Idea for campaign approach - Ménage a trois

[Storm Gorm]

Idea for campaign approach - Ménage a trois

Ive posted this on another forum, because at the time, ENworlds servers were down - anyways, you are the largest and the diversest audience, and i love you, so here goes my idea (uncut):

I got a bright idea, and am here to aerate it - meaning; have anyone tried anything similar, or am I simply ingenious? Or, on the other hand, is the idea crap, and myself likewise? (this questionaire should perhaps be at the very bottom...)

To cut to the chase...
The idea is to play several different perspectives in one campaign, thuswise: The players play a party of invaders in their first session. The next session they play la resistance. And thus back and forth, until one of the parties is annihilated. In this event, they create a third party, playing the role as an interventionous powernation, seeking peace and oil etc. (this is merely an example, of course)

The players always run two parties, to perspectives in the campaign. But there are three (or more) perspective options available, and when one of the two played is destroyed or disbanded, the players start controlling the remaining perspective. Thus it rotates.

And when one of the parties dies, the defeated perspective of the campaign suffers a setback - superseding the setback of merely the lost soldiers. This - i think - should have more thrust. The players' skill have some magical symbolic power to the ebb and flow of battle and politics.

So, was that clear enough?
My english sometimes lets me down

Feedback and flaming welcomed both alike.

 

[Henry]

Interesting idea, and I know I've never tried it, because my players dislike shifting gears that much within a single campaign. Having to think from multiple perspectives inside the same game is quite challenging, but would not let them get comfortable in any one characters' skin. Dark Sun I think suffered the same problem with its "character trees" - great idea for a campaign high in death rate, but not good for giving your all to one character.

With a group willing to try the multiple roles required, it would be quite fun I Imagine.

 

[diaglo]

i've run two different parties before. one group met one night of the week and the other on another. one pushing for one objective and the other another.

and then we had the grand finale. when both parties finally met face to face.

both were good aligned. but both thought the other was evil

 

[Rel]

I only wanted to say that, given the thread title, I predict many views and few posts.

 

[Desdichado]

That's actually not a bad idea, but it sounds very difficult to pull off. As Henry said, the constant shifting of gears is difficult -- I'd rather play one group out to a certain level of completeness, and then turn around and play the other perspective, also for a fair stint of time. I'd think the dangers of the constant shifting are that 1) players have a harder time keeping straight what's happening to one group as opposed to another, and 2) it's very difficult to get players emotionally involved in such a game. Why care too much about one character, his dilemma and agenda, when you're about to turn around and play his enemy as well?

 

[MarauderX]

i've run two different parties before. one group met one night of the week and the other on another. one pushing for one objective and the other another.

and then we had the grand finale. when both parties finally met face to face.

both were good aligned. but both thought the other was evil

I have seen this before as a player, and it was fun. There were two groups of us, and each were devoted to our single character.
With your idea (which is a good one, IMO) I see a conflict arising with the players liking one party/character more than the other and letting them croak in a battle just to persue their more beloved PCs closely after removing the threat of their lesser PCs.

 

[diaglo]

I have seen this before as a player, and it was fun. There were two groups of us, and each were devoted to our single character.
With your idea (which is a good one, IMO) I see a conflict arising with the players liking one party/character more than the other and letting them croak in a battle just to persue their more beloved PCs closely after removing the threat of their lesser PCs.

there were two groups in my attempt also. 7 players per side.

 

[Storm Gorm]

Interesting idea, and I know I've never tried it, because my players dislike shifting gears that much within a single campaign. Having to think from multiple perspectives inside the same game is quite challenging, but would not let them get comfortable in any one characters' skin. Dark Sun I think suffered the same problem with its "character trees" - great idea for a campaign high in death rate, but not good for giving your all to one character.

With a group willing to try the multiple roles required, it would be quite fun I Imagine.

My gaming group has a hard time getting really comfortable in their characters anyways, so i dont think that problem poses a threat to us at least.

And "high in death rate", that sounds like us. And it sounds like fun.

I think perhaps the multiple perspectives will also help elaborate the characters, in the way that they are being contrasted to the other ones. But of course, there are many pros and cons here - its just that most of them suit the strenghts and weaknesses of my gaming group.

 

[Storm Gorm]

i've run two different parties before. one group met one night of the week and the other on another. one pushing for one objective and the other another.

and then we had the grand finale. when both parties finally met face to face.

both were good aligned. but both thought the other was evil

Thats an interesting idea - having separate groups for separate parties. If i had an unlimited pool of players, id do it this way, play with new people every time. Hmm, maybe i should contact some local rpg community... :grills:

 

[storyguide3]

Sounds very interesting. My only concern would be to find a way to ensure that the players did not allow knowledge of one group's plans effect the actions of the other group. With the same players plsying both sides of a conflict, they will have more information about their opponent's plans and goals than would normally be the case. You need players that are prepared to play each side with only the information they have gathered and be able to "wall off" information they have by virtue of actually also being the "other side".