running multiple quest lines simultaneously

[Storminator]

It's also important to wrap up quests. Sometimes the PCs have completed them, sometimes the villain has succeeded, sometimes it's something else. But just as you keep opening new adventures, you keep closing old ones.

And sometimes it necks down to just one or two plots. Frex, if a giant war breaks out, a lot of quests can get put on hold. Then the way the war resolves can make some of the quests obsolete.

PS

 

[koesherbacon]

In my current group, we're trying this out as well. Some of the players can only meet every other week, while others play weekly.

For the players who can make it every week I have a main quest going. For the others, their quest takes place a few weeks in-game prior to the main plotline. That way, the group that is always available can keep playing and those who can't get a lighter campaign more suited to their needs.

So far it's working pretty well.

 

[Omegaxicor]

@Storminator I have never seen anyone use "Frex" but it works. I have kept that in mind and since the player's didn't do anything to defeat the Necromancer (he was steamrollered during the Giant War) the village thinks it shouldn't pay, unfortunately the party assumes this sometimes and misses a valuable reward but that is up to them

@nijineko I will look into that but then the emphasis falls on to me to keep track of the timeline stuff...

@koesherbacon What do the "constant" players think about travelling the mountains and then reverting to the village they were in several months ago (where the other group left off) and then next week they have no benefit...I must have misunderstood what you mean because that makes no sense...

 

[koesherbacon]

Honestly, they just want to play the game. And if it means they have to put up with a little back and forth its worth it to them to have a good time with friends

 

[Omegaxicor]

I can see how that would work but my players would be annoyed that they were doing this quest every other week for no real rewards, it may as well be two separate campaigns, one where you have a Wizard/Dusk Blade/Beguiler/Cleric and another where you have Rogue/Fighter/spellless Ranger/spellless paladin in a world without magic...

 

[koesherbacon]

They're fundamentally the same characters and I don't really worry about the fact that the rewards in one session wouldn't necessarily exist in the other one yet.

It's still a work in progress, but I'm running the every-other-week one because my wife can only get off work on those dates. The players seem to understand and are enjoying the games nonetheless

 

[Aenghus]

It depends on a number of parameters such as campaign lenght, character turnover and player preferences. In a short campaign I might have one major quest whose resolution ends the campaign, and a number of smaller quests that can be resolved quickly if they successfully hook the players.

In my longer campaigns, that take years real time, I have a number of potential campaign-spanning quests or plots that the party have become involved in, some of which they may deliberately pursue. There are medium and mini quests that are resolved in shorter timespans, some of them individual quests primarily affecting one PC.

I produce more quests than I expect to resolve in-game and see which ones the players latch onto before fleshing them out. Some quests fail to grab their attention and either resolve without PC interference, or just fall by the wayside. The latter isn't very simulationist, but I am less and less enamoured of simulationist games which aren't any fun for the players because they can't read the referee's mind, something I have witnessed previously.

 

[Omegaxicor]

@koesherbacon I meant that to my players it would seem like they were playing two separate campaigns

@Aenghus that's interesting, the quests I was considering will be played over several months and will resolve themselves independently of the player's but while the party are focused on another quest I would add things that the enemies are doing, say the Giants have declared war on Human civilisation but while the player's are dealing with Undead the Giant's are dealing with an attack on their own territory by another faction, so the war doesn't progress.

I get the feeling it is based on the group and I will have to try it, I thought that might be the case...

 

[nijineko]

@nijineko I will look into that but then the emphasis falls on to me to keep track of the timeline stuff...

you only track plot events and information important to you as dm. they have to track everything important to them however they want to. it just serves as a baseline for you to go by, and to veer away from as necessary. but if you have the basic timeline, then it is easier to veer away down a new and interesting fork, and it gives you something to compare with: how it would have gone vs how it's going now - makes it easier to calculate plot deviation and likely npc responses thereunto.

 

[Omegaxicor]

you only track plot events and information important to you as dm. they have to track everything important to them however they want to. it just serves as a baseline for you to go by, and to veer away from as necessary. but if you have the basic timeline, then it is easier to veer away down a new and interesting fork, and it gives you something to compare with: how it would have gone vs how it's going now - makes it easier to calculate plot deviation and likely npc responses thereunto.

ah, I misunderstood that, I don't need software for that I have a document filled with that information