A new formula for a campaign.

[RavKal]

Alright, so before I begin, if you're one of my players, do not read what is to follow, just in case.

Over the past couple weeks I have been pondering on the best way to run my new campaign. The story of the new campaign is going to be a pleasant mix of RP and battle, with politics and war playing a primary role. HOWEVER, the politics and war serve only as a cover for the true evil behind the campaign- the villain for whom I currently have no name.

Now, my original thoughts were to do a gestalt campaign online, and cut out most battle. Then I thought I'd do a gestalt table-top. Eventually I arrived at a compromise, and this is the new idea for running a campaign that I have.

I'm going to have a group online act as the leaders of the various nations, AND a group at the table acting as the adventuring party.

This will enable the campaign to be more...real, I believe. The "rulers" can squabble amongst themselves like REAL politicians! And then I don't have to worry about blending two ruler's attitudes together, or what-have-you. This is especially important for this campaign.

All the while, I will have more time to focus on the BBEG, in all his convoluted gory-glory.

What are your thoughts, fellow forum-goers?

[Cedrass]

I like this really. It's awesome.

I'd really love to be in a campaign like that! So lively, so.. I dunno, cool !

Good luck with that :smallsmile: I'd love to hear about how it went!

[Wafflecart]

So, you mean each player runs their own nation online, and each player also has their adventurer?

[Jack_Simth]

So, you mean each player runs their own nation online, and each player also has their adventurer?
I strongly suspect it's two completely different groups.

[Olo Demonsbane]

Do the politicians know the characters exist (IC)?

Moreover, are both sides aware of the other (OOC)?

Awesome idea though

[RTGoodman]

Do the politicians know the characters exist (IC)?

Moreover, are both sides aware of the other (OOC)?

I think it'd be pretty sweet if the answer to both of those was "No." I mean, the Rulers could maybe hear about some minor things happening involving certain groups of adventurers/mercenaries/whatever, and one of those groups happens to be the PCs. They think they're just characters, so they might do something unexpected regarding them that could affect the PC game. The same is true from the opposite perspective - the PCs might keep hearing news about various rulers (i.e., what you tell them about the Nations Game players), and then might try to change something on the national scale.

For the second, I just think a "double-blind game" like this is something unique that hasn't been done before, and I'd love to run something like it if I had time.


Woot! I'm a Troll now!

[Dragonus45]

I love the idea, and i would like to volunteer for the nation heads if you ever get around to it. It seems like a unique way to do things. But you should keep the things like what the party is up too and such a secret.

[Bugbeartrap]

I think this might be an awesome gaming experiment. I'd do the double blind test. I'm getting excited thinking of the Nation Heads trying to keep tabs on the PCs once they know they are important. Then the PCs deciding who to trust and work with. The DM has to go to the players and say, "Your spies were killed" to one player and "Your spies aranged for the PCs to steal the plans of *insert enemy Nation head*" to another player.

[Diagoras]

My gaming group and I are actually doing something similar. All of our campaigns take place in the same setting, from level 1 PCs scrabbling about with goblins to level 25 gestalt characters managing empires and hurling casual threats at extraplanar creatures. Said PCs can even cross paths, leading to hilarity.

My advice, is to be ready to play fast-and-loose with reality until you get the hang of coordinating a synchronized world. It can be a headache, but the sense of unity throughout your games is worth it, IMO.

[RavKal]

I'm totally doing the double-blind thing now.

They're two separate groups, yes, but part of the plot is that the group becomes more involved with politics rather quickly, so this should be interesting.

I currently have an idea of who all's going to be playing, however, if one or two of them don't respond I will contact volunteers.

I'm personally really excited about seeing the groups react to each others decisions, possibly violently. :smallcool:

[kamikasei]

It sounds like a pretty cool idea. However, how will you deal with the PCs interacting directly with the national leaders when they get to that point? Are the national players playing as their countries, Civ-style, or as the leaders of those countries as individual characters?

[RavKal]

Before each session I'll prepare a little In-the-News paper and distribute, inform everyone of major world events and rumors.

Going to make a country-sized system that will involve various resources and etc to determine actions, which will be similar to the standard d&d combat system, i.e. Waging war would be like a full-round action.

National Leaders will run their governments as the nation itself and as the current "mortal leader". Each king, queen, etc, will be statted out in case a foolish player or world events try to kill them. If the leader falls, a new one is found and the player will be given control, provided that they didn't overly blow their last life.

General decisions will be made ahead of time, out-a-nowhere decisions will be improvised by me and if worst comes to worst I'll contact the player in some way.

[caith]

I reeeeally like this idea alot, and would like to be involved if you ever need a new leader =D. Now depending on whether your PCs will be traveling alot, it might be neat to have your online players all be leaders in one nation, like governors, with a central figure whose position they are vying for. This would lead to more direct and immediate change for your PCs to see, as they all squabble and scheme to try and become the king or president or whatever.

[chiasaur11]

I think it'd be pretty sweet if the answer to both of those was "No." I mean, the Rulers could maybe hear about some minor things happening involving certain groups of adventurers/mercenaries/whatever, and one of those groups happens to be the PCs. They think they're just characters, so they might do something unexpected regarding them that could affect the PC game. The same is true from the opposite perspective - the PCs might keep hearing news about various rulers (i.e., what you tell them about the Nations Game players), and then might try to change something on the national scale.

For the second, I just think a "double-blind game" like this is something unique that hasn't been done before, and I'd love to run something like it if I had time.


Woot! I'm a Troll now!

I agree. That would be awesome.

Especially if one of the adventurers decided he'd like a nice nation of his own to retire in, Cohen the Barbarian style.

[RavKal]

I reeeeally like this idea alot, and would like to be involved if you ever need a new leader =D. Now depending on whether your PCs will be traveling alot, it might be neat to have your online players all be leaders in one nation, like governors, with a central figure whose position they are vying for. This would lead to more direct and immediate change for your PCs to see, as they all squabble and scheme to try and become the king or president or whatever.

sounds interesting. so far i've got the dwarves, who are going to be a bit isolationist, as their mountains are surrounded by this wonderfully big wall. And then I've got the elves, who have been ruled by Richard for the past 60 years, which means there are NO half-elves in the world, there are a lot more arcane casters, and I get to invent magi-tech for funzies. Then there are two human nations, which are in the beginning of a civil war, one leader has decided to go sort of Confederacy on the deal.

Which makes me wonder: does anyone have stats for lincoln?

We play on saturday, I will report results of how it went and keep you guys informed. :smallcool:

[JonestheSpy]

Sounds like great fun, though a lot of work.

I think the trickiest bit might be the two different timelines. The political timeline is probably going to be moving a lot faster than that of the adventurers, so I forsee difficulties in translating the effects of one group on the world into the other's.

[Dienekes]

This sounds awesome actually.

And I'd like to be a part of the king phase, sounds interesting to me.

[RavKal]

Sounds like great fun, though a lot of work.

I think the trickiest bit might be the two different timelines. The political timeline is probably going to be moving a lot faster than that of the adventurers, so I forsee difficulties in translating the effects of one group on the world into the other's.

i'm trying to make it a little less complicated, since the plot causes the time line to skip around a couple times. When it comes to directly interacting with the players, the leaders will be almost if not outright directly involved. Other days the leaders will focus on other things and just give a couple options if i need to improvise.