General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
This is an idea which came to me while watching the current Cricket series between South Africa and Australia.
In sports you often see two individuals or teams which develop an intense rivalry. This often leads to players within these teams performing well above their normal performance levels in games between these two teams, as has been the case time and time again in the current series.
This has led me to wonder how you can build this kind rivalry in a campaign, with the players reacting with a large amount of animosity to a particular organisation or group that (hopefully) they will pull out all the stops when facing off, both in combat and roleplaying situations, with representatives of said organisation.
So how do/would you go about creating this kind of rivalry in your campaign?
Note: In my campaigns, players usually have 3-5 things they can do at any time. They have to choose what they want to focus on.
This is what I did once: Every time the players chose to not focus on a certain adventure/assignment, I had a rival group swoop in and complete it while the players were off doing other things. Oh, and I made sure the rewards they missed were rubbed in their faces. After a while, they hated the other group with a fiery passion. It made for some interesting encounters.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Setting up rivalries between PCs and NPCs is easy: 1) have one do (obtain, achieve, win) what the other wishes he could, but cannot. 2) reverse. 3) repeat.
Building up rivalries between PCs is a different matter, and would probably require some setup in their initial design.
Note: In my campaigns, players usually have 3-5 things they can do at any time. They have to choose what they want to focus on.
This is what I did once: Every time the players chose to not focus on a certain adventure/assignment, I had a rival group swoop in and complete it while the players were off doing other things. Oh, and I made sure the rewards they missed were rubbed in their faces. After a while, they hated the other group with a fiery passion. It made for some interesting encounters.
This will work, especialy as I am looking to run a semi sandbox campaign.
I think I was guilty of trying to overthink the situation and making things too complex.
One thing to watch out for: (normally) sports rivals don't "resolve" their rivalry through use of lethal force. If you want a rivalry between PCs and NPCs to develop, you should decide before hand whether or not your NPCs will receive plot-protection (i.e. will always be able to escape the PCs). I suggest against, but it is an important decision that you should resolve before it comes up.
One thing to watch out for: (normally) sports rivals don't "resolve" their rivalry through use of lethal force. If you want a rivalry between PCs and NPCs to develop, you should decide before hand whether or not your NPCs will receive plot-protection (i.e. will always be able to escape the PCs). I suggest against, but it is an important decision that you should resolve before it comes up.
Well the idea will be to have them develop the rivalry to an organisation (Say for example the cult of Orcus). Some parts of the organisation may well get plot protection.
My experience has been that any enemy who manages to escape from the PC's becomes despised. If they manage that more than one time the hatred seems to multiply.
In my Faded Glory campaign the party had a battle with an OgreMagess who managed to escape (they can be really tough to kill what with the regeneration and invisibility in 3e). She attacked them a couple other times later (and escaped then too). The party Wizard became so paranoid and obsessed with defeating her that he had developed this entire methodology of invisbility detection/lockdown spells that he would employ at the slightest hint that she might be around. It became pretty hilarious and the joy and celebration when he finally managed to kill her (on the last night of the campaign) was not to be missed.
Since that time I've come up with another guideline that I like to employ whenever possible. I try to set things up so that, in the very early going (often on the first night of the campaign), the party runs afoul of some sizable evil organization. This doesn't have to become the focus of the campaign by any means. Just so that the players know that they are on the fightin' side of those guys. That allows me to have that organization crop up from time to time whenever I need to spice things up if they are getting slow.
It tends to have the effect that you are after. Remember to give them some kind of distinct "calling card" that is instantly recognizable by the PC's any time they are encountered.
Good suggestions - my only extra advice is "don't push it." Let the rivalries develop naturally. You can send any number of NPC's at the PC's with the idea that they might make good rivals, but it'll e up to the players who they respond to, and up to the situation who manages to escape to fight again another day.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
a. Assuming it is not initiated by the player in their background, let it develop naturally based on in-game occurences.
b. Have the person or organization be something they encounter in game, preferably early on- like Rel wrote, the first adventure is always good.
c. Develop a reason (or reasons) for the character or organization to periodically show up. Perhaps they have opposed goals (seeking similar items, the same allies for an opposed war, religous antagonism, etc.). Maybe, the party killed one of their members and have placed a bounty or blood hunt on the party.
d. Don't be afraid to let the party suffer setbacks. If the party is seeking items they are after, the organization shows up and takes it from them as the PCs emerge battered, bruised, and low spells, hit points and other resources. Allowing the rival to escape is also a setback.
e. If the rivals can track the party, give them a reason that can be discovered. For example, in a previous campaign, the rogue, on the very first adventure, stole a ring from the corpse of a wizard they killed and kept it on his person. Only the rogue new about the ring's existence and for half of the campaign, the party wondered how the wizards' guild seemed to know how to find them. It wasn't until they caught another wizard with a similar ring that they learned that the the rings allowed the guild to track the posessor and view his or her surrounding area (the rings also allowed their wearer to teleport to a viewed location and back to the guild which explained how the wizards quickly appeared and disappeared).
f. decide if the the rivalry is friendly, professional or for blood and plan accordingly.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
I'm gonna suggest though both strategic and tactical rivalries and adversaries.
In my setting Phae rivalries are built in to the background. As part of the milieu. Politically, socially, economically, culturally, religiously.
The Byzantines are rivals of the Persians and the Bulgars. And the Goths. The Bulgars of the Russians. The Persians of the Muslims. The Muslims of the Christians. The Italians of the Byzantines, the Vikings of the Byzantines. War and politics and religion make for immensely good sources of long running an deep seated rivalries and animosities. And having characters and players get involved in situations like that make for enormously good rivalries. That's strategic rivalry.
On a tactical level you can develop organizations that are directly opposed to the aims and natures of your characters. For instance in my world there was an Anti-Pope who developed his own military arm named the Dragoons. During his reign he instituted a purge of the Cavaliers, Paladins, and Rangers in the West. The Cavaliers were nearly wiped out, the Paladins all retreated to the Franks, and the Rangers went into hiding. After the anti-pope was overthrown and the real pope re-established the Dragoons went into hiding, and now hope to re-establish their own base of influence by trying to finish off the Paladins, becoming influential in the court of Charlemagne, and then putting a new anti-pope into office. That situation has led to intense and bitter rivalries between the Dragoons and the Paladins, the Cavaliers (who now exist as a secret, underground organization) and the Rangers, many of whom have fled to Eastern Europe or the Byzantine Empire and taken up life as frontiers lawmen and scouts. Anytime Dragoons encounter Paladins, Cavaliers, or Rangers there is bitter and instant rivalry and opposition the one to the other, and it also makes for very interesting political maneuvers in Constantinople, in the Frankish Empire, and among many cities in Italy. That kind of thing also makes for an historical rivalry that intrinsically has both strategic and tactical elements. When you tie political, religious and cultural dispute directly to the organizations that players and characters are involved in then rivalries become a natural part of the background and "character life."
The Druids are rivals of the Church. Bards often admire both some clergymen, especially monks who maintain historical records and train bards in history, and often train under Druids for other matters. Yet many clergymen and Druids clash for obvious reasons. So getting caught in the middle of rivalry, especially a bitter or dangerous one is often a great source of on-going character conflict.
Otherwise, tactically speaking I often use sabotage, and infiltration. I infiltrate an organization or government or so forth that the party works for or is related to or associated with in some way, and then if it works as planned the spy or agent is gone before the players even know what happened. Finding out later they were duped or infiltrated makes the players want to get at the spy even when they don't know who he is. And on-going rivalry with a built in mystery is developed. It has been both my gaming and real world experience that a dangerous and unknown enemy often makes for the very most interesting and challenging kind of rival and adversary one can possibly imagine.
Sabotage works in the same fashion. Players often despise a successful saboteur especially one that puts them in direct danger repeatedly. Make the saboteur an already hated enemy, like a Dragoon or a really shrewd Persian agent, and that's doubly effective.
Theft rings, or thieves preying upon the party or their interests, and hostage taking are excellent maneuvers. Kidnap or abduct a family member, child, friend, employer, or even a party member. Rivalries develop quickly that way.
If you want really good rivalries, enemies, NPC opponents, monsters, etc, there are many ways you can create both strategic and tactical adversaries. Strategic rivalries provide a large-scale, generalized backdrop of national, political, religious, and cultural interests, and tactical rivalries make strategic rivalries come alive at the level of the individual.
Just do it like it happens in the real world. Look at what your players and characters are attached to and what their interest are, and then develop counter-organizations, operatives, agents, powers, governments, religions, and forces to work against those interests, both strategically and tactically.
Babylon 5 had some great recurring villains and rivalries - there are some lessons to be learned there about how to nurture them. First off, the setting is political - rivals like G'Kar and Londo were expected to interact and talk about their issues. Their respective peoples were killing each other right and left, but they couldn't.
Bester (the head psi cop and recurring villain) would show up and the PC's would have to work with him - I used a variant of this in my game where the PC's were investigating several murders and the cleric of an evil diety demanded to be included in the investigations, as one of those killed was a worshipper of his god; the familiarity that this bred led to a better rivalry later on when they came up on opposite sides of the fence.
Create a way for your PC's and the rivals to interact in a setting where they can't just pull out the swords. Dress balls, sporting events (jousts and footlists work great for this), negotiations, etc.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
Create a way for your PC's and the rivals to interact in a setting where they can't just pull out the swords.
That's a very good point, and observation. The very best rivals and adversaries often develop through situations in which the interaction is one of careful and calculated maneuver, rather than immediate action. The mind, the social setting, the crime scene, the work place, the secret meeting are all excellent places in which to encounter interesting rivals who present far more interesting, and sometimes far more lethal, challenges and threats than mere swordplay or gun play.
There are many arenas in which men can engage, both with and against each other, and the battlefield is only one such arena.
Or as the inversion of Clausewitz runs, "politics is warfare by other means..."
In my Midwood campaign, the good-aligned players feel this way about a group of elite kobolds (yes, kobolds) who A) killed one member of the party and almost got several more, B) are explicitly trying to gather the parts for a ritual that the players are trying to stop, C) have a leader who has gotten away from the last battle they had unscathed.
Vengeance denied combined with being a recurring obstacle works nicely. The fun part is that the next time they run into each other, they won't be in a situation where they can come to blows at all, lest they REALLY upset the blue dragon who rules the area where the meet will occur, so there will likely be much trash-talking and scheming to up the ante for next time.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
