Mephistopheles
First Post
I'm pretty sure Monte was doing something like this with his Ptolus campaign. I don't recall if he had any asides giving advice for how to run that sort of game but it might be worth checking his site.
Two Groups, One Campaign.
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
Cerebral Paladin
First Post
I've played in a campaign like this, although the DM has a lot more than two groups going (some of which only meet a couple times a year). As a player, I love it-- it really adds to the versimilitude. It also means that sometimes problems that you don't know how to deal with go away "on their own"-- or are made worse-- because of other PCs' actions. 
One issue you should think about is how to handle time. If the two groups get out of synch, it will increasingly cause problems-- what happens if one of the groups prevents the orc invasion after the other group deals with its aftermath? There are several different options for how to keep them synched up, but it's important to think about.
Good luck!
One issue you should think about is how to handle time. If the two groups get out of synch, it will increasingly cause problems-- what happens if one of the groups prevents the orc invasion after the other group deals with its aftermath? There are several different options for how to keep them synched up, but it's important to think about.
Good luck!
Wik
First Post
Yeah, synching up time is a good thing to focus on. I'm going to have to dig up a calendar or something, to keep it working.
So far, some of the pointers given me that I know I need to use:
1) Keep track of in-game time.
2) A common market where PCs can trade gear
3) Keep the PCs in the same region
4) Slowly Converge the Campaign (common storylines?)
So far, some of the pointers given me that I know I need to use:
1) Keep track of in-game time.
2) A common market where PCs can trade gear
3) Keep the PCs in the same region
4) Slowly Converge the Campaign (common storylines?)
MarauderX
Explorer
You can see how I'm managing to go into a third campaign for a 4E 'test period' and how three other campaigns intertwine here:
correl.wikispaces.com
I wouldn't work to slowly converge, but simply have near-misses and casual meetings. I would try to keep the two groups interested in two separate goals, and they don't have to know whether they should be working together or if they are pushing in different directions. A good means to do this might be to have one group as working for the government (as commissioned adventurers) and the other operating with groups of gang lords (coerced, bribed, etc.). Both may be working for the greater good, but each may assume that the other is undermining them in some manner.
correl.wikispaces.com
I wouldn't work to slowly converge, but simply have near-misses and casual meetings. I would try to keep the two groups interested in two separate goals, and they don't have to know whether they should be working together or if they are pushing in different directions. A good means to do this might be to have one group as working for the government (as commissioned adventurers) and the other operating with groups of gang lords (coerced, bribed, etc.). Both may be working for the greater good, but each may assume that the other is undermining them in some manner.
Last edited:
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Well, if you want to work on merging the 2 campaigns together, there's a viable story idea to have it work from the very start...
Have both groups work for the same employer.
Both could be mercenaries in service to a local noble, adventurers both patronized by a renowned wizard, or even special elite units of an army. There'd be knowledge of the other group (and either a sense of comradeship &/or competition), and it'd easily be viable for the groups to be both working toward the same major goal (just on different pieces of it).
The cross-purposes employers are an interesting twist, but if 1 group of PCs gets it in their heads that the other groups of PCs are the enemy (for whatever reason), it may cause issues down the line (and not easily resolved ones, either—if the PCs keep "just missing" the other group to try and stop them, it may escalate in other ways, like 1 group of PCs attacking the other PC group's employer, etc.).
Have both groups work for the same employer.
Both could be mercenaries in service to a local noble, adventurers both patronized by a renowned wizard, or even special elite units of an army. There'd be knowledge of the other group (and either a sense of comradeship &/or competition), and it'd easily be viable for the groups to be both working toward the same major goal (just on different pieces of it).
The cross-purposes employers are an interesting twist, but if 1 group of PCs gets it in their heads that the other groups of PCs are the enemy (for whatever reason), it may cause issues down the line (and not easily resolved ones, either—if the PCs keep "just missing" the other group to try and stop them, it may escalate in other ways, like 1 group of PCs attacking the other PC group's employer, etc.).
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
I read an article somewhere a while ago about how Gygax basically did this with D&D in the beginning. It could be interesting to get a chance to play in something like that!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I've both run and played in games like this; they are, to me, the best kind.
As mentioned above, the biggest headache is in-game time management, so the two (or more) parties don't get too far adrift. Some sort of enforced downtime (training, rest, item manufacture, whatever) between adventures is Your Friend here, as you can simply vary the downtime for each group to suit what you need. Occasionally, if you're building to some big in-game event and one group gets there early, you might have to sink a session or two for that group (or let them play a sub-party) so the other can catch up.
One *key* ingredient, also sort-of touched on above, is to give characters in both parties good reason to know each other. Simplest way to achieve this is to start with just one big party, then split it in two after the first adventure. Allow and encourage players to switch games between adventures where it makes sense (though I ran aground on this once: I had two parties each working on different angles of the same plotline, and had very carefully set things up over a number of adventures such that one group knew what to do but not why, while the other knew why things needed doing but not what...until two of the players decided to trade games halfway through...)
If the characters know each other, some of your time-management might take care of itself; one party might decide on its own to wait for the other: "Hey. We're down a Cleric because he died in our last adventure; but last we saw the Southern party had an extra one, so let's wait for them to get back to town and realign ourselves..."
A common base of operations (castle, farm, whatever) also helps here.
What you'll end up with, if you're lucky, is a set-up where parties form and merge and split on a rather fluid basis throughout the campaign. And these type of campaigns are best run long...very long, if you can manage it. Minimum 5 years.
Lanefan
As mentioned above, the biggest headache is in-game time management, so the two (or more) parties don't get too far adrift. Some sort of enforced downtime (training, rest, item manufacture, whatever) between adventures is Your Friend here, as you can simply vary the downtime for each group to suit what you need. Occasionally, if you're building to some big in-game event and one group gets there early, you might have to sink a session or two for that group (or let them play a sub-party) so the other can catch up.
One *key* ingredient, also sort-of touched on above, is to give characters in both parties good reason to know each other. Simplest way to achieve this is to start with just one big party, then split it in two after the first adventure. Allow and encourage players to switch games between adventures where it makes sense (though I ran aground on this once: I had two parties each working on different angles of the same plotline, and had very carefully set things up over a number of adventures such that one group knew what to do but not why, while the other knew why things needed doing but not what...until two of the players decided to trade games halfway through...)
If the characters know each other, some of your time-management might take care of itself; one party might decide on its own to wait for the other: "Hey. We're down a Cleric because he died in our last adventure; but last we saw the Southern party had an extra one, so let's wait for them to get back to town and realign ourselves..."
A common base of operations (castle, farm, whatever) also helps here.
What you'll end up with, if you're lucky, is a set-up where parties form and merge and split on a rather fluid basis throughout the campaign. And these type of campaigns are best run long...very long, if you can manage it. Minimum 5 years.
Lanefan
