a spell.
discoandherpes You can be emotionally engaged without yelling at each other. If you're in a dungeon and there is a mob nearby and the party starts loudly arguing, they're gonna get heard. Bluecho4 Personally I would think it better to have a rough idea before they enter the dungeon of what monsters are around to hear them. If they've already killed everything then they've more than likely made the area safe (depending on the environmental density of monsters). I think it becomes cheap when there was clearly nothing left in the area and then monsters appear out of no where... Like the ninja zombies in so many horror films/series that are suddenly 20ft away in that open field.
I apologize for not making it more clear in the previous post that this had been an ongoing issue, had been previously repeatedly warned about, and here's the clincher in my mind, the arguing wasn't just loud, and wasn't just in the middle of the dungeon/labyrinth/Underdark (not the end, nor after clearing even the majority of the area, but nearly exactly half-way through, in a fairly heavily trafficked area), but most of all, it was in character. Thanks for the constructive input all.
discoandherpes No I am not assuming the tone of the players is the tone of the characters, your assumption that I am is ridiculous. Notice I used words like "can be" and "party" instead of "are" and "players" respectively. These terms refer to a possibility and to the in game characters, not to a certainty or to the out of game people. If players are yelling at each other out of character that is a different issue entirely.
discoandherpes Roll an insight check. Jokes aside it really is just paying attention and intuiting information. The same way you might realise your mate is depressed about his break up, or that your friends are playing a joke on you. If you're really good at it you can tell even if they are complete strangers, but I imagine most groups that might have things like this occur will be close friends already so should know enough about each other to tell the difference. An old friend of mine (haven't seen him in years) is/was an actor but I still knew him well enough to tell the difference. One obvious giveaway you might get depending on how comfortable your players are with RP is if they are speaking in the manner of their character (and it's different from their normal speech) and they use each others characters names. That's a dead giveaway 9 times out of 10, and you'll learn to spot the 1 time its not pretty quickly if you pay attention. Player's aren't the only ones that need to pay attention (I know DMs have a lot on their plate already but I think paying attention should high priority if not top priority).
When I was a Master DM at a shop back in the mid-80s, we came across a scenario like this, where we split a party and ran 2 different games for a short time until they reunited. The way we handled it was by having another DM step up and run one of the sub-parties. It actually worked out great, it was a lot of fun.
I have run two separate combat encounters at the same time and it was thrilling. So exciting. You just treat it as one initiative order and divide your map in two. If you take good notes during the combat and know what's happening on either side, it can be really fun.
I've known about the "dont split the party" trope for nearly a decade. All of my friends did, we shared memes about it, etc. Friends and I finally get into a campaign of our own, and at two separate instances in the game we deliberately split the party -The first time we split the party it, half the party died as one group TPK'd. Everyone in that group made new characters for the next session, and the campaign went on. -The second time we split the party, BOTH groups got TPK'd and the campaign ended. If only someone had warned us not the split the party...
One thing that my DM did when splitting the party was ask the other players to play friendly NPCs who ended up fighting alongside the good guys. All their NPCs ended up dying but it was really a lot of fun and a great way to keep everyone engaged. That inspired me in my own game when we also ended up splitting the party. In one larger combat I asked the players who were not there to play hostile NPCs, one had a low level bad guy and the other a mid level 2nd Lt character. This made the combat really interesting and much more difficult because the player controlling the 2nd Lt. had her do things which made complete sense and were dramatic but were also things that never would have occurred to me.
This really resonated with me. I had a character who I had already decided hated Devils and Demons. At one point we got captured by them. The rest of the party was very much against fighting the demons who were very clearly outmatching us. But I knew my character would never bow his head to a demon, even if it was just a ruse to plan an escape later. I stood up and attacked the demons. Even after I was defeated, I roll a 20 on death throw and come back with 1HP, he was once again offered to give up or die. Immediately I attacked knowing it meant certain death. He did indeed die but honestly. I'm still happy with how he went, and I'm a lot happier with how it ended up vs if he had broken character to bow his head to the demons.
I guess the way in which he hated them matters a lot here. I would choose to act submissive so that I could hurt them more later rather than almost certainly failing by fighting, but that’s me.
Whoa, I've done something Matt Colville hasn't done. I've run up to 3 combats at the same time. It was exhausting, but doable. I have a largish group though, rarely running less than 7 players, and often as many as 9, though a few times up to 11, so often a minor combat can turn into several smaller combats if people spread out. But when they split (often in cities) they almost always get into trouble, so I often have to run multiple combats. Keeping control of the table, that rising action Matt talks about, is extremely important in these instances. Some games I'm not great at this, and it feels like nothing really happened, like everyone just kind of did a couple things, then we all went home, and my players are usually still happy, but I'm very unsatisfied. When I control the pace of things, that's when one persons actions will dovetail with another's and it feels like pages turning in a book, its a certain kind of magic. It feels much more real, and things happen naturally. I have a few of the translocation players, it can be pretty funny how they try to finagle ways to explain how they happen to be everywhere when interesting things happen (or when treasure appears.) One thing it can be hard to pace is shopping and social interactions. If the players scatter, it can be hard to pace that right so everyone gets something neat to do. Sometimes, if my players have't gotten to play in a while, they have trouble paying attention to what other people are doing, and that can make those players feel as though their actions are unimportant. What Matt was talking about, getting fun from other players actions even if you don't get to "do anything" that is the mark of a great player, a real member of a group. In my opinion, a good player is an interested player. Not just in what the DM has to say, but in what the other players are doing and the experience they are having. The last thing that really makes splitting the party easier, is patience and brevity. Try not to dither, or dally. Know what you want to do, and try to get it done in a reasonable time, a little self indulgence is okay, but too much is cutting into other PC's time. And when you're waiting, be interested and aware of what you want to do , so when the DM gets to you, your thing happens instead of everybody looking at you, and you're hemming and hawing. Your DM wants to get to you, they can only process so many things at once. A really good example of larger group play, is Critical Role, they split up all the time, and are usually great about encouraging players, even when their character isn't involved. It just makes the game more fun for everyone.
D&D is in the minority of games where people are deathly afraid of splitting the party, I've found. In my Shadowrun games the party always splits before things 'go loud.' Even in CoC, Pathfinder, etc I've never heard the 'don't split' mentality given for good reason other than sloppy DMs or players. Great video, I hope this makes rookies and vet D&D players less afraid of splitting up, even if temporarily. The best stories I have in my groups are when everyone segments themselves to their specialities and meets up later to high-five about it.
Great advice Matt, thanks for the video. I've actually been doing this for quite a while without realizing it. I'm currently running a homebrew BLEACH campaign that uses the basic system of 5e but goes upwards. Often times my players want to go and be mentored by other characters or investigate something and they all have responsibilities to different areas of the big hub (soul society). Usually we switch back and forth to accomplish everything that needs to be done and then people come back together to create a pretty diverse experience until they group up for their actual 'missions.'
I remember many times during my high school campaigns where we split to two groups for a period of sessions, and I DM'd both separately. It was fantastic almost every time. Scheduling was a whole lot easier those days, especially considering these splits typically happened over the summer. Sometimes the other group would even come over and hang out in another room playing some other game or watching TV together or whatever.
Hey Matt, you talk about never having run two combats at the same time - I do that on occasion. I just use one initiative ranking for both combats, and either have both maps on the table, or have a smaller map that can be lifted on and off the table easily. Essentially treating them as 'one' combat. It worked well in a large assault scenario where one half of the party was infiltrating a palace, while the other was engaging the city's forces to create a distraction. Events and reveals that effected one combat also affected the other tangentially, and that kept everyone interested. It's much easier if at least one of the combats is simple or simplified somehow. Like playing one half out in just one dimension, only noting the distances between combatants, rather than having a map. Also in the palace I used your portcullis splits the party tactic to split one team even further, and reveal that their crucial intel was a plant, and it went well. They hated me for it hehe.
I spy an oldschool copy of Family Business in the background, with the cool art deco style artwork. Man I've had a lot of fun playing that game over the years haha
My favourite trick to pull as a DM is that when the parties split especially if it's one character alone, I will have the other players run NPCs in the area, some the most inspired moments ever.
I play just about every week but every time I watch one of your videos it makes me say to myself "I want to go try that right now!" - it's great :-) Thank you for doing everything you do.
My rule on splitting the party is simple: if I encourage it or do it, you'll be fine, if you do it against my advice, you're basically dead.
There are definitely some players who need to learn that the DM isn't asking, "Are you _sure?"_ for no reason.
@Nick Williams, I disagree. I find that if I as a DM am asking "Are You Sure?" undermines my players decisions. Sometimes I realize that I haven't gone into enough detail and that is why they do that, and so I'm not affraid to clear up misconceptions, but asking "Are you sure you want to do that?" doesn't feel right to me.
ChickenDragon
"Are you sure you want to do that?" is supposed to highlight to the player that they are not taking something into account, without flat-out telling them what the "solution" is.
So, for example, a player who's character is trying to stealthily take out a sentry might get a "AYS?" if their weapon of choice is Thunderwave.
If their choice is thunderwave, then they can live with the consequences. They need to know the limits of their spell. I'm not going to doubt their choice of spell for them. If however if it is something on my end that might not have been explained well, I'll explain a little bit more and then ask if they want to proceed in spite of that.
For my two cents' worth, the classically "Cheap" fix is to pepper in a few "Are you sure"s just to bump up the tension a notch... for no reason what so ever. ;o)
One of my favorite sessions was in Pathfinder. I was playing a bard and my friend was a rogue. We ended up saving a town from a group of zombies that was meant for our full party of five, and surprisingly only lost one villager.
Our group still calls it our El Dorado session.
One of my favorite moments in DnD as a DM was when my players decided to split the party. There was a massive orc and goblin encampment defending a small opening in a cave that my players suspected held the item that they were after, and it was in a canyon with an elevator that went down. Only thing is, they all knew that they weren't stealthy enough to all go through the encampment, and that they needed to get the item before it was used by the orc shamans. So they decided to send in the ranger and rogue from the canyon to sneak into the encampment, steal the object before the orc shamans finished their ritual involving it, and the rest of the party, the cleric, barbarian and sorceror, were going to climb up the canyon walls, secure the elevator partially as a distraction, and they were all going to try to escape from there. And you know what? They pulled it off and had a blast doing so. I would spend about 5-10 minutes with each group before switching to the other and we all had a blast. That was 6 years ago and whenever that group in the rare moon is able to get together to socialize for a bit, that session still comes up as we lament in our inability to play as often as we did then. That was my first time splitting up the party and gave me a lot of confidence in my ability to DM afterwards, and I've only done it a handful of times afterward. Everytime it does happen, though, I get a bit of an adrenaline rush as I prepare to improv essentially two DnD sessions.
After 3 years of playing D&D, I finally had a roleplaying experience. My character and my friend's character went shopping and talked over frozen yogurt. It was awesome.
MATT, YOU'RE TEARING THIS FAMILY APART!
Oh, hi Brandi.
Ha-ha-ha what a funny story Brandi
Anyway, how's your d&d-life?
You're tearing me apart Brandi!
A big part of this channel is me just giving folks permission to try things they might not otherwise try. So folks will watch this and they'll say "Ok, but HOW?" Even though I've done my best to explain how, "the principle of rising action," etc...
But really you just need to see it. That's what the stream will let us do!
I’ve missed your videos so much
I've never been against splitting the party. A lot of the time my players do it on their own. I did one where the players split into 3 groups and attacked a siege camps. I ran 3 encounters at once. I did what you were discussing, cutting from scene to scene. Yeah a couple of the players almost died doing this.
Where can I watch this campaign you're in?
Hi Matt! Unless my ears are broken, the sound is a little clipped. Content, as always, is 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. Love your stuff.
Love your work Matt. This is the first video of yours I've watched in a while though, because your "running the game" series wound up touching on the Critical Role finale. which I haven't reached yet.
My first D&D session: “Okay let’s split up the party”
Two minutes later: *sound of us being owned by bandits*
Next session: “Okay so we’re starting over with a new plot”
"Dont let some guy on the internet tell you how you should play" - some guy on the internet telling me how I could play my game
The difference between "should" and "could" is very important here, haha.
/adjusts glasses ?
@@yanderenejoyer exactly. Someone saying "you have options" is always someone to listen to. The person saying "only this way is right" is ridiculous
cough dawnforgedcast cough
@@milesmatheson1142 Oh, I don't really RP the account, but sure, once.
*Adjusts glasses*
"There is as much to learn from failure as from success." Now, there is some wisdom. :) Good video. Please keep them up.
Okay. The thing about splitting the party in DnD specifically is that it has the tendency to expose one of the few, true weak points in the system's design. There's this weird incongruence between game mechanics and storytelling, where the latter can reasonably call for or be enhanced by the party to splitting up, while the former punishes them for doing to in almost 100% of combat-based situations. DnD's action economy means that more people is more power-- in often dangerously exponential ways. For proof, look no further than one of the most popular 4th level spells in the game; after all, what is "Banishment" if not "split up the enemy party: the spell?"
So. We know this. But, we're DMs-- our games are our own creation. So how do we fix it? One answer-- my answer-- is to adjust the combats I prepare if/when they are encountered by fewer PC's than I anticipated. I know that for some people, this messes with their verisimilitude; they want their world to be as deterministic as possible, a living, breathing place that the PC's simply encounter as it is. And while I respect that style of play, I know my group. I know why we show up to game, and it's for the story. So if, bottom line, I can tell a better story by altering what's behind that door-- AND, if my players either don't know or don't care I did? Then why should I feel bound by decisions I made with less knowledge-- about who's playing, what they can do, and what will make things suitably dramatic for them-- than I have now?
Well said. I think that as a dm it’s always reasonable to make dynamic difficulty adjustments and there are narrative ways to do so. If behind the door opened by a full party of 4 than the 6 guards are sober, alert and sharpening their weapons.If the door is opened by 2 players they are hung over, Distracted and 3 of the 5 are in a side room. The players never need to know until they get there. Also making players aware of their decreased efficacy in terms of number of actions should make them think about which characters go and which tactics they use when they get there. 4 pcs can go in wands blazing, while 2 might need to be much sneaker so maybe let the paladin clank around somewhere else or take off their armor exposing them to danger at a lower ac while enabling some degree of stealth
Amazingly well put. Many other systems don't have the 'don't split' axiom because their action economy isn't as rigidly tactical.
the thing about action economy in general is: the exponential growth (it usually is a quadratic function until actors can't influence the situation anymore) is very true to a system with comparable physics and mathematics to ours. The strength in numbers is basically what makes civilization worthwhile.
I by myself am always happy to see heavy use of of crowd control for that simple matter.
The good thing is: Action economy and the like can be regulated very well by the DM.
the other problem I see, is how much party splitting can elongate everything to the point where it feels like there is no progress at al after like 3 hours of playing.
I'm not disagreeing or saying there is anything invalid about what you're saying. This is a perfectly fine way of approaching it.
Myself I prefer an approach in which we don't always have to assume that the encounters must happen. When the players split up, it makes sense for them to act accordingly. To be more cautious, and less prone to engaging in combats, because they know that they're less effective with fewer numbers. This creates an entirely new type of encounter that's just as, if not more interesting, than your standard combat.
Great information as always, Matt. What I really appreciate about your videos and insight is that it makes me think about things more deeply and consider trying things that I previously might not have been open to doing. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and inspiring other DMs! 👊
I've split my party.. I gave them NPCs that they played as for an encounter or two. They liked having control over their new allies and I didn't have to scale down the baddies.
thats a great idea
I just let them suffer whatever happens. If the wizard goes away in the dungeon for whatever reason and manages to kill the terrible beast roaming in a place because of Desintegrate or whatever, good. If he gets killed, then he knows who's to blame. The last 3 sessions almost everyone got ambushed because they kept going alone in dangerous places (mainly a forest filled with evil fey), despite they better knowledge. I almost killed 4 PC's, one of them 3 times almost in a row. Plot twist, they had a blast, and it was very cool see the Magus conjure a dire bat to fly away when he got ambushed.
Twice as difficult, twice the experience. Much foe, much honor.
Such wow?
@@kingcole5977 many wow
I've had a situation like this in my recent game and while I'm not particularly happy with how I've managed it (I'll get to why in a moment).
I won't get into the very detail. But basically one party split to find their sorcerer friend (a player who was missing the previous session) in a weird freaky tower, while the other two members of the party were saving a city from a siege by weird robots, with the help of a small army of retired (and mostly crippled) adventurers.
We ended the previous session at the point where two of the players were just reaching the weird tower. While the other players were quite literally charging on horseback into battle. It was great, I was amazingly happy with how things have unfolded that session and I was super hyped for the next session. We play every 2 weeks online so I had some time to decide if I want to play the games separately or both at once. In the end I've decided on simultaneous action with some switching in between.
I've created some battle rules and we started with the siege. It was going alright and I've explained the nature of the various battle rolls to the players. I've also asked one of the players involved to read up on mounted combat rules to act as a helper for me (I totally recommend doing that to interest newer players in the more specific rulesets btw). We did some rounds, I've announced ahead of time that we'll do 3 rounds of combat, and after those 3 rounds we'll roll for "battle" with modifiers depending on how well they've performed in those 3 rounds. They seemed to like the idea and it all went rather alright. The fighter player had a blast being a beast, and the bard player felt useful because HAVING A BARD GIVE A WHOLE ARMY A BOOST IS AMAZING.
We cut to the 2 fellas at the tower and quite intentionally the speed changes from high-octane battle action to this slow crawl and exploration of a weird malformed tower. The players were cautious and there were no real combat encounters (as all the units were off sieging a nearby city duh) . I've focused on creating eery atmosphere and the players did a fantastic job of tossing some in-character banther between one another. I ended on them finding their sorcerer friend and him failing (rather spectacularly) a reflex save against a tentacle about to eat his face.
I did this back and forth about 2 more times each way and afterwards the players return from their successful rescue of both their friend AND the city to exchange stories of that transpired and decide on what to do next. All in all the session was a success. **HOWEVER**
This might be the nature of my play (we play online with maptools and talking over discord) but hearing the other players talk about what they do or watching tokens move around in maptools is not as engaging as being there in person and being fully engaged.
For my uses I **Should have** created something for the players to do quietly while I was running the narrative for the other group. The battle group could have been left off with a tactical situation to figure out a resolution to, and the tower party should have been left with some puzzle they could figure out without having to ask me for details.
All in all I still l think this was a success. And I frankly recommend any confident DM try it. It teaches you a lot about the players at your (physical or virtual) table, and what is the best way to keep them engaged.
Haha love the running taboo theme of the latest videos. This one was especially comprehensive with covering the pros and cons of STP. Really appreciated the two sine waves analogy advice.
I have a future video topic suggestion. Could you talk about different types of playing groups? Like generic private home groups, beer and pretzels, adventurers league, other game store pick up games, one shots, campaigns, west marches, online groups, streaming, professional groups, etc. There’s so many ways for groups to form and approach playing nowadays. I’d love to hear your experiences, pros, cons, and advice for DMing and playing across this spectrum.
I needed an Uncle Matt video tonight. Thank you, kind sir.
I don't know who Matt relates to in my family to become my uncle, but I love the thought.
@@Shrooblord He's everyone's favorite uncle. I find his approach a refreshing alternative to the elitist Gatekeepers that plague the hobby. Thanks to him I was able to get my parents and nephew to start a home game.
Usually I find the issue with a split party is that the DM hasn't designed for a smaller party and thus they end up wiping against previously made encounters.
Yeah, I figure a simple way to 'design around' this, if the DM wants? Just halve the number of enemies or whatever challenges are in their way, for the sake of drama.
Depends on the players and the encounters in my opinion. My friends character split off from his group because of an in game time crunch to achieve all their objectives, so they ended up with him fighting one encounter (the players didn't know there was going to be a problem that required a fight) and the other 4 fighting another encounter. My mate is much more tactically minded then the people he was playing with so he was able to complete his objective and escape (barely and with some good luck), but the other 4 wiped against their encounter due to some bad luck and a couple of bad choices. No one was upset, and the wipe resulted in them asking him and me for some advice on in combat decision making because no one had realised how reliant they had been on him shoring up their weak spots.
(side note: I've not had the chance to play D&D yet, I know the rules though RPing a character is something I've not yet tried. We all occasionally play Warhammer together which is why they know/think I'm good with strategy. So if anything I've said seems wrong or out of place in D&D it's probably because of that or because I'm inaccurately repeating what was told to me of what happened.)
It just depends on how it's done. I dm for a group that splits up a lot and usually the decision to split up is at the end of the session, then I design the encounters for the next one. The key to a lot of this, is letting the party know what they're up against (in game) through them scouting, or talking to allies or whatever, so they can plan accordingly. Splitting up in the middle of a dungeon is usually a bad idea unless you're going to be stealthy, because that next room might have twenty goblins in it. Splitting up, so one group can infiltrate the evil wizards tower and steal his spell book, and the other group can act as a distraction is a lot cooler, and more likely to work, the difference is planning.
It goes both ways really. If a DM is inflexible with their encounters they will have trouble adapting to what the players do - this will result in problems, not just with encounters. On the other hand if the players are being stupid or go into dangerous places unprepared and then make it worse by splitting the party then yeah... it's all on them.
If there is some renowned big baddie who's suddenly half as powerfull because only half the party showed up.. well that'd be weird.
I don’t think the DM should adjust it
"When you don't have to worry in town, for instance"
I let my party split, somehow half alerted the royal guards in an assassination attempt to the mayor, the other one triggered a shady gang and started fighting.
I went insanely crazy
I could watch a video on this man just talking about what he had for lunch and I would enjoy it. NEVER STOP
It is difficult, but my group has been split for 8 months and our two groups have been playing once a week (Sunday and Monday nights) and I am so excited because this week they are finally going to regroup! It is going to be epic!
I’m currently playing through Lost Mines of Phandelver, and we recently did Cragmaw Castle, which is a kind of mini-dungeon in the middle of the adventure. We were outside the castle for a while deciding what to do, and eventually we decided to split the party in half, with all the beefy melee fighters going to the front gate to create a distraction while the other characters snuck in a side entrance looking for the dwarf we were there to rescue.
This approach actually worked (miraculously), but it had the unintended effect of turning an entire dungeon into one huge encounter, where half the party had a no-holds-barred brawl in the front, and the other half snuck their way through the back. By the time we met in the middle, we had basically cleared the whole dungeon, aside from the Boss’s quarters, which the sneaky half wisely decided not to investigate alone.
We were helped by the fact that the sneaky party inadvertently released a caged owl bear, which massacred almost a dozen goblins who the front party had pushed back by setting a door on fire.
Eventually the two groups met in the middle, somehow none of us had died and we had cleared the whole dungeon aside from the boss!
It was maybe the most memorable dungeon run I’ve ever been a part of, and would never have happened if we hadn’t split the party. I say go for it, as long as you’re willing to accept the consequences, it can be very fun.
For the "switching cameras" technique Matt talks about, I find it's always best to cut just before or as the climax of a particular point of action comes about.
Love that shirt Matt! The Thing is one of my all-time favorite movies. Those guys split the party....look where it got them.
Funny you should mention rising action and it being difficult to run a split combat. Recently had half of my group imprisoned and ran the group inside and outside of the prison simultaneously with a 10 minute timer that had me switching between groups frequently. Eventually both groups got into combat and i had them all roll initiative. I set up two white boards and ran the combats simultaneously like they were in the same room. Technically the timing was off and it would have taken the outside group considerably longer to get into combat if each group was on real world time, but a little handwaving of the world's rules made for a very dramatic night when they both fought guards to eventually meet up in the center and all escape into the night. I was told later that it was the most intense battle I've ever run as the cleric was so focused on rushing to the aid of the other half of the party to heal the paladin who was down to around 5 health.
So happy you touched on this Matt. I absolutely love when the party splits. It’s so much more interesting. It also gives you a chance to see characters that don’t interact with each other as much get forced to work together and develop their relationship.
Matt, your videos are always very informative and well spoken. Thank you so much for making them and for making me a better DM! Side note: your hair is slick as hell my dude.
he fusses a bit over the gray hairs, but dammed if he doesn't still have a ton of it! gray or otherwise! wish i still had a head of hair like that =(
This looks like someone crafted a perfect Matt construct out of pure gold, the lighting just feels that way
This could just be me but it seems like the noise suppression or something is getting a little aggressive and cutting off words. It's not enough to be unintelligible and I may just be whining but it produces a weird effect that sounds very odd.
You're not alone, I picked up on it as well.
It's not just you.
Agreed
At 14:58 it's really, REALLY present. I mostly didn't notice it through the video, so I think it's a minor thing, but that moment jumped out at me.
Noticed it too, glad to see I'm not alone and it's not me going nuts lol
Thanks for sharing your wisdom as always. So thankful for the return of consistent videos!
i remember a handful of parties where as the small statured feytouched woman with a high intelligence and high charisma, that i had to separate from the party to speak with the local nobles because noble descent, and often had to buy pretty clean clothes and a special bath and beauty treatment for these things i mean, i was allowed to keep a dagger inside my sleeve as the party rogue for in case of the risk of combat, but i had to do all the diplomacy at the party and make allegiances that helped the group out, because lots of people dumped charisma and had no social skills, in addition to carrying a walking armory. so they usually assumed me the one they were charged with protecting. even though i was a rogue in spidersilk clothes. because spidersilk is amazing.
I mean.. it was the basis for Silksteel in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and they managed to make it plausible too. "The highest tensile strength of any substance known to man".
Started my first game as a DM 2 months ago we are on our 11th Session thanks to your help Matt! This video came out at the best time, I run a two party campaign from session 1, there are two factions in my setting and each party contained the opposite of the two, the fought, argued, stole, and lied to each other it's great but recently they have started to fight more often and combat is 'nearly' impossible. I find that most times I end the game exhausted, agitated and even the RP has suffered because with all the new choices my players talk so much but I don't get to hear what they are doing. One day a party becomes a background party the next they are the heroes, your video has really helped me figure out its not my fault, thanks man your wisdom always guides me in such dark times :)
My experience with splitting the party goes hand in hand with the current map they're on. They tend to stick together during roleplaying sections, but split when combat nears. I then proceed to manage the different small groups at the same time according to initiative rolls and then they manage to come together by the end for the boss fight. Most of the times. One time one of my players literally was looting at the other side of the dungeon while the party fought.
I'm a fairly new DM with only a couple dozen games under my belt, but I found myself starting my latest campaign with a split party within my opening fishing village. As I jumped from one player to the next, each one finding something to do within a short amount of time, they gradually found themselves interested in the same event, for different reasons. And as they came to meet each other, by chance or circumstance, everyone seemed very engaged and happy with what they had accomplished alone through role-playing before they all eventually came together as a party by the end of our second game with a better idea of who their characters were.
Splitting the party made the opening of my campaign more dynamic and memorable, as my players to this day talk about the drama and tension built up from jumping from one group to another (both initially actively working against each other). Really was fun for me and everyone involved. It helps if you can accidentally foreshadow events on the fly or use previously superfluous information as a springboard for events to come, like a PC paladin hearing a wave crash and a cry at the end of their turn to the next PC walking along the beach and being inundated with water and driftwood, letting out a yelp of surprise, leading to a chance encounter with some do-gooder paladin, investigating the sound. I didn't plan that, nor did the second player, but everyone involved enjoyed even that little bit of tension and release as it played out from different perspectives.
Great episode as always. Nice to see a take that isn't never split the party, because even as a newbie, it's not impossible and it can be fun with a level of trust established.
Man, how I have missed hearing the Colville Voice (tm)
Same
Matt...you've been a huge inspiration for me. And I've been GMing for over 25 years. THANK YOU
I believe he's mentioned the City of the Glass Pool story in another video before. It sounds oddly familiar
He mentioned it in his metagaming series
As much as he mentions Ajax, the Invincible Overlord or Kaleral the Vile.
The City of the Glass Pool is the finale of the Night Below campaign boxed set. It's truly a high level area filled with the toughest and strangest creatures.
Okay, I knew I wasn't going crazy. Thanks for informing me
This video reminded me of a game I was playing once. We were in a dungeon that used to be some type of prison after defeating the stone golem guards, my character attempted to take a short rest while two others went to investigate a suspicious jail cell and the last player investigated a trapped giant purple worm. The DM managed this by telling the two characters (and us) major backstory via an ancient storm giant prisoner who was in the jail cell. Then very thoughtfully and comedically cut to the player who was investigating the giant purple worm, who the DM knew would inevitably release the giant purple worm. Which woke up my character. We were all super engaged and it worked out exactly like how you said. Thanks for the advice because I'm always looking for new ways to engage new and old players!!!
Another video from this beautiful man!
TIL Shibboleth. What a great word! Thanks, Matt!
Well, I have to say, I ran a two combat Encounter with the two Groups at the Table at the same Time. Why? ... because the Player decided to split up. Not because they knew what was going to happened, but just to see what would happened.
It was interresting, I created some really nice Cliffhanger during the Battle while switching from one Group to the other. And as a Bonus, the small Group saved the bigger Group, by accident. Without my doing they killed the Necromancer just in that Round as the Undead in the Celler were killing the bigger Group.
Taxing but Rewarding in the End - Not in D&D btw. ^^
I've been in a convention game that had split-party combat and it worked just fine.
We weren't running D&D either though, so I can't say it would work with a system that clunky.
This might be more of a system problem than an RPG problem.
Pathfinder?
@@tomasxfranco Pathfinder is basically just D&D 3.75.
There is a whole world of systems out there and most of them don't even use a d20 for anything but maybe a table or 2.
My example was Savage Worlds.
Our System was and is Warhammer Fantasy Rpg 2nd Edition.
I just loved this video!
I never thought about when I should shift focus from one group to another. I was just doing this on instinct, but now you've given some goals to improve this. Thanks!
That is some good lighting. Makes you look quite statuesque, bronze like even.
dual combat is not as hard as you think, you already ran combat with a team against multiple enemies, just use a single initiative table and go round in that order, it just has the enemies and friendlies fight same as always, but without the teamtactics they usually ignor... i mean.... utilise
This I what I was going to suggest, I've had to do it a couple of times (I ran a party of 7 for a while, they liked to split) a single initiative for 2 combats was fine. I was able to make it more interesing by having the combats affect each other. The best example was in a mimic mansion, where the whole thing was one big mimic. As one group battled its "brain" and the other its "heart", stunning the "brain" had no direct effect on their combat but instead affected the "heart" encouter. It was fanatastic to see the 2 groups interact once they figured it out. Impossibe for every encounter, but really fun when it can be done.
I have done dual combat a couple of times, and also combats where most of the party is X turns (generally between 2 and 3) away from one or two characters that have to survive while they wait and it's very fun.
Thanks for this video Matt. After 20 years dming I now do various forms of party splitting very frequently. It adds lot of tension and player choice. Sometimes it's as little as 1 player scouting so I just whisper to them online or pull them into another room in person
You said 'mature' players a bunch, but until 6:51 I did not realize you meant 'mature' vs 'newbie' not 'mature' vs 'wangrod'.
It can be both!
Hmm, well, I know several veterans who simply can't handle splitting the party, let alone the idea of it
@@VSLteen My players are terrified of splitting the party because I don't softball encounters for a partial party. So when the plot forces them to split, they're more paranoid than a schizophrenic methhead. It's delicious.
Wow! I just got back from watching the Twitch stream about running evil characters. It's really great and I think it would probably be worth posting on UA-cam for folks. It has a lot of the stories from your gaming history that I've wondered about, and a lot of the insights you share could really help new gamers.
Ahhh, the controversy!
Matt, you’re the best. I played lots of D&D prior to discovering your channel, but I never dreamed of DMing until I started watching your videos. Now I’ve watched them all, many multiple times. Cheers
Don't you know, you never split the party~
Clerics in the back keep those fighters hale and hearty.
@@drowemos the wizards in the middle, so he can shed the light
Great practical advice! This is definitely something that will influence my campaigns!
Thanks for this video and all the rest, Matt!
Must have rolled high initiative to be this early
Guess I rolled a 1 with a 3 dex because I'm allitle late
Last time the party split it was a Starfinder game. I run 3 people in one location in the city and 2 people on the opposite side of the city. They were finding hidden cell towers all over the city giving off an evil mind control signals. I played an hour with 1 group until they hit a battle. Then 45min with the other group then they hit a battle. At that point with their communicators I allowed them to talk in real time as I set up what I called ( a mega combat) I rolled initiative for everyone in 2 separate battles. But ran it as 1 continous battle scene switching the POV from one group to the next depending on whose turn it was. I guess this would only work if your split party has simultaneous battles but it was pretty great!
The one with 2 party members got the objective and ran from the enemies just escaping by jetpack one unconscious brought back to 1hp and the last PC at 3hp ...I almost killed 2 PCs that session.
Very epic we all remember
Think the whole idea of 'never split the party' is because most encounters are tuned to be against a full party. That in itself is 'meta' gaming, a good dm would balance the fights if they decide to split. This builds trust with the DM won't completely punish the players for trying something different.
It doesn't make sense to me to have monsters just poof into nothing because the party decided to split up.
If the party does split up, they have voluntarily halved their combat Strength. Dealing with that problem is *their* job.
They'll have to get creative; sneaking around encounters, luring single guards away from patrols, setting traps.
@@Msoulwing If your group is there for the storytelling, I agree. If they love combat, that's not a good idea.
In the end, we play because it's fun, and if the players love combat, it's a small sacrifice to "nerf " some encounters.
@@Msoulwing If the DM is the only one who currently knows some monsters are nearby, do they in fact exist? My party split a few weeks back with the ranger and druid babysitting an npc while the cleric and barbarian went and started a bar fight. I'm quite sure there were originally 'supposed to be' many more villagers is the tavern, but since there were only the two pcs, some were never narrated into existence in our game.
@Shiroe-san
Well, if your players are just there for combat, I don't see why they'd split up in the first place.
I suppose they might do so thinking they can take the encounter on their own, but then they're actually asking for it.
@GeneralFarrar
They exist about as much as anything exists in a fictional universe. Granted, I use Roll20 and I have tokens already made and placed for pretty much every encounter, so I think my creatures have a tinge more permanency than ones that are only narrated.
Here's the thing about my GMing style: if my players do something, they will face the logical consequences of their actions. Let me elaborate.
In a recent game, my players were in a mountain pass. Early on, they found an elevated path they could climb to instead of following the main path. Now, by doing this, they completely bypassed an encounter and several pit traps.
In a dungeon later on, there were four separate potential high-challenge encounters.
They managed to sidestep *every single one.* Not by chance, mind you, but by not taking foolish risks.
These are two examples of the party acting intelligently and being able to achieve their objective without too much trouble as a result.If the party decides to do something stupid (like split up in a dungeon with an unknown monster count) the opposite will naturally happen and they'll have a harder time.
@@Msoulwing Well, you see, there's a difference between being there "only" for combat and combat being the "main focus". If these players love combat more than the other pillars, but still RP true to their characters, so they actually care about them, splitting up could happen. Also, there may come a moment where some things have to happen at the same time. In those moments, who knows how they'll split up. I may have a hardcore encounter, only for the party to split the wizard and the cleric from the fighter and the barbarian, in some very interesting development.
Now, if you keep the encounters unchanged, and they get destroyed, that might inhibit future interesting split ups, since "we need a melee and a caster together, even if our characters don't really get along or I'm currently very interested in some alone time with X".
So I believe it's a little more complex than just "no changes" or "always adjust". There is a time for both, is what I'm getting at.
I Just want to thank you for all your hardwork on your content. I played 3.5 when I was a teenager and have a bit of experience being a DM. Recently a group of friends have shown interest after I acquired the players handbook for 5e, I was the only one with experience to run a game but it had been years and this was a new system. We've run our first game which went well and I've ordered additional books. You've really given me a lot of insight on how to make things more fun not only for my players but also for myself.
Is the audio a bit odd for anyone else?
seems some of the consonants are a bit truncated
Yes
Yep. Maybe he's using a different mic?
Also audio seems to go in and out of synch
seems like it might be editing side. hopefully it is, because that means it can be fixed
The videos in the new space just have a new fresh vibe and style. And, even though I haven't been able to catch them, the streams are a really great way of doing things for a channel like this. I really feel that this amazing channel is in the elbow of an exponential curve. And it''s .3 seconds from taking off. Really love your stuff Matt
Nice, one of my players always sticks to the "never split the party" rule, even if it can be advantageous, i am eager to know what do you have to say about this
Force him, and give him the lesson that it doesn't backfire. I'm not playing DnD, but Shadowrun. I sometimes require my people to be in two places at the same time.
In DnD it could be two Dishes that need to be pressed down at the same moment, to unlock a secret door in a dungeon? Dunno, sth like that.
Depending on your Charakters it might even involve fighting on that dish while the 3rd guy needs to cross a bridge. Stepping of the dish lets the bridge crumble.
This could mean two people fighting to stay on the dish with an opponent for each dish to press them off of it. While a third Partymember prays to good, the bridge isn't crumbling underneath his feet. I'm quite sure this situation is stressfull and adrenaline inducing for everyone involved ;). This whole mission then teaches them that splitting up might be necessary. First you force them. Then you give them more and more situation that are less forceful than before until they reach the point, in which they are as comfortable with splitting as you want them to be.
He has basically talked about it, only not under the "splitting the party" denomination. Players are risk-averse, you can't let that principle rule them completely. It's good to tempt them and/or force them away from the safety they crave. From collapsing doorways to subtly placed bad guys, pick your tools. Split them up, and make sure not to immediately punish them for it.
The two responses really disturb me. It's not the DM's job to teach players lessons or decide to punish or not punish players. You built an adventure (hopefully appropriate to the parties level) you know whats down path a and path b. If they split and can handle part a and part b great! If it turns out to be advantageous to split the party even better. If one path leads directly to the big bad and the part of the party that goes that ways dies so be it. The players take their own lessons away from the experience.
I disagree. When you master for Players regularly, then they will gain experiences. They learn from these experiences. But sometimes they might draw bad conclusions, that hurt the game. Sure, you can suffer through it, but i don't enjoy that. On the other hand i don't like complaining about something. So i give them new experiences that contradict the "bad conclusions" so that they can adjust them.
"Players are risk-averse" Some have been trained to be. That is the fault of GMs of their past, if that risk has rarely paid off when successful. I sometimes have characters who behave rather rashly, and take risky actions often. As a player I often support splitting the party, or my risky character will take off into the fray leaving the rest of the party behind. Otherwise the party will stand in some narrow hallway, tank-and-spanking each enemy they can until something smarter than them sends in a cone of acid or something.
I'd rather force the issue, make the rest of the party move, create some chaos on the battlefield, surprise the enemy, make the DM scratch his head and think about how our foes would react. I want our fighters to actually use the things inside their helmets and try doing some things other than "I swing, I swing, I swing." I want those mages out there between casts thinking about how they can alter the battlefield to our advantage rather than sitting behind a meatwall. I want those clerics really invested in this battle! I want those rogues to get a chance to do that backstab!
Sometimes concentration of force is the answer, sometimes it is not. When it is not, the battles can be way more fun! Splitting the party doesn't always have to be long term, it can start out just with a few rounds in mind, just to get their feet wet.
My 3 player party split up last session in an rescue mission on a cloud giant castle. One player decided to go distract the countess while the other players would go for the rescue while the countess was distracted and I swapped between them as you said and it was fantastic. It was super dramatic and the players loved it.
Hey, I love your videos. The content is amazing 11/10. I have a suggestion on how the quality of the video could be improved though. You should EQ the audio, the 's' sound is extremely prominent so maybe tune down the high frequencies :)
My god yes. You really nailed something that had been bugging me for the longest time! Couldn't really put a finger on it until now.
During my last campaign, Skies of Mythos, the players had besieged the holy tower of their former companion turned self-proclaimed god.
Turns out the guy has laid out his tower like a series of challenges, except there are many routes one can take to reach the top, where they all reunite.
Half the party goes one route, half the other, eventually splitting up again until there are three groups of two people, each in their own, crazy adventures, culminating with some character specific highlights of the campaign, where everyone's development finds a satisfying conclusion.
Now, one of my players stated that this one thing was what he had disliked the most about the campaign, claiming that he had lost so much goodness because we had to split up (we were on discord and roll20, so many a mini-sessions only had the two direct participants present).
Now I think this is because of how the party is, player wise. They are not so much for telling, for recounting in a role-savvy, satisfying way, they want to be there period. And that's ok. This means, however, that while me and you (Matthew) both really like retelling the cool events, and believe it adds panache to the story, it isn't necessarily true for all players. But perhaps there's a way to make it work, even for them, that's the cool thing about role-playing games, right?
"I've been doing this... since 1988... " Wait. You mean I started playing D&D *before* Matt Colville? That's disturbing. I started with the Red Box and playing during recess circa 3rd grade.
I was born in 1988 and I am considered an old experienced player, so yeah.
Props for having a copy of The Campaign for North Africa. I wouldn't have thought that was your jam!
I think you're wrong about those Twitch videos being "less entertaining" - you have a voracious audience, myself included, who would LOVE to digest any and all of your content.
Much love!
54
53
Just noticed Matt is wearing a tshirt for John Carpenter's The Thing! Favorite movie! Go Matt
I've often found that splitting the party is like dividing by zero. Impossible without first making things complex.
I think Chris Perkins in Dice Camera Action does a good job with handling the party being split on numerous occasions, and as you mentioned, switching between the groups at dramatic moments to heighten the tension until it’s their turn again. While it’s fun to joke around that you should never split the party, there are certainly some golden moments that can come from it. I like your idea about the city map, as I do have the player or two that decides they want to try to be everywhere. Sounds like a good idea to show them that they aren’t nearby.
I keep apologizing to you every time I have to pause the video. What does that signify, I wonder?
Trendane Sparks It means you need to DM for me. Or vice versa.
Hahah. I'm not that good of a DM, I'm afraid. You do far, far better than me, as I recall. And I'd be delighted to play with you again.
I'm a dnd player that is trying to become a Dungeon Master. Your videos on running the game have helped so much, and I'm currently writing my own short campaign now.
Does he ever breathe
Yes. But like so many videos on UA-cam all the natural pauses have been cut out making the presentation seem a continuous diatribe.
He’s a lich. They don’t need to breathe.
He rolled a 20 for breathing before turning the camera on
I like the idea of splitting the party because of all the interesting combos and scenarios that you just can't replicate with the whole party.
It can feel good to solve a problem that would normally be a piece of cake for another party member, allowing you to feel self reliant for not needing their help, but getting to appreciate what they do contribute to the party.
Your lighting seems a little intense (you're a little washed out--maybe the fill lighting is too bright, or perhaps the lights are just generally a little too harsh), but things are looking great. Also, good treatment of what is, to many, probably the scariest scenario to DM.
It kinda looks like he's wearing makeup
In one of my games we ended up with two GMs, that was pretty fun because it made it possible to somewhat separate the party to do different things in town or even on different part of a ''battlefield''. That is an unorthodox way to split the party that made it really interesting in the end
There's a fairly simple way of running multiple combats simultaneously, when the party is split. When the first group triggers a fight, the scene with them shifts to the other (or next, in the case of multiple splits) and their narrative pauses -- you'll want to make a note regarding roughly how much time it took to get there. You then go backward in narrative time to the moment the split occurred, and roleplay the events that occur with the new group. Repeat this until all groups have triggered a combat. Then simply roll Initiative for all groups and treat it as one giant fight. As each group finishes their respective fracas, they go off-camera. Once all groups are done, resume the normal course of split-party narrative switching until the next fight.
Raikirah I’ve done exactly this as well. It’s worked fine every time. I’ve even done this with minis... draw a line dividing the map into 2 separate areas for each group , but handle everyone in the same initiative order.
Okay, I usually do something similar... BUT there's a caveat or two... and it gets a little weird.
First, how I generally handle combat is a thing... I don't run initiative every round or turn... I've had real-world observations and experience, so I know that combat (boxing for instance) involves a fair amount of toe-to-toe repetition... and I reflect that by "Role playing Combat narratively" and only rolling/re-rolling initiative with purpose... (so there's that)
In general RP, we just kind of follow the "order" of combat's last initiative until there's a reason to change it... It's a little simpler, or maybe unconscious tradition until someone pointed it out... but we do that...
SO in split-party situations, out of combat, it's just a matter of "narrative convenience" and occasionally "cliffhangers" because "cliffhangers" (PC-groans)
Split-party Combats, I tend to let the ebb and flow of repetitive toe-to-toe (figurative) kind of dictate the precisely when and where(s) of rotation between "sub-groups" of PC's... until any particular group is "officially out of combat" while I wind up the rest...
With flexibility of narrative time-references in mind, and just to keep the whole table interested in-game, I've been known to give non-combat Players a choice on turns occasionally even while "winding up" others' if their combats end up drawing out more than expected... It just keeps the rotation as "approximately fair" as I can manage most of the time.
AND don't forget to allow yourself to breathe and fudge or monkey it up occasionally. Things get muddled in the midst of trying to run one campaign that's turned into two or three or four... as the case may be... even temporarily. ;o)
It’s awesome to see weekly videos and twitch streams from you again. It feels like awaking from a long, Matt-less hibernation! Thanks for all the sweet content you make. Can’t wait for Strongholds & Followers!
Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how many people complain about really minor things to do with lighting and sound on these videos.
You don't think Matt cares about getting his videos to the utmost quality for the audience that gave him over $2,000,000? I certainly hope he cares.
They're not complaining, they're giving him advice and help
I pledged for the gaming supplement I am going to recieve, which looks like it is worth what I paid for it and more from the previews. I also paid to support my favourite youtuber who has provided me with hours and hours of up til now free entertainment. The stream is a pleasant bonus, and I think if Matt wants to work to make the audio visual quality high because he feels it is worthwhile that is cool, but I do not expect him to. I do not feel that Matt Colville owes me anything other than Strongholds and Followers.
Great video; I've had some different experiences than what Matt Colville has had. My newest player was the one most interested in doing what his character would do, even risking his life going alone into a vampire lair, while a different party only split the party when I gave them objective downtime, and even then they cracked jokes. I nipped that a bit by introducing secret information to each character while the party was montage-ing their way through a haunted forest, but still interesting how the newest player had the most "maturity," as Matt put it.
"Don't let people online tell you how to play"
-Matt Colville, online
I’ve come back and watched this one for years. I’m now comfortable running A, B, C, D plots and splitting the party up individually.
They love it, and it allows for me to do things like capture one. Confront them individually, talk to one and let them share previously unshared opinions. I think most importantly, it lets us share a character’s backstory with the audience but not the characters.
Constructive criticism Matt:
I'm not a lighting expert, but the light seems so vibrant that it kind of takes me out of the experience? I don't know how to word it, really.
I personally am revelling in the experience of ascended angel Matt
Oh no. The major thing this video did for me was just get me exciting to hear your bit on fudging! (Largely because you have told many of these stories because and they're super useful, but I knew them).
But yeah. I'm hyped for next week and really loving the new studio and videos! Keep it up Matt.
MAtt. You are a dirty tease. covering your mouth like that before telling us the book will be available in weeks. Just mean. ;)
Quick comment about the framerate. The higher frame rate that everyone hated with the Hobbit actually works very well for this format I think. Whereas it robbed a certain cinematic quality from the film, when used in this sort of "chat/class/conversation" format it makes it SO MUCH MORE IMMEDIATE.
I love it, I can only imagine what it would look like in a tabletop game stream. The immediacy would make it feel like we were right in the room with you. I love it. Well done.
Video suggestion/request:
Don't be mad at your DM if your party starts raising your voices in the middle of the dungeon/labyrinth/Underdark and arguing, and this attracts one or more "wandering monsters". The DM didn't force you all to argue, and if you all keep stopping the campaign by arguing about anything in dangerous territory, how are you surprised that your actions attracted the attention of a "wandering monster" encounter. Especially if you end up the slaves of the Drow...
...again.
While in principle I disagree - if there's a problem at the table, open communication of concerns should be the first recourse, not passive aggressive gaming - I do also see merit in the approach. If nothing else, there should be a risk to spending too much time in a dungeon doing anything. It's why random encounter tables exist.
So if the game gets halted for several minutes due to deliberation or argument, it might be time to shake things up with a monster attack. It's also a good thing to roll for if the characters decide to commit themselves to time-consuming tasks, or ones that could be loud. Like, for instance, using mason's tools to break down a door, or the spellcaster stopping everything to ritual-cast a spell.
discoandherpes You can be emotionally engaged without yelling at each other. If you're in a dungeon and there is a mob nearby and the party starts loudly arguing, they're gonna get heard.
Bluecho4 Personally I would think it better to have a rough idea before they enter the dungeon of what monsters are around to hear them. If they've already killed everything then they've more than likely made the area safe (depending on the environmental density of monsters). I think it becomes cheap when there was clearly nothing left in the area and then monsters appear out of no where... Like the ninja zombies in so many horror films/series that are suddenly 20ft away in that open field.
I apologize for not making it more clear in the previous post that this had been an ongoing issue, had been previously repeatedly warned about, and here's the clincher in my mind, the arguing wasn't just loud, and wasn't just in the middle of the dungeon/labyrinth/Underdark (not the end, nor after clearing even the majority of the area, but nearly exactly half-way through, in a fairly heavily trafficked area), but most of all, it was in character.
Thanks for the constructive input all.
discoandherpes No I am not assuming the tone of the players is the tone of the characters, your assumption that I am is ridiculous. Notice I used words like "can be" and "party" instead of "are" and "players" respectively. These terms refer to a possibility and to the in game characters, not to a certainty or to the out of game people. If players are yelling at each other out of character that is a different issue entirely.
discoandherpes Roll an insight check.
Jokes aside it really is just paying attention and intuiting information. The same way you might realise your mate is depressed about his break up, or that your friends are playing a joke on you. If you're really good at it you can tell even if they are complete strangers, but I imagine most groups that might have things like this occur will be close friends already so should know enough about each other to tell the difference. An old friend of mine (haven't seen him in years) is/was an actor but I still knew him well enough to tell the difference.
One obvious giveaway you might get depending on how comfortable your players are with RP is if they are speaking in the manner of their character (and it's different from their normal speech) and they use each others characters names. That's a dead giveaway 9 times out of 10, and you'll learn to spot the 1 time its not pretty quickly if you pay attention. Player's aren't the only ones that need to pay attention (I know DMs have a lot on their plate already but I think paying attention should high priority if not top priority).
When I was a Master DM at a shop back in the mid-80s, we came across a scenario like this, where we split a party and ran 2 different games for a short time until they reunited. The way we handled it was by having another DM step up and run one of the sub-parties. It actually worked out great, it was a lot of fun.
I have run two separate combat encounters at the same time and it was thrilling. So exciting. You just treat it as one initiative order and divide your map in two. If you take good notes during the combat and know what's happening on either side, it can be really fun.
I've known about the "dont split the party" trope for nearly a decade. All of my friends did, we shared memes about it, etc.
Friends and I finally get into a campaign of our own, and
at two separate instances in the game we deliberately split the party
-The first time we split the party it, half the party died as one group TPK'd.
Everyone in that group made new characters for the next session, and the campaign went on.
-The second time we split the party, BOTH groups got TPK'd and the campaign ended.
If only someone had warned us not the split the party...
Thanks matthew not only has your videos gotten me back into D&D but they've been a big help with my first time Being the DM :)
One thing that my DM did when splitting the party was ask the other players to play friendly NPCs who ended up fighting alongside the good guys. All their NPCs ended up dying but it was really a lot of fun and a great way to keep everyone engaged.
That inspired me in my own game when we also ended up splitting the party. In one larger combat I asked the players who were not there to play hostile NPCs, one had a low level bad guy and the other a mid level 2nd Lt character. This made the combat really interesting and much more difficult because the player controlling the 2nd Lt. had her do things which made complete sense and were dramatic but were also things that never would have occurred to me.
This really resonated with me. I had a character who I had already decided hated Devils and Demons. At one point we got captured by them. The rest of the party was very much against fighting the demons who were very clearly outmatching us. But I knew my character would never bow his head to a demon, even if it was just a ruse to plan an escape later. I stood up and attacked the demons. Even after I was defeated, I roll a 20 on death throw and come back with 1HP, he was once again offered to give up or die. Immediately I attacked knowing it meant certain death. He did indeed die but honestly. I'm still happy with how he went, and I'm a lot happier with how it ended up vs if he had broken character to bow his head to the demons.
That is awesome. I love when the "20 on a death save" works out like that.
I guess the way in which he hated them matters a lot here. I would choose to act submissive so that I could hurt them more later rather than almost certainly failing by fighting, but that’s me.
I didn't see the character submitting to a demon, he was very proud.
Whoa, I've done something Matt Colville hasn't done. I've run up to 3 combats at the same time. It was exhausting, but doable. I have a largish group though, rarely running less than 7 players, and often as many as 9, though a few times up to 11, so often a minor combat can turn into several smaller combats if people spread out.
But when they split (often in cities) they almost always get into trouble, so I often have to run multiple combats. Keeping control of the table, that rising action Matt talks about, is extremely important in these instances. Some games I'm not great at this, and it feels like nothing really happened, like everyone just kind of did a couple things, then we all went home, and my players are usually still happy, but I'm very unsatisfied. When I control the pace of things, that's when one persons actions will dovetail with another's and it feels like pages turning in a book, its a certain kind of magic. It feels much more real, and things happen naturally.
I have a few of the translocation players, it can be pretty funny how they try to finagle ways to explain how they happen to be everywhere when interesting things happen (or when treasure appears.)
One thing it can be hard to pace is shopping and social interactions. If the players scatter, it can be hard to pace that right so everyone gets something neat to do. Sometimes, if my players have't gotten to play in a while, they have trouble paying attention to what other people are doing, and that can make those players feel as though their actions are unimportant. What Matt was talking about, getting fun from other players actions even if you don't get to "do anything" that is the mark of a great player, a real member of a group. In my opinion, a good player is an interested player. Not just in what the DM has to say, but in what the other players are doing and the experience they are having.
The last thing that really makes splitting the party easier, is patience and brevity. Try not to dither, or dally. Know what you want to do, and try to get it done in a reasonable time, a little self indulgence is okay, but too much is cutting into other PC's time. And when you're waiting, be interested and aware of what you want to do , so when the DM gets to you, your thing happens instead of everybody looking at you, and you're hemming and hawing. Your DM wants to get to you, they can only process so many things at once. A really good example of larger group play, is Critical Role, they split up all the time, and are usually great about encouraging players, even when their character isn't involved. It just makes the game more fun for everyone.
D&D is in the minority of games where people are deathly afraid of splitting the party, I've found. In my Shadowrun games the party always splits before things 'go loud.' Even in CoC, Pathfinder, etc I've never heard the 'don't split' mentality given for good reason other than sloppy DMs or players. Great video, I hope this makes rookies and vet D&D players less afraid of splitting up, even if temporarily.
The best stories I have in my groups are when everyone segments themselves to their specialities and meets up later to high-five about it.
Great advice Matt, thanks for the video. I've actually been doing this for quite a while without realizing it. I'm currently running a homebrew BLEACH campaign that uses the basic system of 5e but goes upwards. Often times my players want to go and be mentored by other characters or investigate something and they all have responsibilities to different areas of the big hub (soul society). Usually we switch back and forth to accomplish everything that needs to be done and then people come back together to create a pretty diverse experience until they group up for their actual 'missions.'
As a player, I definitely have the “I want to be everywhere at once” impulse. 😂
I remember many times during my high school campaigns where we split to two groups for a period of sessions, and I DM'd both separately. It was fantastic almost every time. Scheduling was a whole lot easier those days, especially considering these splits typically happened over the summer. Sometimes the other group would even come over and hang out in another room playing some other game or watching TV together or whatever.
Hey Matt, you talk about never having run two combats at the same time - I do that on occasion. I just use one initiative ranking for both combats, and either have both maps on the table, or have a smaller map that can be lifted on and off the table easily. Essentially treating them as 'one' combat. It worked well in a large assault scenario where one half of the party was infiltrating a palace, while the other was engaging the city's forces to create a distraction. Events and reveals that effected one combat also affected the other tangentially, and that kept everyone interested. It's much easier if at least one of the combats is simple or simplified somehow. Like playing one half out in just one dimension, only noting the distances between combatants, rather than having a map.
Also in the palace I used your portcullis splits the party tactic to split one team even further, and reveal that their crucial intel was a plant, and it went well. They hated me for it hehe.
I spy an oldschool copy of Family Business in the background, with the cool art deco style artwork. Man I've had a lot of fun playing that game over the years haha
My favourite trick to pull as a DM is that when the parties split especially if it's one character alone, I will have the other players run NPCs in the area, some the most inspired moments ever.
I play just about every week but every time I watch one of your videos it makes me say to myself "I want to go try that right now!" - it's great :-) Thank you for doing everything you do.
Thank you so much for these videos. You are an inspiration and super helpful! Keep up the amazing work!
Its funny how excited and happy I got when I saw this up. Loving the new setup Matt!