PDA

View Full Version : The Gaiden Campaign, Two Sides to the Same Story



The_Losar
2007-09-29, 03:48 PM
I believe it may be an usual use of the tern "gaiden", but that's not the point.

I had an idea for a campaign that I think would be really cool, and I was wondering if anyone had ever done something like this, has any suggestions, or anything of the sort.

The basic premise is that there are two kingdoms going to war, each with a justifiable reason for doing so. It's vitally important that both kingdoms can be justifiably called "the good guys". This probably means some very important misunderstanding between the two and lots of hidden information from each side.

The campaign is actually two campaigns, with two separate parties, consisting of two different groups of players. One party will work for one kingdom, the other for the other.

As the war escalates and the parties become more influential within their own factions, the actions of one party will have an effect on the next.

The campaign culminates in a final battle between the two parties and, for once, the DM will just have to sit back and referee.

It kind of sounds like a lot of work for the DM, but the result would be worth it.

It's an open-ended idea, so it could probably happen in any setting.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 06:53 PM
Actually, a close idea has been already implemented on a campaign, though kinda NPC'ish, of course. it involved rogue-but evil devils, open minded angels, and misunderstandings, all in a frantic struggle to have someone survive more than 24 hours after telling the alternate story about who Asmodeus is.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-09-29, 07:15 PM
Sort of reminds me of the old Shining Force games, where kingdoms would take place being the good guys in different games. :)

It could be a lot of fun- but trust me, if you have a competitive group, they are going to spend all their resources on that final encounter...

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-29, 07:29 PM
Reminds me of the rather excellent Radiata Stories game, myself.

I've always been a fan of large-scale war, political intrigue, and games where neither side is the villain per say. And I think that, if done right, this campaign could be fantastic.

I know I'd like to play in it :smallsmile:

The_Losar
2007-09-29, 08:09 PM
I think one of the things I'd most like to do when running it is to keep the two parties from knowing that they're in the same world for as long as possible.

The easiest way to do that, I think, would be to name the campaigns after more specific things, like after the group's nickname or something, instead of after the world or kingdom's name, like we usually do around here.

It would also help if the two campaigns at least start of very differently, like one group starts with dungeon crawls while the other roots out thieves in a city.

From that point, the connection isn't likely to be made until much later. I mean, seriously, how often do D&D players talk about the names of their kingdoms when talking with each other? It's usually more like, "Dude, last session, the party stormed this castle, and my rogue totally finished off the boss guy with his sneak attack after tumbling over his desk and..."

And yes, Radiata Stories does give me some ideas as to how to bring about this war. It wasn't the inspiration, but it presents some new ways to think about it...

Unfortunately, I haven't played the Shining Force games, though.

Volug
2007-09-29, 08:55 PM
Shining force is fun!


as for War games....
see my sig...... "My campaign setting" "Chapter 3"

Exact... same... thing....:smallannoyed:


I'm recruiting for it, if you want to try it out. I've done stuff like this (not as DM though, i do have help)

The_Losar
2007-09-29, 09:12 PM
Hm, interesting, but not exactly the same thing. It looks like in your chapter 3 there are good people and evil people fighting against each other. My idea has more of an objective morality situation: either side could have good and evil people, so long as they fight for and, perhaps, believe in their faction.

In other words, it's not good vs. evil or even law vs. chaos. It's conflict, pure and simple, between two countries.

I don't think it's easy to point at a country and say 'that's a good/evil country". Certainly, it happens all the time, but upon closer inspection, the majority of the people in a country are either good-natured or, at least, some kind of neutral.

The leaders may be good or evil and direct the country to reflect that nature, but even good people fight with each other. Sometimes it's misunderstanding, sometimes it's necessity, sometimes it's emotion that leads to conflict.

Regardless, yes, I figured someone had come up with a similar idea before. That was one of the things I wanted t find out when I created this topic.

Starsinger
2007-09-30, 07:46 AM
Hm, interesting, but not exactly the same thing. It looks like in your chapter 3 there are good people and evil people fighting against each other. My idea has more of an objective morality situation: either side could have good and evil people, so long as they fight for and, perhaps, believe in their faction.

In other words, it's not good vs. evil or even law vs. chaos. It's conflict, pure and simple, between two countries.

I don't think it's easy to point at a country and say 'that's a good/evil country". Certainly, it happens all the time, but upon closer inspection, the majority of the people in a country are either good-natured or, at least, some kind of neutral.

The leaders may be good or evil and direct the country to reflect that nature, but even good people fight with each other. Sometimes it's misunderstanding, sometimes it's necessity, sometimes it's emotion that leads to conflict.

Regardless, yes, I figured someone had come up with a similar idea before. That was one of the things I wanted t find out when I created this topic.

While it may not have been the first time the idea was thought of by a human mind, it was definitely a wonderful idea. I mean, sure both sides will demonize each other, because that's part of war... But I also am rather intrigued by the idea of two Good nations going to war with each other.

Crow
2007-09-30, 07:54 AM
It might be a good idea to have the war already been waged for many years already as you open the campaign. Both sides believe it was the other that struck first, and the truth is so cloudy and forgotten that nobody can know for sure.

A lot of people (not all, mind you) tend to think aggressor = bad guy. This could eliminate some of that.

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 07:58 AM
If you do end up running a capaign(s) like this, make sure to give the players a way to set aside their differences that doesn't result in a TPK on one side.

Sure, that should be allowed, but forcing the players to do that doesn't sound particularly fun to me.

I must warn you: D&D players being what they are, expect them to team up together and force you to DM a game for eight people at once.

puppyavenger
2007-09-30, 08:41 AM
use the alligence system from D20 modern, makes morality so much more subjective.

Clementx
2007-09-30, 09:39 AM
Another way to do it that doesn't involve having to run a game for eight different people would be to alternate sessions with the same party. Thus, each week the party plays one set of characters on one side of the war, then the other. As the campaign progresses, they have larger and larger impacts on the conflict, and begin hearing about the other side. Thus, they get to experience the ambiguity of war, as each session reveals the accomplishments of the enemy, and all their successes make things more challenging for them next week. In the final battle, have each player pick a side/character, and turn their other character's tactical command over to you (with general guidelines for their priorities/RPing). Ideally, you would split the party, so each side has two players and two NPCs.

This way, the only way for a fist-fight to break out is if a player starts smacking himself for killing his other character.

The_Losar
2007-09-30, 10:17 AM
I don't think you understand how hilarious it would be if the players broke out into a fist fight over this. :smallamused:

But no, if I know the people around here, many would be eager to test their tactical skills against other players, so having two different groups would be the best for their benefit. Plus, the surprise! I like surprises.

The great thing about D&D is that, if done right, you can't force the players to do anything. If the two parties meet they might, for some reason, just sit, have a picnic, and work out their differences. They're more likely, however, to get caught up in the sport and fight for a while, but many of them know very well that defeat doesn't necessarily mean you're dead. It would be awesome if one side would retreat and demand a rematch later, in fact!

The easiest way to bring the parties together seems to be if there was a mysterious third party manipulating the war, like the Church in Final Fantasy Tactics. Then the parties could figure it out and team up against this new threat.

But that's too convenient. I don't really want an identifiable bad guy.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-30, 01:10 PM
What about BOTH kings/emperors/feminine counterparts being evil, and possibly outsiders who speak to each other on friendly terms? For X reason, they killed the leaders, and took their place, playing it as good guys. But now, in the war they slowly begin to show their true colors.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-30, 02:08 PM
It might be a good idea to have the war already been waged for many years already as you open the campaign. Both sides believe it was the other that struck first, and the truth is so cloudy and forgotten that nobody can know for sure.

A lot of people (not all, mind you) tend to think aggressor = bad guy. This could eliminate some of that.

Or start off with routing thieves or whatever (I like that one, has a kind of FFTactics feel to it), then have one of them attack a small village: have their leaders tell them the village was worshipping Vecna, or something. Play it off like just another dungeon crawl. Ideally, they should have no idea they were the opening salvo of the war.

Have the attacked side quickly scale up to atrocities in response - by then, each group of PCs is thinking the other side threw the first stone.