Idea for campaign approach - Ménage a trois

[Storm Gorm]

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.

Yes, perhaps. But how fair stints of time? The two simulataniously played sides are, after all, supposed to be played more or less simultanious... A short adventure for some two-three sessions would be the very limit of these stints IMO.

 

[Fiery James]

We published an adventure, called The Giant's Skull, where the players took on the roles of two opposed groups. There were two short adventures, and it was designed so that you played one after the other, rather than switching back and forth.

In the first adventure, the players take on the roles of ogres, who storm a citadel in order to retrieve a powerful artifact (The Giant's Skull) that would allow them to gain dominance in the area.

In the second adventure, the PCs stumble upon the (possibly ruined) citadel and make after the ogres in order to avenge those slain and retrieve the powerful artifact that could give the ogres the edge.

They were sort of designed to be played in either order, but most of our playtesting and feedback had it playing out like that -- ogres first, normal PCs second.

The cool thing about the ones I saw were that the players had such a blast playing the ogres and injecting them with character (and here, I must add a shoutout to Storminator!) that when they later confronted those same ogres as their PCs... well, it was interesting, to say the least. Players that used to wade into a sea of orcs, slaughtering everything in sight (that old "innocent orc" theory was ignored) suddenly found themselves wanting to talk and work out a non-violent solution with ogres rather than killing them! It was cool.

It can be a lot of fun, if you do it right and the players have fun with it.

- James

 

[Storm Gorm]

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".

But this conflict, the one i imagined, is a very large one, one where the actions of the one team doesnt need to affect the other team at all, in most cases.

But at some time in the conflict or other, they do need to learn to wall-off. But this is also a nescessary part of this campaign approach, and a price worth paying to finally get some moral perspectivism into the elseways to morally rigid D&D.

 

[Davelozzi]

Fiery Dragon did this a few years ago with their module The Giant's Skull.

Here's the blurb:

There are two sides to every story!

Turn the tables on standard fantasy adventures! Not only can the players portray the heroes who must retrieve a valuable artifact from the brutish ogres living nearby, but a second scenario can unfold where the players take on the parts of the ogres, attempting to punish the human raiders once and for all!

 

[Storm Gorm]

We published an adventure, called The Giant's Skull

Thank you for the tip. But no thank you, ill not run that one. First of all, i want way more use of the perspective-thing. And this spesific adventure seems to be quite uninteresting. And i want an epic international warfare thing, not a look-mum-im-am-ogre one-shot.

But its all good, that theres not been made an acceptably good perspectivist adventure/campaign means im at least a little original. Yeay for me

 

[Zappo]

I've played a game at a con that was run that way... though it used two DM. What would you do when the two parties meet?

 

[Umbran]

Hm. One problem I see here is tactical - if the same group of players know the abilities and situation of both sides, it turns into something akin to playing chess with yourself. The enemy won't be able to pull much in the way of surprises, and you will know the strengths and weaknesses of your enemies in full.