Counter operations.

[Calthropstu]

Anyone have experience running one campaign with two opposing groups? Like you have one group on one side of a conflict and the other on the other side.

Does it work out usually or end in complete disaster?

[Yahzi Coyote]

Does it work out usually or end in complete disaster?
Given that most campaigns end in disaster (TPK or the campaign is abandoned for one of a million reasons), your odds aren't good. :smallbiggrin:

You need to run small chunks of time, with well defined parameters, and preferably no direct contact. They can kill each other's allies, but if players start killing players things will get acrimonious fast. (Note: this is why gods and dragons don't compete directly, but only through their minions.)

I've run evil campaigns that worked out pretty well. Inevitably the party turned on each other, with the sole winner retiring with all the loot, but since that was expected from the beginning it was all in good fun.

[Psyren]

By "two opposing groups" - do you mean the party is up against a group of "Linear Guild"-style GM-controlled NPCs that are structured like an adventuring party? Or do you mean two groups of players competing against each other?

If it's the latter, that's likely to be exponentially harder as you (and they) will effectively be fighting against the design of the system itself.

[Calthropstu]

By "two opposing groups" - do you mean the party is up against a group of "Linear Guild"-style GM-controlled NPCs that are structured like an adventuring party? Or do you mean two groups of players competing against each other?

If it's the latter, that's likely to be exponentially harder as you (and they) will effectively be fighting against the design of the system itself.

Yes, the second one. I have considered it a couple times.

[Psyren]

I see... do you expect them to ever come into direct conflict, e.g. combat? Or will their opposition to one another be limited to indirect forms, such as racing each other for a macguffin, or competing with one another for an influential NPC's political favors?

[Calthropstu]

I see... do you expect them to ever come into direct conflict, e.g. combat? Or will their opposition to one another be limited to indirect forms, such as racing each other for a macguffin, or competing with one another for an influential NPC's political favors?

Maybe direct combat at the very end. As the parties gain power, they will likely realize an equally strong force is acting against their faction's interests and work to eradicate it. As the 2 factions war, I plan on a third take advantage of the damage the 2 do to each other to try and muscle in on the territory. The third will be the big bad, but eventually the 2 factions will need to either come to an agreement or come to final blows. If the 2 groups decide to go on the offensive when the time comes, they will be sent directly at each other. Otherwise, basically the 2 teams will only see the results of each others' actions. For instance, one team will be sent to gather special materials. When they get back, they find the mining operation they had helped to set up has been raided by a group of adventurers (the other party). To retaliate they are sent to steal something of high value from the other faction.

[Fizban]

I haven't watched any of his stuff in ages, but Matt Colville (https://www.youtube.com/user/mcolville/videos) mentioned doing this in his campaign (he runs many). Don't know if he ever did a video on the subject, but might be worth a look. Note that he runs 5e so 3.x shenanigans won't factor in.

[nedz]

I tried something similar once — it is very tricky.

If you are running the two groups at the same table then they each only get half of your time.

If you run them separately then they will become out of sync. This will force you to pause one group, send them on a side quest or risk a continuity error.

There is also a very high risk that one, or both, of the groups will do something that breaks the campaign even if it wouldn't break a normal game.