Same DM, different groups, same world, same time...same side?

[dagger]

I wanted to get some feedback from some other DM's who have done something like this.


In a game I am playing in, the DM is running two different groups (of different players) at the same time (in game time). Each group knows about the other group, because both are part of the same good guy organization that is basically trying to save the world. So my group knows the mission the other group is on and relatively the area they are operation in.

Also in the past we had one group who where was evil and trying to thwart the other group. That was awesome. Especially since the ‘good’ group had no idea that the evil party that was making life rough for them was actually being run by other players.

Any other DM’s have enough players and games going on to do something like this?

 

[Woas]

Just a little tip for the players:

Avoid any rumors of artifacts that require you to sever your own head.

 

[JimAde]

I have not done this, but I've been thinking about starting a PbP game in the same world as my regular group. Both groups would be good guys (I don't like evil PCs) but wouldn't initially know anything about each other. Given that my regular group only meets every two weeks at best I think the pace might actually be comparable.

Anybody tried that?

 

[punkorange]

I'm wondering how it would work out if something required immediate action from the other group? Such as anyt ype of interaction.This sounds like it would be fun.

 

[Chimera]

At one time I was considering a once-a-month game and who to invite. There were some complications in that some of the players didn't like others that I may invite and/or they may want to bring others in that would make the group too large. As such I considered running two separate once-a-month groups in the same Homebrew setting at the same time.

Direct interaction would be a problem and with the exception of holding it off until we could do it via e-mails between sessions, or in some kind of joint session, I figured the only way it would work is with me doing a gloss-over in session.

For the most part though, it seems that the two groups DO NOT need to directly interact. Not only that, but it would probably work best if they were not working in the same immediate area. I don't want to have one group, advanced by a month or so other the other one, working on a problem that the less chronologically advanced party somehow manages to change. Too much trouble! (And no, I wouldn't be interested in forcing them to remain on the same timeline.)

 

[fusangite]

I've run the same campaign with two different groups but never two different groups in the same campaign. It sounds like a phenomenal idea. I'm jealous.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm currently running two seperate campaigns in my own homebrew campaign world, one in Chicago, one in the 'burbs. The players know of the other players, but the PC's don't - I've intentionally set the groups starting points a pretty far distance from each other, and they're only 5th level in the one game, and 3rd in the other. The two groups of players interact a bit over the PHPBB forums I've set up for the campaign, but hardly know each other otherwise - I think a couple of players in one game might have met one from the other, but I'm not sure.

 

[Starglim]

That's pretty much how my PBeM is set up. There were originally two groups working for the Hoffmann Institute on different lines of enquiry within the same case. One group finished, another Hoffmann group started on a different lead, and for a time there was a group of agents of another conspiracy working against one team (they've been forced by circumstances to work together now as a combined group).

They've made contact a couple of times and been affected by what the other groups are doing, such as one group being denied air support when the other group got into trouble and needed a big rescue effort from the Institute.

It works well with PBeM where the GM can give separate information to different groups without tipping off the others. Takes a lot of work, though.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Closest I've come to this was running a game in which each of the players had two characters-- one in each party, in two different settings, whose actions still influenced each other. I almost restarted that campaign with two play groups, each using that same style, for a total of four groups... but I had forgotten that I didn't have enough time to do that and that the play style of one of the groups drives me nuts. (They're good friends and I love them, but any sustained game would be an impossibility.)