Fairly inexperienced DM here, I messed up during the first session

One of those players just cut me off and said "Oh, okay, let's just follow The Prologue™, then".

I mean, I thought that "hey guys, we're being chased by squadrons of hunters out for blood. The wizard even cast an ice spell to cover the road, the rogue had the perception to assess the situation, the warrior ripped off the ropes that bound us earlier and it just seems to make sense to stick together for now" is a good enough glue for a quickly sprung up group of survivors.

I don't know, I feel like I fucked up. I don't know what to do when people just decide to spread out in an open area like a jungle like that.

I did prepare a whole bunch of locations and made some universal maps that could work for both forest and dungeon encounters. But if the players were to run off and suddenly be like "oh hey, you guys met up together after all, HOW CONVENIENT", it would make no sense. And it would also be a hassle to go "oh, well, Adam, Barbara and Charlie, you guys are exploring the long-forgotten dwarven tunnel. Derek, who is now like 30 miles away, make your Survival check to see if you managed to hunt down that raptor for meat."

I just felt a little scolded, like I disappointed my players.

File: Witcher.jpg (398KB, 1370x957px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1370x957px

>>53159471
>>53159479
Having "The Prologue" isn't the problem. Making "The Prologue" without any player input is the problem. A good DM should always ask the players what kind of game they're looking for and then run a basic scenario by them before starting. If the players want to have a laid back episodic adventure of dungeon delving and taking on quests, they're probably going to be alot happier if you start the game off with them as part of a guild or mercenary group or somesuch and present them with a list of jobs to take... rather than starting them off naked in the middle of a jungle surrounded by WTF EVERYTHING. Maybe your players just didn't want to do a survival-thriller The Most Dangerous Game kind of game.

>>53159471
Should have killed off the smallest group. They were hunted by a master tracker so giving up your only advantage (the road where you have a chance to run, and working together) is stupid.

>>53159533
>A good DM should always ask the players what kind of game they're looking for and then run a basic scenario by them before starting.
Well, um...
>I don't know
>Just make it fun
...that's kinda what happened.

The thing is that the players are fans of Gothic, the video game.
The idea of the scenario is that, for some god-forsaken reason, they were all captured by the Evil Empire and sent off to a colony that's on an island. They are then lead off by a bunch of slavers. Then I told them "Okay, we're playing this for the first time, so form a plan to escape, guys, and let me introduce you to skill challenges", and that's how they broke their ropes.

The chase sequence was supposed to introduce tension and force them to form a temporary bond, show them that their skills are all useful, and make them work together in a foreboding land as they go from zero to hero, loot dungeons, meet factions on the island and stop the Lovecraftian /WFRP-ish evil within the archipelago. I badly wanted to avoid "You all meet in a tavern / adventurer's guild" ploy, because.... well, that's what cool kids do?

>>53159549
But then we're only an hour into the very first game and two people already have to roll new characters, and chargen isn't too fast in this system.

Have then play a synchronised but separate John Rambo scene each where the evade the patrol and get around behind them

>>53159589
>The thing is that the players are fans of Gothic, the video game.
Oh, and I realized I kind of abandoned that point to save for later and failed to elaborate.
Well, Gothic is about being a literal zero in an isolated world of danger and crime, where everyone early on is a threat, and then becoming a big motherfucker that will slap everyone's shit.

I kind of attempted to give this adventure a similar feel because of what I know about my players. The hunter person is, in fact, set up to be their semi-nemesis - provided they don't find a way to kill him in their first encounter, which does exist (he is set to flee if things go haywire).

So your players are purposefully subverting your game because PlayerVsGM logic, pointlessly throwing away their characters' lives, showing no interest in potential future developments, and no attachment to the statblocks they're happy to keep making up.
Bitch did you steal my players? Even Steven? That cheating whore.

File: Eremagerhd.jpg (181KB, 550x447px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 550x447px

>>53159471
>>53159479
>>53159589
Yeah that's a pretty normal way to start a group, and it's not super original, but there's nothing wrong with it. Some players will sometimes run off in situations like that without fully realizing that they are potentially perma-splitting the campaign. Other players just have it in their nature to do that shit, and no amount of talking ahead of time will help. I know a guy I've played for for seven years and he still does this shit and never learns.

When PCs start to run off in that sort of situation, you should just tell them, without getting upset or anything, that if they run off and the group is not together, it isn't going to work as a campaign. Most people will then go, "oh", and just stay, which sounds like what your players did, and so it isn't a problem and you shouldn't worry about it.

If they push their point and insist on running off, just say that whichever group of groups of players is the smallest, "escapes", and they can roll new characters to hang out with the actual group.

But generally, in all things in rpgs, if you are calm, polite, and logical in explaining what you want from your players, they will go along with it. If they still don't, it's usually because they are dicks, and not because of something you did.

>>53159589
Honestly, in that case it's alright to either get them captured or killed, particularly if they get separated without any plan to get back together.

Anyway, from the way it looks, you made the same mistake I made my first game, you let the players make independent characters and hoped that they'd come up with a reason to stick together after meeting.

Instead what you should do is either run a session 0 where everybody can make a party together, instead of everyone making separate characters, or come up with a reason for all of them to be together for at least their first job, or ideally, both. Stuff like "you're all on a boat heading to your destination and it wrecks", "you were all hired by some guy to do a mission" or "you're all part of the military/an organization" works for the prologue. Basically, it's important that your PCs meet before the game starts and have a reason to stick together at least for a couple of sessions.

Alternatively, what I've done is set up a prologue for expendable, temporary characters that are set to die by the end of the prologue as a way to introduce the world and the system. Once that's done you hold a proper session 0 and then get to playing the main campaign.

In your case, as I said, I recommend you get the smaller group either killed or captured. This will both show that their actions have consequences and that they need to think of plans. Also, getting captured sets up a rescue subplot (or not, depending on your players).

>>53159471
>I am normally trying my hardest to be prepared for anything, but 2 players decided that they're going to spread and separate and run into many different directions.
It sounds like this is a problem of your players not metagaming *enough*. Usually, metagaming is used in a negative context and represents a player using outside knowledge to cheat in favor of his character even though it cheapens the game, breaks immersion and so forth. But metagaming is actually vital to making the game work. It's the reason players find excuses for their characters to work together and to bite on plot hooks. And with any action that could have a significant impact on the game, players should be keeping in mind how the course they take will affect the campaign (and find an excuse for their characters to prefer non-damaging ones).

But it's inevitable that situations like this happen, even if only from misreading the situation. And parties splitting up are all kinds of obnoxious, so it can be hard to know what to do. Still, this sounds more like a tactical-level scattering than people deciding that they want to break apart long term. So I'd probably roll with it and just let things play out logically. Scattering isn't necessarily a bad idea in-game and probably reduces the chances of all of the characters getting caught or killed (while increasing the likelihood of some--or at least one--of them being caught or killed), unless the jungle is some seriously thick and perilous shit, that is.

So figure out what the hunters would logically do, and see what characters get caught up with, and if folks get lost or what. Then, things shift to what happens from there. Maybe the main group has to free the people who split off (or maybe even the people who split off have to save the main group). Maybe some people get killed and need to roll up new characters. Maybe you run a quick adventure where the folks who split off try to find their way through the jungle to find the main group..

>>53159786
>Maybe you run a quick adventure where the folks who split off try to find their way through the jungle to find the main group...
Or play them both trying to find a rendezvous point (the nearest town or whatever). You can fast-forward this if you like, asking people what their plans are, making a few rolls, then summarizing the outcome without actually playing through every step.

In any event, the main group is your ultimate focus. The story follows the majority, and if the other folks decide to head off in another direction long term, it's time for them to make up new characters (and it's always a good idea to let people know about this ahead of time). Sure, you'll work with people as best you can, and try to give them opportunities to bring everybody back together, but if they refuse to cooperate with this, then you shouldn't waste your time effectively running a whole different campaign for them.

>>53159814
I've had one too many loner characters who refuse to cooperate with people in my various games and pretty much tell people up front that if they leave the party, it's time for them to make up a new character right off the bat. But under the circumstances you detailed, I'd play things out, at least as long as it was clear they were working to reunite themselves with the group in short order (and I'd make sure it did resolve itself in short order).

>>53159471
>I kinda wasn't prepared for that because it seemed to make no sense - none of them was good at knowledge about nature, wildlife, survival and what not, and it was implied that the whole place was surrounded.
Then fuck them over it. It's simple.

Look, you are apparently/supposedly new to this shit, so let's be clear about it:
GMing is not some secret, arcane lore. It's three parts improvisation, five parts planning, one part voice acting and one part script writing. As you might notice, improvisation is pretty important here, but still less than good planning.

Players doing something that is going to royally bite them in the ass? Well, bite them in the ass! That's just a natural action and reaction.
The difference between just performing TPK and doing this is simple - you prepare yourself for the scorn AND are reasonable. You don't make it "yeah, you all died out of exposure", but spin some micro-adventure out of it. Make them feel endangered, tired, broken and realise they've fucked up.

THEN, after the game is done, explain to them, once again, in clarity and WITHOUT being passive agressive (or just agressive) what went wrong.
In fact, do that after each game and each campaign, regardless of how things went, so you have a platform with your players. Killer GM is shit, but even worse is a GM that doesn't talk about the game he/she just run for the party.

Try to find a way for things to work out for them without stretching credibility. Don't compromise the whole game for them, but give them the benefit of the doubt. If shit is stacked too heavily against them, then let their fate befall them, but even here, try to find a way for things to work in their favor (they're captured instead of killed, etc.), and then go from there. But sometimes there's really nothing to be done and you just have to roll with characters getting killed or dropped from the game because they are irreconcilably divided from the party. But there is a huge middle ground that you can work with.

BTW, when the players do something unexpected and you need some time to consider what should happen, it's okay to call for a break while you think things over. Just call a 20 minute break and tell people to grab a snack, a smoke or whatever, while you do some quick planning.

>>53159471
Time to get your players recaptured and thrown in a dungeon together for take 2 of the prologue.

My players are the kind that like to split up A LOT. One thing I figured out how to deal with this, is to jump between them often and at cliffhanger situations. I tried doing the "Oh well let's wrap things up here and then deal with you" approach and it just makes the inactive party go for a smoke or sit behind their phone. When you keep jumping often, everyone gets involved. Another thing you can do to prepare for this is to have a map with your locations and then have a bunch of plot events, random encounters, objectives etc. that can be located at several of these locations and then as the party and pace of the game dictate, you keep inserting these things where it fits. When the party seems to be bored, insert a combat encounter, keep a few plot points and investigative things to throw at them when needed.
And yeah, to bring the party back together, just have them all captured. might be cliche, but it works.