Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account
This post has been closed. You can still view previous posts, but you can't post any new replies.

Multiple Player "Groups" (for scene selector)

Some tool for moving/assigning players into or out of separate sub-groups, each with their own ribbon on the scene selector, so you can have some in one scene, some in another, at the same time.
1335995555
Pax
KS Backer
Nooo! Don't split the party! ;)
Discussion to be had, for sure.
Nooo! Don't split the party! ;) In stuff like Shadowrun, splitting the party can be by design!
Must have... player Heroes who get cut off from or split on purpose from the main party happens all the time in my campaigns.
Yes - this is a must. The rogues in our party go wandering off all the time!
You guys are going to want separate chats, too, aren't you. And separate videoconferences….
This is just me talking, but I think that if I had to run something totally split apart like that, I'd divide it into two separate campaigns, so then you actually would have divided chat & video. It'd be easier for me to just jump between two concurrent tabs in the browser than juggle some multi headed in-game hydra.
If (when) I have to run something like that the players whose characters are not involved slip into audience stance and the players whose characters are involved are specially conscious that they have to be entertaining while they are in the spot light and *not hog*. I would never use a feature that made the game turn into a silent and unresponsive boat-anchor for any player, nor run, nor player in, a game that required that. Games are for mutual amusement, and you don't get amused by what you can't see or hear. But most people aren't much like me.
I do the same (or at least, similar) as Age... if the group splits (rarely happens) I just have the non-PCs watch on for a while. If they get restless, involve them with something. If both groups or doing something (ie, one group skirts the outside of the building they're trying to enter, while the other group is busy sneaking through the secret underground entrance they found) I'll alternate between them when something happens (the outside group find a window they can unlock or are spotted by guards, the passage party come across a trap or a patrol) - on roll20, this could be just changing from one page to another every few game minutes or rounds. I'm right in thinking the token will be right where you left them? I just think it's far easier to concentrate on one group at a time for short periods. If there's secret information, give them a handout only the players from one group or the other can see. Around the table, I'd just slip them a note or something anyway. A few times I've just flat out told them something and trusted them not to metagame with the information and I can't remember being disappointed in the few times I've done that. Also, it's a nice change of pace for a player to spectate for a little while and can help build some tension or drama as the on-looking players witness something they can't interact with.
A few times I've just flat out told them something and trusted them not to metagame with the information and I can't remember being disappointed in the few times I've done that. Not directly related to the feature request at hand, but I just want to point out that not all instances of keeping information secret are due to not trusting the other players with metagame information. Most of the games I've played don't keep any secrets, but one game in particular made considerable use of short, private GM+player conversations. In those instances, all the players were on board that they, as players, would know only what their characters knew, and because of that, the added tension of knowing that another character knew something else, but not knowing what, added much to the general atmosphere of the game.
A few times I've just flat out told them something and trusted them not to metagame with the information and I can't remember being disappointed in the few times I've done that. Nor have I. But metagaming is an issue for some groups, and besides, I have known some people who say that though they are quite capable of firewalling out-of-character information and willing to do so, they don't like having to. Also, it's a nice change of pace for a player to spectate for a little while and can help build some tension or drama as the on-looking players witness something they can't interact with. I find it so, but other folks' mileage varies.