meto30
2011-12-28, 08:51 PM
I've already been listening to many wonderful advice from the good people of the playground on another thread, but this is an unrelated topic that I thought might be both helpful and interesting to discuss. The event mentioned in the title hasn't happened - yet - in my party, but I'd like to hear what the more experienced people think about it.
Short discription of the campaign, spoilered in case you don't want the details.
- It's FR (with a lot of custom content thrown in, but I think it's still FR and not FR-based homebrew world, because nearly everything is still the same)
- It's 3.5e, with the core rulebooks, Complete series, MM2~4, Draconomicon, PHB2, DMG2, FRCS, Player's Guide to F, Dragons of F, Magic of F, Races of F, Exalted, Vile, Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin, City of Splendors, Epic, Unapproachable East, Silver Marches. I might've forgotten to list some volumes. We have a bookcase full of the sourcebooks, and we use them all.
- The campaign is heavily emphasizing both the Gaming and RPing factors of D&D, but we do tend to tip towards RPing.
- I have a long history with FR, but this is the first game I'm DMing.
- The campaign began on October, 2010, and we play two to three sessions of six to eight hours a week. That's a lot of playing time, I know. We're pretty immersed in this campaign right now. Most interesting thing I've ever done.
- Most of the time is spent role playing and conversing with NPCs or amongst ourselves(both IC and OOC). The campaign is funny and serious at the same time (sometimes we alternate, but sometimes we really are both)
What if, for some reason the players might find reasonable enough, the party splits up and joins different sides in a war? I'm not talking about players themselves splitting up, but rather only the PCs splitting up. Let's assume that the players disagree on which side they should join, discuss the matter a bit, and agree to split the party and play the game on both sides. They're still playing together in the same campaign, eating snacks together, joking with the DM and each other, etc, but their PCs are locked in a circle of hate, duking it out on the field of battle. Which is a possibility that I'm looking at right now.
More details, again inside spoiler blocks. Before opening, a word of warning: this is a FR setting that has been edited in some ways by the DM, and the particular nation that is the center of the topic is the one that got the most edits. So, if you are the kind of FR lover who thinks canon should be strictly adhered to, please don't open, for your own sake!:smalleek:
The Empire of Chessenta was created six years ago when Tchazzar, the mythic sovereign who united Chessenta centuries in the past, returned to Cimbar, his old capital, in his true form (dragon form), and with the aid of his hero cult that proved very loyal to him, subdued the city and made it his own once again. The next six years leading up to the present day was a series of conquests and annexations that saw the Empire expand from a single city to a superpower encompassing the whole of Chessenta, some of the islands north of the Vilhon Reach, all of Chondath proper, the Chondalwood, the Great Rift, and western Threskel. All the neighboring nations, which are now Mulhorand (which still occupies Unther), Free Unther (or what's left of it), the dominion of Alasklerebanbastos the Great Bone Wyrm (which is eastern Threskel), Thay, Aglarond, Altumbel, Turmish, and Sespech, are busy reinforcing defenses and discussing behind closed doors plans to defeat the rising threat. With Cormyr, the foremost land-based military power of the continent, divided in a controversy over Azoun V's succession and Alusair's regency, the Legions of Tchazzar seem nigh unstoppable; highly trained, extremly disciplined, lavishly equipped, and supported by a treasury that seems mysteriously bottomless, the armies of Chessenta are marching even today to new battlefields, looking for more land to conquer, and more glory to lay at the feet of their divine Emperor.
The players are divided on wether Tchazzar is a good guy or a bad guy(not in alignment terms, but rather regarding his position in relative to the overall campaign). Two players are convinced they need to help Tchazzar, one believes the party needs to learn more about the red dragon's motives before making that decision, one believes Tchazzar is a good guy but is being misled and must be 'corrected', and one believes Tchazzar is an absolute bad guy and must be stopped at all costs. (reasons of each decision are related to the Overcampaign and will not be explained, at least not now)
The discussion has been ongoing for months, but from november onwards the party has more or less settled on each player doing what he thinks best and seeing who is proven right. It hasn't actually come to it yet, but actual PvP on a battlefield doesn't seem to be too far in the future, as the two 'good-guy' theorists have already joined the Empire as the Emperor's agents, and the 'bad-guy' theorist and the 'correction' theorist have joined in on Sespech's war efforts and are actively reconstructing that nations' defenses against the Empire. One of the empire-side players has his stealth character already stationed near the border and is waiting for the mission-green sign to go in and assassinate the Mayor-Baron of Elbulder, the city closest to the Imperial border where the bulk of the 'bad-guy' theorist's efforts are concentrated.
The party seems to have this idea that a clash between the PCs will be epic, fun, and challenging. I am not so sure. A part of me wants to persuade them to debate things again and choose a single side to join, but another part of me wants the players to have free rein on their PCs and do as they see fit.
An actual confrontation hasn't happened, and might never happen, as the one side could just back off and rejoin the rest of the players on the other side, but it's something I think would make for an interesting discussion, or at least an interesting theoretical concourse.
Short discription of the campaign, spoilered in case you don't want the details.
- It's FR (with a lot of custom content thrown in, but I think it's still FR and not FR-based homebrew world, because nearly everything is still the same)
- It's 3.5e, with the core rulebooks, Complete series, MM2~4, Draconomicon, PHB2, DMG2, FRCS, Player's Guide to F, Dragons of F, Magic of F, Races of F, Exalted, Vile, Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin, City of Splendors, Epic, Unapproachable East, Silver Marches. I might've forgotten to list some volumes. We have a bookcase full of the sourcebooks, and we use them all.
- The campaign is heavily emphasizing both the Gaming and RPing factors of D&D, but we do tend to tip towards RPing.
- I have a long history with FR, but this is the first game I'm DMing.
- The campaign began on October, 2010, and we play two to three sessions of six to eight hours a week. That's a lot of playing time, I know. We're pretty immersed in this campaign right now. Most interesting thing I've ever done.
- Most of the time is spent role playing and conversing with NPCs or amongst ourselves(both IC and OOC). The campaign is funny and serious at the same time (sometimes we alternate, but sometimes we really are both)
What if, for some reason the players might find reasonable enough, the party splits up and joins different sides in a war? I'm not talking about players themselves splitting up, but rather only the PCs splitting up. Let's assume that the players disagree on which side they should join, discuss the matter a bit, and agree to split the party and play the game on both sides. They're still playing together in the same campaign, eating snacks together, joking with the DM and each other, etc, but their PCs are locked in a circle of hate, duking it out on the field of battle. Which is a possibility that I'm looking at right now.
More details, again inside spoiler blocks. Before opening, a word of warning: this is a FR setting that has been edited in some ways by the DM, and the particular nation that is the center of the topic is the one that got the most edits. So, if you are the kind of FR lover who thinks canon should be strictly adhered to, please don't open, for your own sake!:smalleek:
The Empire of Chessenta was created six years ago when Tchazzar, the mythic sovereign who united Chessenta centuries in the past, returned to Cimbar, his old capital, in his true form (dragon form), and with the aid of his hero cult that proved very loyal to him, subdued the city and made it his own once again. The next six years leading up to the present day was a series of conquests and annexations that saw the Empire expand from a single city to a superpower encompassing the whole of Chessenta, some of the islands north of the Vilhon Reach, all of Chondath proper, the Chondalwood, the Great Rift, and western Threskel. All the neighboring nations, which are now Mulhorand (which still occupies Unther), Free Unther (or what's left of it), the dominion of Alasklerebanbastos the Great Bone Wyrm (which is eastern Threskel), Thay, Aglarond, Altumbel, Turmish, and Sespech, are busy reinforcing defenses and discussing behind closed doors plans to defeat the rising threat. With Cormyr, the foremost land-based military power of the continent, divided in a controversy over Azoun V's succession and Alusair's regency, the Legions of Tchazzar seem nigh unstoppable; highly trained, extremly disciplined, lavishly equipped, and supported by a treasury that seems mysteriously bottomless, the armies of Chessenta are marching even today to new battlefields, looking for more land to conquer, and more glory to lay at the feet of their divine Emperor.
The players are divided on wether Tchazzar is a good guy or a bad guy(not in alignment terms, but rather regarding his position in relative to the overall campaign). Two players are convinced they need to help Tchazzar, one believes the party needs to learn more about the red dragon's motives before making that decision, one believes Tchazzar is a good guy but is being misled and must be 'corrected', and one believes Tchazzar is an absolute bad guy and must be stopped at all costs. (reasons of each decision are related to the Overcampaign and will not be explained, at least not now)
The discussion has been ongoing for months, but from november onwards the party has more or less settled on each player doing what he thinks best and seeing who is proven right. It hasn't actually come to it yet, but actual PvP on a battlefield doesn't seem to be too far in the future, as the two 'good-guy' theorists have already joined the Empire as the Emperor's agents, and the 'bad-guy' theorist and the 'correction' theorist have joined in on Sespech's war efforts and are actively reconstructing that nations' defenses against the Empire. One of the empire-side players has his stealth character already stationed near the border and is waiting for the mission-green sign to go in and assassinate the Mayor-Baron of Elbulder, the city closest to the Imperial border where the bulk of the 'bad-guy' theorist's efforts are concentrated.
The party seems to have this idea that a clash between the PCs will be epic, fun, and challenging. I am not so sure. A part of me wants to persuade them to debate things again and choose a single side to join, but another part of me wants the players to have free rein on their PCs and do as they see fit.
An actual confrontation hasn't happened, and might never happen, as the one side could just back off and rejoin the rest of the players on the other side, but it's something I think would make for an interesting discussion, or at least an interesting theoretical concourse.