This past weekend, I had a very large group (by my standards) that hired a bunch of NPCs and split themselves into (at one point) three different groups.  All of the groups entered combat nearly simultaneously.

The problem was that upwards of 2/3 of the group had to sit around and do nothing while the other 1/3 of the group finished their combat.

Is there a good way around this?  What have you done in the past to handle multiple combats with large groups of players?

I felt particularly bad because it seemed that I didn't give any of the groups a good challenge (I feel like I short changed them all) so that I could get through their combats quickly so that I could keep the story moving for the other group.

My inclination is to pull in a Co-GM to deal with all this, but as it was a playtesting event, I was the only one who knew the mechanic.

Any advice would be welcome.  

Run the fights simultaneously. You can even use the same battlemat (assuming you use one) but that can get confusing if you don't have a good variety of minis to choose enemies and allies from.

"Hey, gang.  If you split up it will totally hose the run for two-thirds of the group, so I think its a bad thing to do.  Let's discuss this before you go ahead and do it."

This is the very reason I don't like large groups.

The only way around it would be to have a co-GM for resolving combats and such.

OR

You could run two seperate groups with the same mission with two different GMs. The parties may run into each other or maybe not. Make things interesting. We actually did this @ a local store for  D&D day last year. We made a giant multi level dungeon and basically gave the groups the same adventure hook and turned them loose. Some of the four groups spent more time on side adventures out side the dungeon than others did, but eventually all four groups were in the dungeon @ the same time. It was pretty cool.

Quote from: James McMurrayRun the fights simultaneously. You can even use the same battlemat (assuming you use one) but that can get confusing if you don't have a good variety of minis to choose enemies and allies from.

I like this idea, if you're up to it as a GM. Just treat it as one big battle spread across three locations.

I pretty much always run large groups... and as if that wasn't bad enough, I have a tendency of putting them up against ALOT of slightly-lower level opponents. Splitting people up is somethin that happens, too.

1)Run every single combat at the same time. It can be done.

2)Large groups of similar foes act on the same initiative count.

3)For Thor's sake, keep the maps far the fuck away from each other. I don't use minis... sometimes there's so much erasing I have to switch to a new sheet. It's okay. It still works.

4) Move fast. This really just comes down to practice. Also, if a player's being slow, skip'em. Some players get ticked off at first, but they do learn.

5)Attack everyone. No one should go from one turn to the next without something happening to them.

I like the simultaneous combat idea, too.

Another approach would be to switch between the combats at suitably dramatic moments.  I'm thinking in terms of cinematic-style cuts in and out: in round 3 of combat 1, Frisco the Elf used his last arrow and is now being menaced by a big honkin' orc, who raises his heavy mace to strike...now to combat 2!

But the latter approach isn't always feasible, especially if you're using battlemats to resolve all your fights.  Too, some systems don't lend themselves to that sort of play.

Quote from: McrowThis is the very reason I don't like large groups.

though, in his defense, I've had precisely this thing happen with a group of only three players.  The issue isn't necessarily "How do you handle large groups?" (though they do require special care) so much as it's a matter of "What does it do to your game when the players split up?"

Long story short, there's no simple answer.  jrients hit pretty close to the mark with the suggestion that you ask the players directly if they can come up with a cooperative means (in-character, of course) to stay together as a cohesive play group.  Otherwise, it's a not-so-simple matter of juggling your players, making the active encounter entertaining enough for the inactive players to view as spectators, or perhaps allowing the inactive players limited control over adversarial NPC or encounters.

!i!

I used  to run AD&D for upwards of 13 people simultaneously. Co-GMs help a lot, as does running simultaneous combat and switching between the two, preferably at appropriate moments. when I was sole GM, that's how I would always do combat. In fact, I did my best to switch between groups every 10 minutes or so whether or not combat was occurring. Having the rest of the group wait while I dealt with a situation in its entirety never worked out well.

-clash

My players split up pretty much every session.  Cut, cut, cut!  That's the best way to handle it.  Try to set it up as little mini-cliffhangers, so everyone is eager to find out what happens next.  If one group finishes a fight first, then go on with them doing that amount of time's worth of extra stuff, and throw in something for them to do.

The idea that 'splitting the group will screw up the adventure' needs to die.  It's very easy to roll with people in different locations.