I'm currently GMing a sandbox campaign with players who are happy to play their characters IC even if it means that they leave the party eventually due to their motivations.

Right now there are four PCs, and it looks like they might split into two separate groups to pursue different objectives. Normally if someone leaves the party, the game just follows the party, and the character that leaves is just gone.

But in this case, which group would the game follow? How do you decide what the "main" party is?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830023I'm currently GMing a sandbox campaign with players who are happy to play their characters IC even if it means that they leave the party eventually due to their motivations.

Right now there are four PCs, and it looks like they might split into two separate groups to pursue different objectives. Normally if someone leaves the party, the game just follows the party, and the character that leaves is just gone.

But in this case, which group would the game follow? How do you decide what the "main" party is?

Why have a "main" party?  Go really old-school and let each character have multiple PCs.  Then you can let them figure out which week which PCs they're playing.

Of course, then you might have to keep track of time as well...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830023But in this case, which group would the game follow? How do you decide what the "main" party is?

A) The main party is the one whose players showed up to play tonight.
B) The main party is the one doing the things I am prepared to run tonight.
C) The main parry is the one doing the things that most interest me as the GM.
D) The main party is the one with the most players in it.
E) None of the above. There is no main party.

Quote from: robiswrong;830025Why have a "main" party?  Go really old-school and let each character have multiple PCs.

Yes. It's a good excuse for players to make up some new characters.

Alternatively, you could run each group every session alternating the point of view every five or ten minutes of real time.

Some GMs arent keen on multi-tasking plots like that. Bobs off following his quest for the ring of whatever. Joes off wenching in the tavern, and so on. Having to do that one at a time is ok. But 3-4 seperate paths all at once is a mess waiting to happen. People have to wait. Lots of down time usually. One player may get more action for one reason or another.

Can be done. I got payed to do it. But personally I'd rather the group stuck together.

Quote from: Omega;830119Some GMs arent keen on multi-tasking plots like that. Bobs off following his quest for the ring of whatever. Joes off wenching in the tavern, and so on. Having to do that one at a time is ok. But 3-4 seperate paths all at once is a mess waiting to happen. People have to wait. Lots of down time usually. One player may get more action for one reason or another.

Can be done. I got payed to do it. But personally I'd rather the group stuck together.

Four different paths is a PITA. Fortunately I find the players usually find reasons for most of their characters to get back together in short order. Sometimes a simple question "Do you all want your characters in four different locations?" is enough of a reminder so that they manage to team up a few characters.

I also had good luck in some campaigns with troupe style play where everyone had multiple characters such that each player always had at least one PC in each location.

If it is just a temporary split with the plan to meet up later, it might work to split it. I had a party split for two sessions and I just kept cutting back and forth (the players actually seemed to enjoy it, but I think it would have gotten old real quick if we kept it up or it kept happening again and again). But if this is a permanent or long term split ask the players which group they'd like to stick with or just go with whichever one seems like it has the most plausible long term game potential.

In games like Amber or Lords of Olympus it's totally common that the players (often a sizable group), are spread out, rarely with more than two or three of them together at any time.  This just requires a group that's willing to have gaps between their turns to play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;830437In games like Amber or Lords of Olympus it's totally common that the players (often a sizable group), are spread out, rarely with more than two or three of them together at any time.  This just requires a group that's willing to have gaps between their turns to play.

This is D&D though.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830442This is D&D though.

How does you playing D&D matter, as opposed to any other system?

Honestly, unless you've got the time and energy to run multiple campaigns, you go with whatever bunch you prefer to run, based on whatever criteria you decide.  That's something no one can determine but yourself.  You tell the players of the dissenting PCs -- if and when -- that the characters are of course free to leave the group if they're dead set on them having divergent motivations, and you're looking forward to seeing what they come up with for new characters.

(This presumes you're not talking about the temporary "Okay, well I'm going to the College of Mages to research that ritual the cultists were attempting" / "Fine, while you do that I'm going shopping for new gear" splits which routinely happen with many parties.)

Send half the players home and tell them, "See ya next week (or whenever)."

Quote from: Ravenswing;830453How does you playing D&D matter, as opposed to any other system?

Honestly, unless you've got the time and energy to run multiple campaigns, you go with whatever bunch you prefer to run, based on whatever criteria you decide.  That's something no one can determine but yourself.  You tell the players of the dissenting PCs -- if and when -- that the characters are of course free to leave the group if they're dead set on them having divergent motivations, and you're looking forward to seeing what they come up with for new characters.

(This presumes you're not talking about the temporary "Okay, well I'm going to the College of Mages to research that ritual the cultists were attempting" / "Fine, while you do that I'm going shopping for new gear" splits which routinely happen with many parties.)

Well, Amber is all about every player scheming on their own. D&D is supposed to be a group of adventurers working together.

Quote from: RPGPundit;830437In games like Amber or Lords of Olympus it's totally common that the players (often a sizable group), are spread out, rarely with more than two or three of them together at any time.  This just requires a group that's willing to have gaps between their turns to play.

Some players cant stand that. And god forbid you ever get one of the ADD types from board gaming.

I usually warn players at the start that if they decide to split off from the group then it is my call wether to GM that or not. and that if I do then they have to accept that there will be slot of downtime as I am NOT going to focus on them at the expense of the rest of the group.

Different from the party splitting up to do a flanking maneuver or being split up by a trap for example.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830502D&D is supposed to be a group of adventurers working together.

Not particularly, though it is usually played that way.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830502Well, Amber is all about every player scheming on their own. D&D is supposed to be a group of adventurers working together.

According to Geezer and others there was a fair amount of soloing going on very early in the game. How much I dont know. From the accounts it sounds like Gary and Dave handled these one on one seperately.

Id guess they had lots of retainers and such as that was still pretty common back then.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830023I'm currently GMing a sandbox campaign with players who are happy to play their characters IC even if it means that they leave the party eventually due to their motivations.

Oh, how I hate abbreviations. IC=In Character, I assume?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830023Right now there are four PCs, and it looks like they might split into two separate groups to pursue different objectives. Normally if someone leaves the party, the game just follows the party, and the character that leaves is just gone.

Sounds like a good thing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;830023But in this case, which group would the game follow? How do you decide what the "main" party is?

You don't.
You split up the action into scenes. One scene for one party, one scene for another. Use a timer if you want. think of it like a film, or TV series, you get several stories happening at the same time, switching between each story, scene by scene.

So, one party goes into a city to find the person who killed a PC's family. The other party goes hunting a band of orc. Tavern scene, where the party gain contacts. Wilderness scene, where the party look for tracks. Street scene, where the party search for a contact. Ambush scene, where the party are attacked by goblins. Sewer scene, where the party travel through the sewers and are attacked by thieves. Hermit scene, where the party meets a lone wizard. Thieves Guild, where the party attack the person who killed the PC's family. orc camp, where the party attack the orcs.