PDA

View Full Version : Advice for a large-scale campagin



GryffonDurime
2007-03-21, 10:26 PM
Evening, ladies and gentlemen. I was wondering if anyone had any advice to dispense with regard to my group's latest undertaking: having just started an official tabletop club at our university, we've split our players into three groups and our little trio of DMs, myself included, plan to create a shared setting where the effects of one group ripple out to other groups, and ocassional crossovers may even occur.

The question is, by and large, what effects should we really apply? There are some obvious decisions such as hearing about the other groups' exploits in towns they've been through and things to that effect, but what does this method actually mean for our campaign--beyond being a logistical nightmare to balance setting and power level with three different DMs.

We've just started work on this, really, and any opinions or ideas would be appreciated; I know there's some fine minds on this board who'll probably be able to see something we've missed/haven't considered.

Miles Invictus
2007-03-21, 10:52 PM
I imagine the actual crossovers will be the biggest pain, if only for coordinating the encounter. See if you can get all three groups to game at the same time. Also, work out with the other DMs who is actually in charge during these exchanges.

The easiest way to balance setting and power levels is to cheat. Hand out XP the day after your session; that way you can compare with the other DMs, and adjust XP so that everyone is within a level or two of each other. That doesn't mean you shaft anyone, but the most productive players should be gaining levels only a few sessions before the least.

Innis Cabal
2007-03-21, 10:54 PM
that would be a bad idea....giving xp after all is said and done? players who kill more, RP more, or are just more active should be rewarded not harmed

Inyssius Tor
2007-03-22, 04:13 AM
Awesome. I've really been wanting to do this for a long time, but I'm kind of lacking enough players for one party right now...

For ideas:
Maybe a city that's basically run by the mob? If the first group just kills the mob boss and leaves, the next party to come through could encounter a city in anarchy as various gangsters duke it out for the top spot.

Perhaps one group sells some powerful artifact in one town; the next group to pass by could be hired by the artifact's new owner, who fears that an evil cult will try to steal it? If they fail and the artifact falls into the hands of the cult, all three groups would have to deal with the newly-empowered cultists. (Say it allows communication with extraplanar entities, so the cult cuts a deal with Mephistopheles, who gives them all fiendish powers and sends them on three different missions... or something?)

its_all_ogre
2007-03-22, 04:55 AM
i have always wanted to be able to have two groups, one good and one evil, both working against each other, but unaware the other side are also pcs!

kind of like truly independant npcs!

Foxer
2007-03-22, 05:22 AM
It's a very brave idea, and, if done right, is absolutely brilliant (can you say "head of Vecna?"), but it is very easy to get wrong.

Ideally, the people you should talk to would be One World By Night or Camarilla referees*, since they have the experience in coordinating multiple storylines across multiple games, but for what it's worth here's my few pennies:

First up, power level, which you've correctly identified as a major headache. Actually, D&D is on your side here, since you have the system of challenge ratings to ensure that the DMs are all on the same page. Keeping the players at roughly the same level is important, since you don't want the guys in group C feeling like they're playing extras in group A's game. I'd strongly suggest that all three DMs sign a pact to start their players at Level 1 and to keep challenges level-appropriate throughout. That way nobody will be rushing ahead in terms of character level. Also minimise XP awards above and beyond those earned for overcoming the challenges. Make it a rule that each DM can award no more than 100XP each session for good roleplay and so forth. It sounds harsh, but in my experience small, exclusive awards actually stimulate better RP. If the prize is rare, players will push their personal role-playing envelope to get it.

As a side note: I run a big - twelve player - modern fantasy campaign with the players split between different groups. Here I've ignored my own advice and have characters with wildly different power levels. I can get away with it because I know my players can deal with me being unfair as long as the story is interesting. If you're setting up a campaign with new players, you won't have that luxury.

Next, you need to ensure that the DMs are reasonably consistent with one another, otherwise your shared setting will be pulled in three different directions. It's nice to build your own setting from scratch, but it will be a hellish amount of work. I recommend selecting two or three setting books you all have access to, and make it a rule to use only those three books. That way the world is set down in black and white, and everyone knows where they stand. I'd also suggest picking a setting that's reasonably self-contained. This will reduce the amount of paperwork you face, and keeps the three parties quite close together. If the three teams never cross one another's paths, then you might as well be running three separate campaigns and have done. Waterdeep would make a good choice.

Next: jurisdiction. Party A have an important meeting with Guildmaster Moneybagges next session. Unfortunately, party B shanked Guildmaster Moneybagges last session. The DM for party A just had weeks of plot derailed through no fault of her own. To avoid situations like this I urge the three of you to sit down before you start planning and carve up your domain between you. Say you're playing in Waterdeep, then let DM A have the Harpers and the City Watch, DM B can have the local crime lords, and DM C can have the run of the docks, with their street gangs and smugglers. That way you don't find yourselves treading on each others' toes all the time. If the players move out of your jurisdiction, then hand them over to the other DM for a session or two and take the chance to either take a breather or even play for a session or two (I suggest picking a disposable character and grabbing yourself a good death scene at the end of the session before you take the helm again).

Most important though, is communication. Meet regularly. Before each session write up a page of notes explaining what you expect to happen in the game, and mail it to your fellow DMs. After each session write up what really happened, and send that out too. Of course, this only works if none of the DMs are playing in one of the other sessions. It's a lot of extra work - especially if you tend to wing your sessions, like me - but it is vital, otherwise you'll be falling over each other.

(Something you might like to consider is appointing one of your number the senior DM, who has the deciding vote in any disputes. Don't make a big issue over who this is - I assume none of you are muppets, and you can get along without someone knocking your heads together - and rotate the position between you every eight or nine sessions. Remember to remember that it's only a game and not to get precious over your bit of it.)

The other biggie is keeping a timeline. Nothing is more frustrating than having one party run weeks or months of game-time ahead of the others and having to skip weekly sessions to let everyone else catch up (I've made that mistake a few times). I'd suggest keeping your sessions limited to just a couple of days of "game time". It sounds like a bind, but it actually works (that big campaign of mine I mentioned? We've had less than 48-hours of game time in nearly a year of play time). Make a timeline a part of the session plan you submit to the other two before each session. That way you ensure that each party experiences the same events at the same time - say that at midnight on day three of the campaign a massive thunderstorm breaks over the city as Doctor MacStrange attempts to animate his creature, then all three parties should get wet at midnight, and not just the ones leading the villagers up to MacStrange Castle with torches and pitchforks.

Also, do not let one party get in more sessions than the others. Okay, the odd one or two extra sessions won't hurt, but if party A is playing twice as often as the others then party A will get out of sync with parties B and C and earn more XP, throwing the power levels out too. Agree to run one session per party a week (or whatever) and stick to it.

Finally (sorry if I've waffled on), there is the question of player characters from different campaigns meeting up. What I'd do is appoint the most experienced DM to run one big session with all the players, with the other two on NPC-duties for the night. For the DM-team, this is payday. This is where all your hard work pays off, and your players realise that they have been passing each other like ships in the night for months, screwing up each other's plans, inadvertently saving the day and generally being... well, players. If you've done your homework, each party will have something the others want, forcing them to cooperate to complete their own individual goals. For instance, say party A are hunting a Drow assassin and need to get down to Skullport to beard him in his lair, but party B have the map. Use this as an opportunity to swap some of the players around too. It'll keep the game fresh.

As a last cavat, I suggest you avoid the temptation to make one of the parties the "evil team". PvP, in my experience, just turns cooperative efforts like this into an ugly mess.

Hope some of that helps.


*I was a lowly ADST, and never had to deal with other refs.

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 07:24 AM
I'm currently DM'ing something similar of this, well actually uberDM'ing. I created a large setting and now have 4 groups running around it, a lvl 15 evil group who wants to free and enslave some ancient god of evil and a lvl 15 good group who found out about them and is trying to stop them, then I have a lvl 16 group who is covertly trying to maintain balance, meaning the god can't be freed, but since good has ruled this world for to long, they want the evil party to grow in power somewhat, not a lot, but enough to balance everything, the evil and good group don't know about the neutral group (yet) and then I have a low lvl party, they started at 1 and are now lvl 3 and they are simply adventuring, but are thrown around by the forces of good and evil.

Now I created the setting and created it digitally, so every DM has a laptop with them and can talk to eachother and see where the others are and what is happening to the other groups. In the mean time I DM the DM's so to speak by telling them the mainplotlines and stuff like that, they don't know how things will end, but in the end if all goes right, the evil party and good party will die and replace eachother, meaning evil goes good and good goes evil. The good party will be made undead and the evil party will wrest themselves free from the influence of the ancient evil. During this the neutral party will rise in power untill they get their own country (they currently are small nobles) and the low lvl group will grow out to be the most powerfull group and will have to make the decision if they will let this era fall to evil or good.

So far it's running really well, but what you really need is a (realtime) digital map of the world where everyone is and a lot of communication, this is working really well atm, though the players have to know that other players will try to stab them in the back and have to agree to that, else they won't have fun.

MaxKaladin
2007-03-22, 03:38 PM
Foxer mentioned the biggest problem, in my opinion.

Time.

Running different groups through different adventures makes it very easy for the groups to get out of sync as time will probably pass at different rates for each group. This causes several problems. One is that the slower groups can potentially get early warning of "future" events by hearing about them from the faster groups. Another is that the actions of slower groups can potentially have an effect on something that would affect a faster group had they known about them.

For instance, lets say group A is two months ahead of group B. Group A heads to the nearby city of Xarngax where they conclude their business and go about their adventures. However, Group B plays an adventure where they accidentally end up releasing a massive demon who destroys Xarngax a week before Group A got there in their campaign. Now you have a paradox. What happens now?

How you address the problem of time is up to you. Foxer's method is probably the best way to handle it, but be careful because it can also be confining for adventure design. I think setting a very short time for each session (like a couple of days) can be especially bad since more wilderness oriented adventures may end up requiring many days just for the PCs to travel around. Longer times at least allow for the wilderness adventures to take place while groups that have shorter adventures (in terms of game time) just end up with lots of down-time between adventures.

Another method might be to set "milestones" of a sort. Rather than stating that each session takes a certain amount of time, just decide that after X sessions everyone should be at a certain date in game time. This lets people play more at their own pace but brings their timelines together periodically to try to keep everyone more or less together. This works best if groups aren't likely to be close to each other during that time. If they get close and might interact or affect each other significantly, you can switch to Foxer's method.

In any case, keep a timeline.

GryffonDurime
2007-03-22, 04:02 PM
This is all very good advice, and it's giving me plenty to discuss with the other DMs. I have the definite feeling that milestones may be the preferred method, and giving each DM a set territory--having groups of players pass from DM to DM instead of trying to remain consistent in all three describing the same area--will probably be implemented.

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 04:11 PM
Timeline is usually simple for us, since the dm's do the session at the same time and at the end, they simply see who took longest and then stretch the other groups into it, either by a little bit extra playtime, they were in a dungeon so it didn't matter or simply saying "you spend 3 days here".