Handling player-created setting changes across campaigns

[PhoenixPhyre]

How sticky should players' actions be? Should emergent metaplot carry over between nominally separate campaigns?

So I have a strange situation that may make for an interesting discussion. I'm DM'ing 3 groups (5th edition D&D) in a custom setting. Effectively they're in alternate timelines--nothing any of them do affects the other groups. However, two of the groups will end their campaigns in a month or so (school groups). The other will continue for a while.

One of the groups will completely end--the players are seniors in high school (playing in a high school club) and will graduate. I'm not concerned about them. Their story will come to a suitable conclusion.

The second school group has the potential to continue next school year. Whether they keep the same characters is, as yet, undecided. There will be at least one group that will start from scratch.

That last group has, through their actions, made significant changes to the political dynamics of the setting--they've made peace with a large group of goblins, set a revolt in motion (although they don't know this) in the main country, and are about to go interfere in a third country. They've also made discoveries that will cause significant social upheaval. Oh, and seriously pissed off a couple demon princes (as well as a bunch of more mortal rulers). They're a busy group.

Note: none of this was planned in advance by me. I take it one session at a time with only a loose over-arching plot (villains have plans in motion, the group chooses which thing to tackle). Plans the party doesn't interact with happen on schedule.

The question then arrives--when that third group ends their campaign (which will happen sooner or later) and I restart another campaign in this same setting, should I take one of the three timelines as canon and move the global clock forward? or just do a total reset back to status quo ante? Or possibly continue some but restart others (ouch, my head)?

Anyone ever had this issue? As far as official metaplots, I know that Ebberon doesn't really progress the timeline. Forgotten Realms does a timeskip (usually, and with variations) for each new edition as well as having very busy NPCs. I know the oWoD setting had a metaplot, but don't know much more than that.

What are the pros and cons of each side? Anyone ever dealt with this kind of emergent meta-plot? I have to do something--holding the details of three groups in separate-but similar worlds is starting to hurt my brain.

[Stealth Marmot]

I've played in groups where the actions of previous members have affected current players, and in games where different chapters have different effects, but I never have had a DM run concurrent groups in the same world, at least not n a homebrew world.

If I were you, I would make sure that the players never cross paths, but it could actually be a rather interesting thing to have the actions of the players be known by the other players. Think about some of your favorite games with sequels and side-quels, and how much fun it is to hear them talk about the events happening in the other game. It adds some dimension to the world.

Sure it could end up affecting what happens to the players, but players should be wiling if not excited to have to deal with the unexpected. You'll have to be a loose and agile DM though, ready to change your expected path in one group if the others do something unexpected, BUT it would, if anything, help you come up with new ideas and events for the campaigns.

This could come in handy too if you ever want to mix and match player characters into a group or have a crossover. I say go for the players affecting each other's events, and recap them when they come back what changed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've played in groups where the actions of previous members have affected current players, and in games where different chapters have different effects, but I never have had a DM run concurrent groups in the same world, at least not n a homebrew world.

If I were you, I would make sure that the players never cross paths, but it could actually be a rather interesting thing to have the actions of the players be known by the other players. Think about some of your favorite games with sequels and side-quels, and how much fun it is to hear them talk about the events happening in the other game. It adds some dimension to the world.

Sure it could end up affecting what happens to the players, but players should be wiling if not excited to have to deal with the unexpected. You'll have to be a loose and agile DM though, ready to change your expected path in one group if the others do something unexpected, BUT it would, if anything, help you come up with new ideas and events for the campaigns.

This could come in handy too if you ever want to mix and match player characters into a group or have a crossover. I say go for the players affecting each other's events, and recap them when they come back what changed.

The separate campaigns are (this year at least) in separate timelines (effectively alternate histories all starting from the same event) so there's no possibility of interactions. That is getting kinda wearing on me though--I'd like to collapse the three into the same timeline (but still have a strong separation so that they don't directly interact).

[Koo Rehtorb]

In my own humble opinion, crossover stuff is the absolute coolest thing ever. If there's multiple campaigns in the same world, having a guest star PC from group 2 interacting with group 1 for a couple sessions if their paths ever cross is the sort of thing that makes me squeal with girlish glee.

[Honest Tiefling]

The question then arrives--when that third group ends their campaign (which will happen sooner or later) and I restart another campaign in this same setting, should I take one of the three timelines as canon and move the global clock forward? or just do a total reset back to status quo ante? Or possibly continue some but restart others (ouch, my head)?

You could just ASK. "Hey, I have this campaign setting I'd like to run a game in. Some other people made changes to it, and I'd like to see what changes you guys make to it!"

Personally, I have a rage-vomit reaction to such things, due to being in a game with super powered NPCs. But if they have a similar reaction (as unreasonable as it is), maybe start afresh with them. They probably wouldn't like to have such a campaign sprung upon them without warning, but might be more understanding if you pitch it to them first. You could also reassure them that you won't be THAT DM in the process.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could just ASK. "Hey, I have this campaign setting I'd like to run a game in. Some other people made changes to it, and I'd like to see what changes you guys make to it!"

Personally, I have a rage-vomit reaction to such things, due to being in a game with super powered NPCs. But if they have a similar reaction (as unreasonable as it is), maybe start afresh with them. They probably wouldn't like to have such a campaign sprung upon them without warning, but might be more understanding if you pitch it to them first. You could also reassure them that you won't be THAT DM in the process.

I guess in one sense I already have done this--I started (last year) with this as a 4e D&D setting. I knew that this year I was transitioning to 5e and wanted to start (mostly) fresh. So I let the players decide (through their actions) how the world-altering Cataclysm went down. As should be expected from teenagers, they chose one of the more destructive paths.

Spoiler: The Cataclysm

Show

Basically the setting-equivalent of Asmodeus^2 got loose; one party was sent on a (supposed) wild-goose chase for an artifact of the creator god--turned out to be real and they decided to use it themselves. Temporarily destroyed all magic world-wide and most of the gods sacrificed themselves to hold reality together. Killed ~70% of the world's population.

The current setting is 200 years later after things are starting to recover and much smaller in scope (one nation that thinks that they're the only civilized people left).

Some of the characters ended up ascending to godhood (and have made a cameo this year in one of the groups, although not the ones those players are in, as NPCs), others became the founding members of the current society. I did time-skip 200 years though (and elves/dwarves/etc don't live that long for me, so no mortal characters came back).

I guess I'm more concerned about the massive societal upheaval the longer-running group will cause if they keep up with the current path...I'll have to throw out most of my non-terrain/non-historical information if I make that timeline the canon one.

[MintyNinja]

This is the kind of thing that I want in my settings, actually. The sense that the world really is a sandbox and some one else has been here before me. As the GM, though, I'd suggest folding the finished group into the "normal" group and have NPCs or such catch glimpses of the "chaotic" group's timeline. Call it something accessible like the Broken Mirror Plane, and set some method for crossing from one timeline into the other. This gives you two paths to follow for your setting, which is much more manageable than three, and allows some interesting plots in the future. "Oh, the King is falling sick and his heir was lost at sea a few weeks ago? Well I heard that in the Broken Mirror Plane the prince is rotting in prison after the People's Revolution. I think a switch is the best for both sides."

[An Amy]

I only have 3 campaign settings and each time a group of players go through a campaign in one of them, it alters said setting. Sometimes in very drastic ways (especially with one of them where epic levels are a goal) someti es the previous PC's just become part of the lore of the world. When running more than one group of players through a campaign setting, I usually let both parties effect the setting but rarely let them interact with each other especially if their power levels and gameplay styles are different. For instance I'm running a trio through a setting and a solo through the same setting. The trio are at level 7 and have some very heavy topics. The solo is at level 2 and is dealing with corruption in the city guard. I may NPC a character crossing from one to the other, but will most likely keep them completely separate. When deciding which effects will become canon, I'll just pick which effects I like the most and go with that.

In one of my settings, the PC's are somehow connected their previous PC by direct bloodline, mentoring or, in one case, the newer PC managed to kill the former PC. That ran for 3 generations and was pretty fun to keep all those backstories intertwined.