Megacampaigns

[Gnoman]

There's an idea that's been floating around in the back of my head for awhile revolving around the nature of tabletop RPG worlds. Fundamentally, either you have a threadbare tapestry that is tightly woven around the PCs but much looser everywhere they don't touch because the person in charge doesn't have time to develop those less-important areas; or else you have a setting filled with fairly generic stock elements that have a really hard time standing out. Published examples of these include the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms campaign settings, but the basic issue is just as true, if not more so, in homebrew settings.

Yet the world is, or should be, more than big enough to hold more than one party. The solution I've been toying with is the megacampaign. Instead of one GM with a handful of players telling one story, you have several groups running largely independent stories in the same world. To keep everything straight, you appoint a Worldmaster (WM) to have the final rule on anything setting-related and do the broad-strokes design work. The individual GMs would go to the WM, give an outline of the next few adventures, and the WM would either give them setting elements to slot into the plan or tell the GM "I don't have anything that fits, these are the limits of what you can build within". The WM would also step in if two parties are operating in the same general area to keep thing synchronized.

For obvious reasons, this won't work for face-to-face games, but it seems ideally suited for the play-by-post format. Has anyone tried something along these lines for an extended period of time?

[AMFV]

It sounds like Living Greyhawk, quite a bit. Generally this sort of thing works best when there's some cohesion between GMs about larger plot points, maybe they meet and discuss things so that the players can touch on each others' stories. I would love to see something like this with more of a narrative focus, but I'm not sure how well it would work. You could also have major events where all the PCs are involved. There's a lot of room for possibilities. But it would take a lot more organization than a standard campaign. I mean you'd have to ensure more consistency, and you'd have less individual freedom.

[golentan]

There's an idea that's been floating around in the back of my head for awhile revolving around the nature of tabletop RPG worlds. Fundamentally, either you have a threadbare tapestry that is tightly woven around the PCs but much looser everywhere they don't touch because the person in charge doesn't have time to develop those less-important areas; or else you have a setting filled with fairly generic stock elements that have a really hard time standing out. Published examples of these include the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms campaign settings, but the basic issue is just as true, if not more so, in homebrew settings.

Yet the world is, or should be, more than big enough to hold more than one party. The solution I've been toying with is the megacampaign. Instead of one GM with a handful of players telling one story, you have several groups running largely independent stories in the same world. To keep everything straight, you appoint a Worldmaster (WM) to have the final rule on anything setting-related and do the broad-strokes design work. The individual GMs would go to the WM, give an outline of the next few adventures, and the WM would either give them setting elements to slot into the plan or tell the GM "I don't have anything that fits, these are the limits of what you can build within". The WM would also step in if two parties are operating in the same general area to keep thing synchronized.

For obvious reasons, this won't work for face-to-face games, but it seems ideally suited for the play-by-post format. Has anyone tried something along these lines for an extended period of time?

Have you ever taken a look at the World of Darkness Mind's Eye society/Camarrilla network? I joined a couple games for the local group back in college, and they had literally dozens of sites across the country, and more than once someone traveling through the area from another state would be slotted into the local intrigue as a visiting member of another Camarilla court.

[Gnoman]

It sounds like Living Greyhawk, quite a bit. Generally this sort of thing works best when there's some cohesion between GMs about larger plot points, maybe they meet and discuss things so that the players can touch on each others' stories. I would love to see something like this with more of a narrative focus, but I'm not sure how well it would work. You could also have major events where all the PCs are involved. There's a lot of room for possibilities. But it would take a lot more organization than a standard campaign. I mean you'd have to ensure more consistency, and you'd have less individual freedom.

Precisely why I don't think it would work in a face-to-face (or other real-time) format. A play by post setup, on the other hand, gives plenty of time for GMs to talk to each other and the WM about what's going on, if a specific creative idea will work in this setting, or work out the timing if two parties are in the same area.


@golentan

I know nothing about World of Darkness, but that sounds much looser than I was thinking. For an example, in a setup like that PCs assassinating the ruler of one country won't affect another group playing in one country over. What I want is for that group to suddenly be hearing rumors about social unrest, maybe a few refugees fleeing the chaos, mercenaries being recruited, etc. Possibly they can build it into their adventures, possibly it would just be a background detail. But it would be more alive than a lot of worlds.

[AMFV]

Precisely why I don't think it would work in a face-to-face (or other real-time) format. A play by post setup, on the other hand, gives plenty of time for GMs to talk to each other and the WM about what's going on, if a specific creative idea will work in this setting, or work out the timing if two parties are in the same area.

I'm not sure, I think face-to-face could work just fine if you had sufficient oversight. Like maybe a webpage that all the DMs post to with the information associated with their various activities and where they could see what world events they were planning. You'd probably have to have a DM meeting. I mean the only area that could potentially be more difficult would be crossover stuff, which would be comparatively more difficult.

To be fair, you could even do a cross-format game, with some PbP and some face to face as long as the world coherency were maintained.

[golentan]

Precisely why I don't think it would work in a face-to-face (or other real-time) format. A play by post setup, on the other hand, gives plenty of time for GMs to talk to each other and the WM about what's going on, if a specific creative idea will work in this setting, or work out the timing if two parties are in the same area.


@golentan

I know nothing about World of Darkness, but that sounds much looser than I was thinking. For an example, in a setup like that PCs assassinating the ruler of one country won't affect another group playing in one country over. What I want is for that group to suddenly be hearing rumors about social unrest, maybe a few refugees fleeing the chaos, mercenaries being recruited, etc. Possibly they can build it into their adventures, possibly it would just be a background detail. But it would be more alive than a lot of worlds.

That's the thing though. It is run like a bunch of fiefs (local princes) who do assassinate and scheme against each other and common enemies whose campaign goals are set by the central storyteller committees.

[Knaight]

There's an idea that's been floating around in the back of my head for awhile revolving around the nature of tabletop RPG worlds. Fundamentally, either you have a threadbare tapestry that is tightly woven around the PCs but much looser everywhere they don't touch because the person in charge doesn't have time to develop those less-important areas; or else you have a setting filled with fairly generic stock elements that have a really hard time standing out. Published examples of these include the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms campaign settings, but the basic issue is just as true, if not more so, in homebrew settings.

This whole issue can be avoided pretty easily by just not making something generic, but the whole interacting mega campaign idea does sound fun on its own merits - just not as a viable patch for setting boringness. I also think this could work face to face, but that the logistics involved are going to suck. A wiki where all the GMs post their notes, maintain setting information pages, etc. should hold up just fine, and the absence of oversight during the game can prevent design by committee blandness problems.

[Phoenixguard09]

My group is doing something kind of similar to this, with multiple games (4 at last count) running concurrently. While I am GM for three of them, the fourth is being run by another player.

With that said, I wouldn't mind trying to organise something like it for a PbP game on here.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Personally, I would not try to run this as pbp. It may be just me, but my experience is that pbp games die fast, and are generally slow. This whole megacampaign thing doesn't really start kicking in and changing even the slightest bit about the experience until you're at least about 3 sessions in. If I would start a hundred play by post games maybe a handful make it that far, and half of those that are left would have devolved to solo campaigns.

If anything I'd think it's easier to do with real tables.

[kyoryu]

There's an idea that's been floating around in the back of my head for awhile revolving around the nature of tabletop RPG worlds. Fundamentally, either you have a threadbare tapestry that is tightly woven around the PCs but much looser everywhere they don't touch because the person in charge doesn't have time to develop those less-important areas; or else you have a setting filled with fairly generic stock elements that have a really hard time standing out. Published examples of these include the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms campaign settings, but the basic issue is just as true, if not more so, in homebrew settings.

Yet the world is, or should be, more than big enough to hold more than one party. The solution I've been toying with is the megacampaign. Instead of one GM with a handful of players telling one story, you have several groups running largely independent stories in the same world. To keep everything straight, you appoint a Worldmaster (WM) to have the final rule on anything setting-related and do the broad-strokes design work. The individual GMs would go to the WM, give an outline of the next few adventures, and the WM would either give them setting elements to slot into the plan or tell the GM "I don't have anything that fits, these are the limits of what you can build within". The WM would also step in if two parties are operating in the same general area to keep thing synchronized.

For obvious reasons, this won't work for face-to-face games, but it seems ideally suited for the play-by-post format. Has anyone tried something along these lines for an extended period of time?

This is not that far off of the original concept of the "campaign" in open table games. Except for a lot less emphasis on story.

[Hooligan]

Sounds wildly fun & entertaining, though 2 barriers come to mind:
1. Just the amount of organization/legwork on the worldmaster/DM's parts.
2. and perhaps the more troubling of the 2, is how to deal with the issue of PCs from 1 group savaging (as PC's have a tendency to do to most NPCs) those in other groups.

[LaserFace]

This brings back memories of my time on a private Persistent World server on NWN2. We had a server of maybe 50ish PCs at its peak, with enough DMs to run separate parties each weeknight; sometimes even multiple different sessions would take place, back-to-back. It was a load of fun but took a fair amount of organization, and I think was ultimately very stressful for those who had the most responsibility (ie the WM).

I think you could get something like this going, but I think it would take a huge amount of work. Not only do individual parties need to get their participants working together, but you're adding a layer of complexity between DMs, and even between DMs and the WM. If the WM puts too many restrictions on DMs, or they want too many liberties, disagreements can risk creating fractures inside this community and lead to problems.

Personally, I think DMs need to be free to adapt to their party, and being given restraints by a WM could bind their hands to a degree that some parties aren't even having enough fun to justify the effort. You'd probably want strong communication between DMs, or be flexible or trusting enough to let them just do it. Even then, I think you're basically guaranteed for folks to have creative differences, so the WM and other DMs have to willing to compromise or you're not going to get far.

I think having a wiki, like suggested, could help to keep things organized loosely as a reference to all participating parties. On the server I mention above, we had a compilation of all major lore aspects. But ultimately, even if the parties were all sometimes involved with the same metaplot, they were usually just doing their own thing, with their own NPCs and story, avoiding lore contradictions by simply never really addressing anything that would affect other parties, except for really special moments that took a lot of discussion and planning. But, IMO planning ahead to such a degree puts some constraints on player choice.

Personally, I would not try to run this as pbp. It may be just me, but my experience is that pbp games die fast, and are generally slow. This whole megacampaign thing doesn't really start kicking in and changing even the slightest bit about the experience until you're at least about 3 sessions in. If I would start a hundred play by post games maybe a handful make it that far, and half of those that are left would have devolved to solo campaigns.

If anything I'd think it's easier to do with real tables.

I completely agree with this. I used to try PbP games a long while back, and it's so rare that you actually keep one going that planning so far ahead seems like a poor decision. If you're intent upon a megacamapign, I think you'd have better chance of this working through any medium other than PbP.

[Gnoman]

Personally, I think DMs need to be free to adapt to their party, and being given restraints by a WM could bind their hands to a degree that some parties aren't even having enough fun to justify the effort. You'd probably want strong communication between DMs, or be flexible or trusting enough to let them just do it. Even then, I think you're basically guaranteed for folks to have creative differences, so the WM and other DMs have to willing to compromise or you're not going to get far.

In the model I was envisioning, the primary role of the WM would be worldbuilding and coordination, along with making sure all GMs have the rulings on the more rule-ambiguous ideas PCs come up with (this is one of the reasons why I think play-by-post is the better option - in a regular game you can't say "I'm not sure if that will work under what we've agreed to, I need to consult with the WM. Get back to you next week?" while a PbB has the necessary delay baked-in, so to speak). They could also take control of arbitration during direct party-to-party arbitration so that neither group has to worry about the other DM being unfair, but for the most part the DMs have just as much freedom as they would if they were playing in a published setting and hewing as closely to it as possible.

If anyone wants to give this a try I'd certainly be interested, particularly since it's the only sort of game I'm going to be able to work with for the next two months. We might have to talk to the mods ahead of time to set up the number of threads that would be needed, but other than that we'd need to set up the exact campaign concept (it also occurs to me that it would be perfect for a "crosstime traveler" type of scenario or a space-travel game), pick a system, and work out who's going to do what.

[AMFV]

In the model I was envisioning, the primary role of the WM would be worldbuilding and coordination, along with making sure all GMs have the rulings on the more rule-ambiguous ideas PCs come up with (this is one of the reasons why I think play-by-post is the better option - in a regular game you can't say "I'm not sure if that will work under what we've agreed to, I need to consult with the WM. Get back to you next week?" while a PbB has the necessary delay baked-in, so to speak). They could also take control of arbitration during direct party-to-party arbitration so that neither group has to worry about the other DM being unfair, but for the most part the DMs have just as much freedom as they would if they were playing in a published setting and hewing as closely to it as possible.

If anyone wants to give this a try I'd certainly be interested, particularly since it's the only sort of game I'm going to be able to work with for the next two months. We might have to talk to the mods ahead of time to set up the number of threads that would be needed, but other than that we'd need to set up the exact campaign concept (it also occurs to me that it would be perfect for a "crosstime traveler" type of scenario or a space-travel game), pick a system, and work out who's going to do what.

I'm interested, at least in assisting with development or what-not. Possibly helping develop some of the logistics (and potentially doing some logistical stuff as things develop to take the load off some of the DMs). I'm not entirely sure if I'll be able to participate more than that (though I would like to). But I think the best part will be seeing everybody's stories blending, so I'd definitely like to be as much a part of this as I'm able.

[Knaight]

In the model I was envisioning, the primary role of the WM would be worldbuilding and coordination, along with making sure all GMs have the rulings on the more rule-ambiguous ideas PCs come up with (this is one of the reasons why I think play-by-post is the better option - in a regular game you can't say "I'm not sure if that will work under what we've agreed to, I need to consult with the WM. Get back to you next week?" while a PbB has the necessary delay baked-in, so to speak). They could also take control of arbitration during direct party-to-party arbitration so that neither group has to worry about the other DM being unfair, but for the most part the DMs have just as much freedom as they would if they were playing in a published setting and hewing as closely to it as possible.

I'm thinking that the GM could just make the decision, inform the WM of it later, and let them sort it out. Yes, the WM loses a bit of creative control, but that's inherent in the design, so you just need someone who is willing to roll with that as WM.

[Gnoman]

I'm thinking that the GM could just make the decision, inform the WM of it later, and let them sort it out. Yes, the WM loses a bit of creative control, but that's inherent in the design, so you just need someone who is willing to roll with that as WM.

The trouble with that is that, if the WM decides it shouldn't have worked (for example, a player in my campaign once cast sunlight and mirror image on himself, then tried to order his mirror image to chase, surround, and destroy a vampire), either it becomes necessary to allow it in the future or let it slide and forbid it in the future, both of which have problems. I'm much more comfortable with decisions like that being decided definitively beforehand, although I do suppose that it can be dealt with if everyone knows going in that things like that might happen.

The other issue is that there's always the possibility of PCs being accidentally in the same place at the same time. If you know in advance that this will happen, compensating for it is no big deal, but having a party of adventurers getting it in their head to go halfway across the country and looking for a dungeon to explore is pretty standard, and if they happen to pick one that's swept up in another group's adventure (the possibility of which is one of the goals of doing things this way), getting asynchronous with that other group is a problem.

[MintyNinja]

I'd be interested as a player and part-time worldbuilder. I've got a lot of steaks on my DM plate that I gotta work through still. But I can build up a small area that's level specific like a lost island with dinosaurs and lizardfolk.

[falcon1]

As to the rules issue, what I've done for similar situations is say that it works once, but than only on natural 20 or something similar. So it doesn't super change the game , but I don't have to stop play.

[EccentricCircle]

I've sort of done the opposite to what you are proposing. Rather than collaborate with lots of GMs to run many games concurrently i've run dozens of campaigns over a long period of time, all set in the same world. Its a much slower way to build up a megacampaign, but it definitely has advantages.

By being consistent between games, and referencing lore and setting details as needed i've built up the sort of cohesive, globe and history spanning setting that you describe. Players who have played in multiple parts of the megacampaign have the best appreciation for the depth of the setting, as they get references to places and things that their past characters were involved in.
We've even done a few big crossover events, where separate campaigns have collided with people playing their favourite characters.

So far over 100 players have participated in the setting in various ways, and 30 or so are regular players who have had more than five characters in different parts of the world, so probably have the best appreciation for how it all fits together.

Not all new players care about the depth of the setting, but for me, and those who have been exploring the world for years it is well worth doing!

[Niek]

I tried something of this sort before, running 4-5 parties concurrently in the same setting (An isolationist kingdom that has been sealed off from the rest of the world for the last 20 years). It didn't really get off the ground though, mostly because the different parties were cobbled together from various reaches of the internet and we couldnt get any fixed play schedules set down. Three parties got at least 1 session, but only 1 of them is still active

That said I'd gladly attempt it again.

[TurboGhast]

This reminded me of an idea I had wherein I would start two separate campaigns, one with heroic PCs and one with villainous PCs. Partway through these campaigns, the heroic PCs would meet the villainous PCs, and presumably each gain a new set of enemies.

[Cluedrew]

Personally I would describe this more as a ... metacampaign, because there is a bunch of stuff going around the campaign, rather than there being a single large campaign, which to me is what megacampaign implies. Or you could describe just the part with the GMs and WM as the metacampaign.

I love the idea, honestly if you just stay out of each others way it world be a great world building and flavoring tool. Where I get really excited is the possibility for more direct interactions. Which can be more occasional, and probably should be because of the amount of extra work it would take. Sure there can be things like letters to connect the groups. But the idea of the battle with the BBEG happing in the community center because the BBEG is another PC party puts a wild gleam in my eye.

[DireSickFish]

In the model I was envisioning, the primary role of the WM would be worldbuilding and coordination, along with making sure all GMs have the rulings on the more rule-ambiguous ideas PCs come up with (this is one of the reasons why I think play-by-post is the better option - in a regular game you can't say "I'm not sure if that will work under what we've agreed to, I need to consult with the WM. Get back to you next week?" while a PbB has the necessary delay baked-in, so to speak). They could also take control of arbitration during direct party-to-party arbitration so that neither group has to worry about the other DM being unfair, but for the most part the DMs have just as much freedom as they would if they were playing in a published setting and hewing as closely to it as possible.

If anyone wants to give this a try I'd certainly be interested, particularly since it's the only sort of game I'm going to be able to work with for the next two months. We might have to talk to the mods ahead of time to set up the number of threads that would be needed, but other than that we'd need to set up the exact campaign concept (it also occurs to me that it would be perfect for a "crosstime traveler" type of scenario or a space-travel game), pick a system, and work out who's going to do what.

I DM'd in a game where we had 4 or 5 rotating GMs because we had a huge influx of new players and none of the DMs wanted to run a game full game. We also would have needed a second DM running to take pressure off the first anyway.

One thing I learned is that conflicting styles can easily bring this whole thing crashing down. Even if you have a World Master he's not DMing these games or if he is then his games are the "right" games and all the other ones are just taking place in the same setting.

It can also be hard for the WM to think of ideas in a vacuum. DMing with players is partly a big long brainstorming session for your world building. If they want to be from a spice trading family that's competing with the other trademasters and politicians in a city that might not exist until the player brings it up. After all even a WM isn't going to stat out every trade guild in a city and probably only has the ruling family or senate worked out for local nobility.

Based on the players ideas suddenly your trade town that gets most of its exports from Fish is a cutthroat political ladder.

Sure you can bring this back to the WM as a DM from your game and let them know this is how the town is developing, but you still have the "problem" of it being tightly woven around the players and looser everywhere else. Or the WM isn't getting the idea and says something like "that wouldn't work, people there are happy with there lot in life under the Fair king and there's no ladder to climb." Because the WM has a fundamentally different idea of how the people in that area are behaving sot he player isn't met with a Wall or a challenge, they're met with a pile of mush that you can fight against easily but will never really make any progress.

I'm not saying it's impossible and the NWN server Narfell pulled off what your suggesting. But that works differently in a vidogame because it's a lot easier to be the final decider or arbiter, and if people leave it isn't volatile. You just gota be on the same wavelength as the DMs running it, at least initially while your still building the world.

[shadow_archmagi]

Wasn't this once, in the Old Days, the way all games were? That line in the OD&D about games having five to fifty players?

[Faily]

Play-by-post can work excellently in this format, and I am myself participating in an on-going megacampaign of L5R that's been running for 5 years.

The GMs run an over-arching plotline that carries on between each "adventure", and players can affect the setting during the course of an adventure or at the conclusion of one as they choose goals to pursue.

It all started with the whereabouts of a Black Scroll being revealed to the rest of the Empire and the clans hurried to send members there under the pretense of seeking to wed the Governor's children. The next adventure was the Topaz Championship, followed by the war campaign to reclaim Shiro Hiruma. After that, there was a matchmaking festival, the Imperial Winter Court, and a war campaign against an invasion of snake people (naga). The last two were intrigue in the Scorpion City of Ryoko Owari, and a wedding in Sparrow lands. The overall theme of the campaign has been the Black Scrolls, and the impending doom that the resurrection of the Dark God is coming closer.

And when you consider that this campaign range from 20-40 players, there is a lot of stuff that can happen. It is very GM intense work to run each adventure and tie together all things, but it feels very rewarding to see the game-world affected by your actions and feel a part of a living setting.

[Puke]

Hello !
I'm currently the worldmaster of a such campaign. I named it The Endless Campaign.

Setting here : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Unique-thread
First post about it here : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...8#post20317398

Basically : Gods are played by... players. And several major "NPC" are also acted by players.


Every decisions made by the players may influence the world. (I mean, whether or not they are gods).
We are currently running 2 tables : one for gods, one for players.

The gods are originally mortals that succeeded in accessing godhood in a previous campaign in the same setting. We are playing this from almost 2 years.

And... we are always looking for new GMs and players to run new tables (but we are french...so... I don't think it might interest any of you... but I may be wrong), to act NPCs, to manage cities (yes, you can play a mayor).
We did this because some of our players were not available on a regular basis. So, the God players can just use our forum to tell us what they are doing and how they react to the other table adventures.

That being said, anyone can play a mayor using the forum, and so, the world become a huge living thing.

I love the game like that.

[MintyNinja]

I've sort of done the opposite to what you are proposing. Rather than collaborate with lots of GMs to run many games concurrently i've run dozens of campaigns over a long period of time, all set in the same world. Its a much slower way to build up a megacampaign, but it definitely has advantages.

By being consistent between games, and referencing lore and setting details as needed i've built up the sort of cohesive, globe and history spanning setting that you describe. Players who have played in multiple parts of the megacampaign have the best appreciation for the depth of the setting, as they get references to places and things that their past characters were involved in.
We've even done a few big crossover events, where separate campaigns have collided with people playing their favourite characters.

So far over 100 players have participated in the setting in various ways, and 30 or so are regular players who have had more than five characters in different parts of the world, so probably have the best appreciation for how it all fits together.

Not all new players care about the depth of the setting, but for me, and those who have been exploring the world for years it is well worth doing!

I'm starting something like this soon, as well. I'm really excited for the possibilities it brings.

But back to the OP: The WM would have an easier time of it all if it were PbP because then they can track all campaigns simultaneously. I'd also have them dialled into the OOC threads and any other similar threads. That being said, I would love to be the one evil group with 3 other good groups. I think that could really lend itself well to one group of shadowy villains out to complete some purpose and the other groups only know what happens because of the consequences.