Quote from: Simlasa;777319I seldom try to herd players. Generally they'll work out that they need to get going... or not.

I never herd players.

I do light a fire under their asses on occasion.

Quote from: robiswrong;777323I never herd players.

I do light a fire under their asses on occasion.

I play with kids a lot. Sometimes it helps to casually remind them what the central mission was... or point out the passing of time. If they continue to ignore it... no biggie. Environments have their own speed at which things happen... how long it's safe to stand around arguing in the middle of the train tracks.
Also, it doesn't bother me when the party breaks up in different directions or on different sidequests... though I've played in groups where the other Players will freak out if someone tries to go off on their own even for a moment.

Quote from: Simlasa;777327... though I've played in groups where the other Players will freak out if someone tries to go off on their own even for a moment.

I've known a few people who freak out if their friends try to go off on their own even for a moment. Maybe those players are just playing a character who is like those people.

Well, first off, I run a sandbox, so the players get to decide -- for the most part -- what tails they feel like chasing, when they feel like chasing them.  If what they want to do for two hours is have a massive shopping expedition, then that's what happens.  "Adventure" ≠ "Line Battle."

For a second ... eesh, this isn't a hockey game, and there isn't a point where if you don't score a couple goals within the next six minutes, you Lose The Game.  Barring a convention run or some other limited-edition session, there really is no -- and doesn't need to be -- a rush.  (Of course, the NPCs and Big Bads aren't going to be waiting around either, so if the PCs don't have their act together, they're going to lose in time-sensitive scenarios.  But it is what it is -- it's not my job to get the characters off their duffs so they won't blow the scenario.)

Third is having a group that doesn't mind splitting up.  If people were completely intolerant of single-player 15-minute digressions, that'd be another thing.  (Alternately, you probably need your group to always agree on what it is they're doing, which isn't any easier to obtain.)

I had a situation months ago when a player was bored with the "mission creep" other players were pursuing, but didn't want his character to go do something else, and expected me as GM to make the local situation more to his taste.

I'll do that once or twice, but I'll run out of patience with people to whom it's not clear that it's up to the players to play their game. Got a disagreement with team members? Odds are, you can even talk about that in character!

If you part ways, I'll try to give everyone a fair share of time. Playing n.p.c.s can also be an option.

This is less of an issue in the old style of larger campaign, in which a particular group of players and characters gets a session scheduled not just because it's a certain day of the week -- but because they have a worthwhile adventure planned. If they're spending the whole game week hanging around at home, maybe that's not worth playing out. There's a pressure when another 12 or 15 players are also vying for the GM's time!

A novice dm once got so frustrated he threatened to pack up the game after only a fraction of an hour, because he thought we were refusing the scenario he had planned.

In fact, we were all on board with following his lead. If he'd done something like the old tournament modules --  here's the mission, here's the door to the dungeon -- we'd have got right down to it.

Instead, he started us in a tavern and proceeded to overload us with n.p.c.s presenting rumours and intrigues, more or less hard to grasp and largely irrelevant to the immediate undertaking he had in mind.

Our continuing to interact with those characters and each other for a while was just a matter of trying to get our bearings in what was a rather strange environment.

After we mollified him, he ran the scenario. It was a pretty stupid one from Dragon or Dungeon, but we made the best of it. We didn't want to stay in that milieu, however, so the award of a demesne -- presumably meant to keep us there -- was something we handed over to a steward.

Even with players who basically want to please the dm, sometimes  it's best to let go of the reins.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;777214As a GM, how do you handle it when players in a party are interested in different things?

That's up to the players to work out. I'm not their fucking nanny.

I am, however, the guy rolling for chance encounters while they work it out.

Let them carry on - it's their game.

If I get bored, though, I'll ask if there's anything more they can achieve here - sometimes they say no and carry on, sometimes they'll say yes and ask more things.

Quite often, one of the players will try and move things on themselves.

We have played some sessions where the whole session takes place in a single place. Other times, a session can be a single scenario. It depends.

I find it really helps to run smaller groups. If you have a bigger group I find it works better to split the party if at all possible and switch back and forth between different people as when you have more people it takes more time to agree on a course of action. For example when I ran D&D with my students, I found that the smaller groups actually had less deaths and more treasure than the larger groups because they were better coordinated.

Another thing that I found helped really increase speed of play is side-based initiative. Let everyone come up with a plan together and do it makes things faster (and most importantly subjectively seems faster to the players) since you have everyone engaged instead of people waiting for their turns.

Several thoughts:

I agree, generally, with the 'discuss it with your players' thing, primarily.

Also, I like games where you can mechanically 'hook' something to 'frivolous' play.

I mean, sure, some players enjoy fluff and chatting with NPCs. Some players don't.

But there's a wiggly middle where some players are like 'that's nice, but doing THIS means we aren't actually meaningfully advancing our characters/the adventure/the plot.'

One potential answer is _making_ 'fluff' actually matter. Either it is worth XP, or contributes to adventure/plot, or something.

Yeah, some players are still going to be bored, but you might shift things, plus perhaps encourage players to feel better about taking turns with game focus.

If the players are bickering or being really indecisive in town or in a planning stage, I'll just fold my arms and sit back. Not say a word. Eventually they take the hint and get their shit together.

If they act that way when the PCs are in the dungeon or wilderness, it's wandering monster time.

Yes, I almost always let the players just carry on, but keep track of how long they're taking to do things in game-time, and applying any emulative consequences from that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;777224I bounce between players. I am cool with everybody splitting up occasionally, but the players have to be cool that I give you 2 minutes, then the next guy, etc.

Also, I learned a GREAT technique from another GM. When a couple PCs are out of the scene, I assign them NPCs with a quick description - I will play the Tavern Owner and one PC can be the Weird Dude in the Corner, another can be the Town Drunk, etc. It keeps everyone engaged.

Most importantly, I know the all important rule of pacing - when there is a lull, have somebody kick in the door and start shooting. Nothing gets the story moving like some random violence.
.

This. I used to run Daredevils games with 12 + players when we were back at school. the game would run for 2 days 9am -9pm. Some of the PCs never met other PCs or indeed anyone else in the game.

If you want to experiencing PCs split up run some Amber I have never had a group of more than 2/3 PCs in Amber form a party (5 players and 1 group of 3) and I have only managed to get all the PCs into one room once in 20+ years of running it.

In my current game M&M 2e one of the PCs isn't very physical so stays at base and hacks in to give support (control machinery massive range and computer hack at uber level etc.)

The key to this is to give each player enough face time to move their plot forward and stop before it resolves. This keeps each player focused on their action not drifting off to do something else and moves everyone on at the same pace so you can link up again.

Quote from: Will;778061Several thoughts:

I agree, generally, with the 'discuss it with your players' thing, primarily.

Also, I like games where you can mechanically 'hook' something to 'frivolous' play.

I mean, sure, some players enjoy fluff and chatting with NPCs. Some players don't.

But there's a wiggly middle where some players are like 'that's nice, but doing THIS means we aren't actually meaningfully advancing our characters/the adventure/the plot.'

One potential answer is _making_ 'fluff' actually matter. Either it is worth XP, or contributes to adventure/plot, or something.

Yeah, some players are still going to be bored, but you might shift things, plus perhaps encourage players to feel better about taking turns with game focus.

The "fluff" which I refer to as Roleplaying is the important stuff.

Quote from: jibbajibba;779148The "fluff" which I refer to as Roleplaying is the important stuff.

To you. And, mostly, to me.

But hey, you know, people like different things. Newsflash.