PDA

View Full Version : Two crews, two DMs, one world



Leshy
2012-06-03, 11:54 AM
So what do you think? Could it work?

Rorrik
2012-06-03, 12:19 PM
I've considered it, but my original thought was one DM running two crews at separate times until they session one meets the other and he calls it a day and arranges for both to be present the same day, preferably on different sides.

With two DMs? I think it would be difficult for them to collaborate sufficiently on what the big players in the world are doing at any given time. I think it's doable, though, would like to try it 2 DMs, 2 parties, same dungeon. See if we can get an Order of the Stick meets Linear Guild moment. Then again, it would be difficult for times to line up right.

Leshy
2012-06-03, 12:54 PM
Thanks for the reply. The plan is, to have crews starting on opposite sides of the (world) map, and that things one crew does affects the other crew, at least they hear of it somehow. And they may meet up during the game, be it on same or opposite sides in the campaign... of course, DMs are in contact all the time, discussing options.

Tehnar
2012-06-03, 01:14 PM
I think it can work, and very well, if you keep the parties at the same general level of power when they interact. Tell us how it goes if you manage to pull it off.

Leshy
2012-06-03, 01:54 PM
Yes, we shall try to keep groups at around same level. It might go down this summer so I'll update you guys how it went.

In the meantime, if anyone else has thoughts or suggestions on this I would like to hear it.

Drazik
2012-06-03, 02:21 PM
i have also thought about this. the problem i could not find a solution for, however, is a way to keep the two groups on the same timeline.

EX: group one (G1) does one quests in three days. group two (G2) does one different quest in a week. both groups were supposed to meet up for a third quest, but G1 is ready four days earlier than G2.

GoatToucher
2012-06-03, 02:30 PM
Me and a buddy of mine did this last year. Party A quests for and finds MacGuffin A on one side of the continent. Party B does the same with MacGuffin B on the other side. The MacGuffins then have to be taken to a place more or less in the center of the continent for the big fat finale.

The Timeline is controlled with the travel time to get to the finale. You don't have to cheese them arriving at exactly the same time, as you need MacGuffins A and B to open the citadel or what have you.

JustSomeGuy
2012-06-03, 03:12 PM
2 campaigns 1 world? Could be messy!

Maybe just have a pool of name NPC's and locations to draw from, and tell the others who you're likely to use next game (so they become unavailable for the other group), then send a write up/summary to the other DM when you're done.

Maybe a list of potential plotlines and who you want them for, so DM#2 doesn't kill off your secret chessmaster spy in a brothelfight or something.

jackattack
2012-06-03, 03:23 PM
With the right DMs, yes.

With the wrong DMs, it can still work as long as the two groups never meet.

I never go to team-up cross-group gaming sessions. Period.

Leshy
2012-06-03, 05:22 PM
i have also thought about this. the problem i could not find a solution for, however, is a way to keep the two groups on the same timeline.

EX: group one (G1) does one quests in three days. group two (G2) does one different quest in a week. both groups were supposed to meet up for a third quest, but G1 is ready four days earlier than G2.

Well, I do get your point, but my campaigns are not THAT scripted... as far as I'm concerned, groups don't have to meet each other whatsoever. But they will eventually, they like it or not.

P.S. Thanks everyone else who answered to the topic, it's good to hear some experiences with this.

Ranting Fool
2012-06-03, 05:51 PM
As long as the two DM's work together then it could work, would take a bit more book keeping (yes timelines could be messed up a bit if one group does things quickly) having downtime between adventures would be a way to even out the time.

If I was DM'ing i'd be handing over all these vilians that got away for the other DM to use and I would want both groups to hear rumors of the other party from NPC's and whatnot, I'd even like it better if the rumors are often wrong or massively overdone if the Players from each group know each other :smallbiggrin:


Holy Thor! Bob I hear you took out over 9000 Goblins


Errr no Dan it was only 16 but it was a cool fight, and sush! The DM's said no giving away plot secrets!

Rorrik
2012-06-03, 06:48 PM
I really like the idea, but I think the DMs will need to work extra hard,writing detailed campaign journals and reading each other's journals to keep things in order. As far as time goes, as long as exact dates aren't vital to the campaign, it can be fudged a little.

The concept of rumors flying sounds incredibly fun. If one group or the other ever became immensely popular or unpopular, I'd be tempted to through the other group false stories intermixed with the real ones to see how they take it.

I wonder if any IC or OOC or both rivalries could develop between the two parties.

Jay R
2012-06-03, 07:22 PM
It works if:

A. There are no cosmological plots - nothing about the creation of the universe or the gods, unless it's completely co-ordinated between the DMs

B. The DMs agree on every issue of rules interpretation.

C. The DMs insert enough dead time between adventures to make up for the fact that one group will probably run at a faster pace - this problem gets worse over time, so keep them on the same calendar with off-time.

DrBurr
2012-06-03, 10:21 PM
With two experienced DMs who are friends there shouldn't be a problem, likely they'll swap stories with each other making rumors simple and will get in the nitty gritty for potential crossover characters. Timelines aren't really that problematic.

Group A wins their quest in 3 days, Group B wins theirs in 7. Group A could just not find work for 4 extra days or have to spend more time traveling or they arrive at Team Up point C earlier which should be fine, and The quests should be different so they pool different experiences if they team up.

Madcrafter
2012-06-04, 12:42 PM
Did one of these (with a single DM) once where one party was good and the other evil. Worked out all right until we had to stop since some people were leaving for university. Timeline coordination is the most challenging part (especially if both are working towards the same goal but not together i.e. "Why is everything in this dungeon already dead?").

Tyndmyr
2012-06-04, 01:02 PM
What up, new member here.

So what do you think? Could it work?

Yes. It'd require coordination, but totally doable.

Also, I'd gladly play in such a world.

Glimbur
2012-06-04, 02:26 PM
I was one of the fourish DM's in a two-party one world game about a year and a half ago. We dealt with the fact that in game time passes differently for different groups by ignoring it. The parties only directly met up at the end of the campaign, which did not go as I expected it to. All in all it worked out pretty well. We didn't have a designated DM for each group; based on people's schedules they would agree to be lead DM at a session and other DMs there would run numbers, read stat blocks, play extra NPC's, etc.

kyoryu
2012-06-04, 05:31 PM
I think this depends heavily on:


The amount of agency given to the players
The frequency of play of the group
The amount of geographical separation between the groups


Of course, good DMs in regular communication is a must. But at least two of the three points above have to be compatible for this to work, I think.

Lack of player agency is good for this, as it limits the impact. Frequency of play of both groups means it's easier to keep things "in sync". Geographical separation also limits impact.

Kudaku
2012-06-04, 07:10 PM
On the logistical side of things, set up a Dropbox for your DMs to share notes on various things. As one group pisses off say, a faction in the world, their DM would update the notes on that faction. Then the other DM would be able to read up on the notes and know that faction now is looking for a chance to get them back.

On the purely practical side, I think you'll run into some inefficiency issues. Just about any job that's possible to do by one person is better done by one, since if two people are doing it they invariably have to spend time running stuff by each other as they progress in their tasks. The bigger the group, the more time spent checking and doublechecking.

Rorrik
2012-06-04, 08:09 PM
On the logistical side of things, set up a Dropbox for your DMs to share notes on various things. As one group pisses off say, a faction in the world, their DM would update the notes on that faction. Then the other DM would be able to read up on the notes and know that faction now is looking for a chance to get them back.

This might be easier on a google doc, where you can easily see the other DMs edits to the document in a convenient color. No need to peruse the whole thing, just check if a change has been made and then scroll until you find orange ink.

DigoDragon
2012-06-05, 07:12 AM
It could work if both DMs are on the same page. I don't have two crews, but my group does have two game masters (I being the primary). I've tried coordinating with the other to run two different campaigns on the same world and in the short run it works.
In the longer run we find that we want to diverge our own ways, but that was a matter of our differing styles.

Talanic
2012-06-08, 03:51 PM
Two parties? Sure. Never heard of having two DMs though. I suspect that diminishing returns kicks in hard when you're adding DMs, but there's also the possibility for gold.

Reminds me of the old "Head of Vecna" story. One party tried to sabotage the other by arranging for bards to spread the legend of the Head of Vecna, scattered clues, and then left behind a mini-dungeon with a mummified head in a treasure chest.

If you haven't read it, it can be found here. (http://www.blindpanic.com/humor/vecna.htm)

newBlazingAngel
2012-06-09, 12:52 AM
If you can work together seamlessly, this could be fantastic.

I love the idea of two conflicting parties. Just imagine, each one leading a huge amry over one rediculously stupid debate that could have been resolved back when everybody was level 2. :amused:

oxinabox
2012-06-10, 08:32 AM
Done it 6 times in oneshots. (IIRC)
3 as GM, 3 times as player.
They worked out well enough.

Ran in two 2 problems
* Contradiction, One party explictly destroyed a journal that the other party reads.
* Time sync, different play styles lead to different ingame/out of game ratio.
(Fun solution occured once during this, Since it was CtL, the party employed a goblin (highly supernatural creatures in CtL) to delieve a message to the other party. The goblin offered to deliver it a couple of hours ago)

These problems would be less if you aren't running things at exactly the same time.

Done the one GM, two parties as a short campaign, (I think 5 sessions for one party, 2-3 for the other)
worked nice enough.
had 2 parties of 2 players (Cos the people I wanted couldn't meet on the same day). With occational cameo between them.


There is a system, where you have one party, 2 GMs out there, but I can't remember what it is called (never got to play it). I thought it was "Houses of the Blooded".
One GM plays all the NPCs in the Town.
the Other GM Controls the world at large

--------------
Also this has been done many times on a massive scale.

Carmarilla is the big White Wolf one, for MindsEye Theater (LARPing).
http://wiki.white-wolf.com/camwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Mistborn the Inqusition, for online Freeform in the Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn setting
http://mistbornrpg.17thshard.com/

Jack of Spades
2012-06-10, 09:10 AM
It seems like the easiest way to work out the timeline problem would be to arrange things in such a way that neither party can affect the other in a big way until the big meetup. For example, if the big meetup is a fight over a MacGuffin or a climactic battle, come up with two (with plans B-Z at the ready, of course) ways that one could come to the Big Moment, and then just state that it's at that point that the timelines coincide. This would of course only work if you're not going to mess around with seasons and if you make sure no-one can start a war or anything major like that in the time leading up to the meetup.

Otherwise, this is a fantasy setting, so just come up with some reason that Magic Did It-- BBEG/helpful god timeflow intervention for some reason, this setting's timeline is just wonky like that, party that gets to the spot of meeting first is trapped and rescued by the other at which point big climactic things happen, the interplanar destiny weavers deemed the moment to happen so it did at any cost, or something along those lines.

oxinabox
2012-06-10, 09:20 AM
I've considered the OOC solution to time control:
Each session (or as appropriate, eg just before interaction) the players are playing a new character (with a very similar history), in a different world.
So things that don't line up, never actually happened.
In any given Instant, all things are correct and perfect. In character at least

Leshy
2012-06-14, 08:27 AM
Thanks everyone who replied, there are some interesting thoughts and suggestions I will definitely be using.