So how would I run this?

[JGoldenberg]

I've got this very ambitious plan that all my players are excited for in our next campaign. They get very bored with the traditional "Insert Bad Race here and Kill it" adventures, and seem to enjoy teaming up and killing each other when the opportunity arises, so I've got two groups of six players set up. They're Mercenaries, Treasure Hunters, just plain ol' Adventurers who do jobs.

The catch is, they're not the only employees, a Noble who's son was kidnapped by Kobolds isn't likely to just hire one group and hope for the best. So I've got them competing in the same dungeon. On top of that, most of the players belong to secret organizations with their own agendas, and are given their own assignments that may or may not conflict with the other players or even the job they're currently paid to do.

For example, a Paladin of Freedom with ties to an underground rebel organization is assigned to get close to their employer, a dictator who oppresses and ruins the lives of the citizens in his city, and then assassinate him. But the Dictator could have hired the Fighter in the party to defend him against any such attempts from his party.


My only problem is, how would I run this in real life? Truth be told I have never had any experience in DMing two groups at once outside of a message board, so any tips?

[Ranos]

It's gonna be quite a headache, honestly. They can't ever cross paths or affect each other's actions, because then that would retroactively change the other party's session. Which has already happened. Unless you somehow run both sessions at the same time I guess.
Look into cloning technology.

[penbed400]

A friend of mine is doing something like this soon. I'd suggest running them all at the same session but at different tables with you at one table and a co-DM at the other table. Then when they meet or if something is causing the others game session to change, inform the co-DM and have him inform you. Other than that I don't see what else there could be.

[JGoldenberg]

A friend of mine is doing something like this soon. I'd suggest running them all at the same session but at different tables with you at one table and a co-DM at the other table. Then when they meet or if something is causing the others game session to change, inform the co-DM and have him inform you. Other than that I don't see what else there could be.

The problem is I'm the only person crazy enough to ever DM. So Co-DMs aren't an option.

I was planning on having them both there, so they can set traps for eachother. But the real life issues of running 12 people against each other in the same dungeon seem to be a pretty decent blockade against this idea.

[The Glyphstone]

Agreeing...this is really ambitious, but it can only end in tears. Continuity problems alone mean you're not running a 12-person game, you're running two 6-person games that can't interact with each other.

[Ranos]

The problem is I'm the only person crazy enough to ever DM. So Co-DMs aren't an option.

I was planning on having them both there, so they can set traps for eachother. But the real life issues of running 12 people against each other in the same dungeon seem to be a pretty decent blockade against this idea.

This can work if you have two players. Three at most, and four is really pushing it. And they have to be good, mature players too. A crowd of 12 ? No way.

[QuantumSteve]

This can work if you have two players. Three at most, and four is really pushing it. And they have to be good, mature players too. A crowd of 12 ? No way.

^This. Without a Co-DM, this^

Ask your players if they're really gung-ho about this idea, and tell them you must have a Co-DM. Otherwise, think up a new campaign.

[sofawall]

Even with a co-DM, run at the same time, there could be some issues depending on how often you check in with each other.

[Anasazi]

Welp, you're very limited in options if none of them, for the sake of the campaign, are willing to assist as a co-gm or group leader.

If you're set on running them at the same time, the best you can do is laydown exactly what each player has to do throughout the entire course of the game and have them slowly knock off each thing on the list, each team will benefit from each success by gaining a team wide buff. Which will eventually turn into a momentum war until they do finally meet in combat.
But this would end up you running from one table to the other.

The other option, and a much better one, is to run the story on the fly, and run the two games seperate until they do finally meet, and then have them duke it out at one big table. To keep this option balanced, you'll need to continually create challenges that turn around what the other team just did and use it against them. Keeping track of who wins what will be a major part of your note taking as it will need to come through in obvious benefits and negatives so that both teams can feel the progression of the battle. This requires that both teams meet on a regular basis, on a game ratio of 1:1. It also requires that you will take directly what happened from the previous game with team one and present the downsides to team two to work though.
A modified version of this would be to layout the world they're on, in a massive detail, things that you dont even think will be used should be added, and then have the players decide what actions they're going to take and what direction they'll go with it. This will require a great deal more prep and alot more skill in general as the GM as you'll need to be able to create on the go and then analyze the effects it would have on the opposing team. This route would most likely offer better overall feel for the players though as they're not limited in what they can do. The map prep work is really for letting them know theres no obvious options to use, and to help you create a direction for the challenges they take on that you didnt have in mind.

Not sure if I was clear about my meanings here, hope they help though, feel free to PM me if you have questions.

edit: id like to note, mine is an example of how you would handle an entire campaign, not just one dungeon, with two groups.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Last year I ran something like this, with two parties of five. They met up three times in one huge ten-person session, but otherwise followed separate (but related) plots. However, none of the people within a party were working against people in the same party, which is the part that really throws a wrench in the works for you. That's what'll really screw things up more than running two parties in parallel.

[Triaxx]

Pfeh, it's cake. Be sure your dungeon is big enough to hold everyone, with at least four exits, and two seperate levels. Put his highness in the far end of the dungeon, and have the final room be massive, so that when the groups do break in, there's a very long race through the enemies to reach the prince first. Batman or no, 600ft of kobolds are going to slow everyone down.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I would suggest just running this as an online game.

[banthesun]

I would suggest just running this as an online game.

This firstly. All that difficulty would be resolved very simply, but it could screw with your play style.


The other option, and a much better one, is to run the story on the fly, and run the two games seperate until they do finally meet, and then have them duke it out at one big table. To keep this option balanced, you'll need to continually create challenges that turn around what the other team just did and use it against them. Keeping track of who wins what will be a major part of your note taking as it will need to come through in obvious benefits and negatives so that both teams can feel the progression of the battle. This requires that both teams meet on a regular basis, on a game ratio of 1:1. It also requires that you will take directly what happened from the previous game with team one and present the downsides to team two to work though.

This is what I'd do, and have done, but with individual players instead of seperate parties. Improv is very imortant, as is subtle railroading. I'd suggest building your dungeon around these concepts. Armys of critters and moving wall traps could be useful here.

[Talon Sky]

I have never run opposing parties in the same campaign, but I'm running two games now with two groups each (two in the past, two in the present) that are affecting what happens to each other but never truly meeting.

Still, this seems like a huge undertaking and a big hassle.

That being said....the best thing you could do is just try it. Use your magical DM powers to 'smudge' things if you must. Adapt your playing style to what the two groups seem likely to do. And most importantly, as was already said above, kind of treat each session like it's that group's 'turn'.

D&D is turn-based ^_^

[JGoldenberg]

I have never run opposing parties in the same campaign, but I'm running two games now with two groups each (two in the past, two in the present) that are affecting what happens to each other but never truly meeting.

Still, this seems like a huge undertaking and a big hassle.

That being said....the best thing you could do is just try it. Use your magical DM powers to 'smudge' things if you must. Adapt your playing style to what the two groups seem likely to do. And most importantly, as was already said above, kind of treat each session like it's that group's 'turn'.

D&D is turn-based ^_^

That's a good way of thinking about it.


Pfeh, it's cake. Be sure your dungeon is big enough to hold everyone, with at least four exits, and two seperate levels. Put his highness in the far end of the dungeon, and have the final room be massive, so that when the groups do break in, there's a very long race through the enemies to reach the prince first. Batman or no, 600ft of kobolds are going to slow everyone down.

You've given me an idea for an awesome dungeon.



If you're set on running them at the same time, the best you can do is laydown exactly what each player has to do throughout the entire course of the game and have them slowly knock off each thing on the list, each team will benefit from each success by gaining a team wide buff. Which will eventually turn into a momentum war until they do finally meet in combat.
But this would end up you running from one table to the other.

The other option, and a much better one, is to run the story on the fly, and run the two games seperate until they do finally meet, and then have them duke it out at one big table. To keep this option balanced, you'll need to continually create challenges that turn around what the other team just did and use it against them. Keeping track of who wins what will be a major part of your note taking as it will need to come through in obvious benefits and negatives so that both teams can feel the progression of the battle. This requires that both teams meet on a regular basis, on a game ratio of 1:1. It also requires that you will take directly what happened from the previous game with team one and present the downsides to team two to work though.
A modified version of this would be to layout the world they're on, in a massive detail, things that you dont even think will be used should be added, and then have the players decide what actions they're going to take and what direction they'll go with it. This will require a great deal more prep and alot more skill in general as the GM as you'll need to be able to create on the go and then analyze the effects it would have on the opposing team. This route would most likely offer better overall feel for the players though as they're not limited in what they can do. The map prep work is really for letting them know theres no obvious options to use, and to help you create a direction for the challenges they take on that you didnt have in mind.


Thank you the time you took to write this. The latter modified option is similar to how I think I would overall run it.

For Now, I've got an agreement with them, For now They'll be in seperate parts of the continent, and their competition will be multiple NPC Adventuring Groups (I've found it's very fun to make a Group's Name and then theme it around it, like The Brazen Claws being Naturey Classes and the Broken Wands being Spellcaster Heavy.) and then occasionally have eachother compete in quests.

I feel I should clarify about the assignments, they will not all be designed for interparty conflict. I feel I should point to the Pathfinder Society where GMs give their players assignments based on the Faction they play. Most of the time the Assignments would be something that didn't completely break their party, but rather something they could do that would help their Faction involving the quest. Like Rescuing slaves from a Gnoll Pirate Ship would be the main quest, guaranteeing that those slaves are not recaptured by any other party to make sure Chelaxian sold slaves were more common in the Market would fufill a Chelaxian Factioned Character's assignment in that quest.