Do split-play Veeky Forums exist and how do you play them?

It's arghle-fargle-bargle.

A thread died for this

Split-play is where you let players split from their party and do stuff on their own for longer periods of time and where they could ultimately divert from the campaign and do other things or their story could evolve into a completely different campaign.
Or they'll rejoin the original campaign after they have done something on their own.

They've died for less

Maybe OP means like, seperate paths where the players arent together so you split them up to do each path individually or something. Like with Pierce in Community

It was probably a quest so who the hell cares.

Never split the party, user. This is basic stuff.

OP probably means when each player is playing 2 PCs because of the high lethality of hte game, and each player can see two character sheets in front of them as they're playing.

Probably.

Nono you get headpats

Tfw a quest board is made and they still shit up the board.
This must be what it's like to be a cancer patient, and learn the chemotherapy is failing

Evidently, this thread is about figuring out "what is split-play?"

This is what I think OP might be talking about.

There are plenty of games like this. Hell, there are games that don't even assume (or outright reject) a "party" structure.

But what happens when a party of schizophreniacs (or whatever multiple personality syndrome is called these days) splits up?

Is that Double Split-Play or Half Split-Play?

ME

Stand aside, young'un. The TeeGee professionals on the case, ready to solve this mystery.

We'll figure out what op meant by split-party soon.

Thank you for this thread, Veeky Forums, I'm still kekekeing.
Different chat rooms desu. Never had a group not-online

Wish I was a hot girl.

Yes, let's solve this mystery!
I think split-play might be Noumenon.
All the characters are different and independent, but they share the same health pool, and we're pretty sure that they're going to have been one character all along.

That's silly. Any RPG could allow for split-play. It's usually horrible unless you have two separate sessions doing things in places where they couldn't feasibly influence each other. Then it's still horrible.

All my players are co-working friends, so I can run splinter campaigns on RPGs and narrative boardgames pretty much any time. Doing it in the usual weekly session format would require some serious organisation and devotion to the campaign.

I just wish you weren't ugly.

They should stay just to spite you fucks.

Me too but I wish I was a hot girl most of all.

Found the questfag

If you mean "splitting the party" it's a suggested and valuable game mechanic in a lot of narrative RPG's like Monster Hearts, Poison'd, and Dogs in the Vineyard.

I don't know any game except those where's it's a good idea, though.

If your cancer can be cured by filtering threads on an imageboard, I assume it's not a problem.

Pretty sure OP means, like, have two different groups of players that represent two different parties, but in the same campaign, and each party's players is unaware of the other party's actions unless they are made known to them in-game.

This game is goddamn incomprehensible.

I've been in forum PbPs fitting that modus operandi.
One was more of a GM round robin - players took reins in GMing short arks when they had ideas for plots. But within those plots, parties were split and reorganized as situation called.
Although I dropped out, it's still going on.

The other had one GM with main plot thread, but people forming groups on their own to deal with it.
That one ground to a halt when a group of cunts decided that they wanted both to have endless slice of life animu shenanigans AND be vital to all plots.
So whenever somebody tried doing plot, they endlessly bitched about being left behind; and if somebody tried pulling them in, they bitched that others were rollplayers and hated character development.
They killed the game, killed the sequel to the game, killed the reboot and killed the reboot of a reboot.
(No don't ask me why the fuck the GM didn't cut off ties with them, I have no idea either.)

Yeah, if it comes up, sure. It's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. As a GM you just have to make sure to be fairly brisk in switching focus from one player or group of players to another. Let them do something meaningful, build up to something important then switch and let them consider what to do next while you do the same for the others.

With that said, you usually don't want to more than two separate groups. Three is doable but it's the absolute max before play gets really bogged down.

It's also not a style of play for a group who is unfamiliar with the system. It's vital that players can make swift decisions and that the GM can make swift resolutions.

It's also not a style for a players who can easily get distracted. Usually you want your players to be the types who will listen intently and derive enjoyment from listening to the other player's adventures. Or you want the types who will revel in planning between scenes.

>tl;dr
It's viable for people who play a lot and have a tight group to play with so not Veeky Forums