Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Campaign Idea - looking for feedback
#1
I am currently DMing a homebrew campaign of a world that has come from my own mind.  I have had thoughts of running a second group through this same story but the more I think about it, I cant help but wonder.... How/What would the "Bad Guys" be doing.   Basically I would run this second group as the Cultists  (the main antagonist group of the world).  

Their adventures would run simultaneously with the hero adventuring party. The heroes will have a head start so Ill have to figure out a way to catch up and work those things out.  Depending on how certain things go what one group does may effect things for the other group.  

Just an idea I've been running through my mind for a day or so. I'm interested in some feedback from you guys.  Have you been or run a game where you are the bad guys?  Does this sound interesting? tips? Anything I'm just looking to open this for discussion.

Thanks 
-Bob
Reply
#2
Hey Bob, this sounds like a great idea. You're a braver DM than me to run something so complicated. The main difficulty you're going to have as far as I can see is that one group will have to be the reactive group. Unless you schedule each group to have two session in a row, so that they stagger in your story's timeline, one group will always be making their decisions ahead of the other.

You also should consider that eventually one team might become the "winner". DnD is all about making a story that provides opportunities for the party to achieve something. If both your party's have opposite goals, then inevitably one has to lose. It shouldn't create too much of a problem as long as it doesn't become one-sided. If it's balanced than it could create a healthy sense of competition. Just bear this in mind when creating your grand finale.

If both groups are happy to do this then it could be something epic, you just have to make sure whichever party goes second is happy having their story influenced by another party. Likewise the first party need to be willing to deal with the results of the others actions, which may dramatically alter where they thought their story was going.

If you decide to do this please keep me informed, I'm really interested in how it works out. I can see the climax being an epic final confrontation where you have both groups meet in character for the first time, and DM a huge battle royal. (This is just me daydreaming, pay no attention) ;-)
Reply
#3
yea right now it was just a thought. ive made a vast home brew world why not run multiple campaigns out of it right? lol I thought about the cultist as its a dif few point from normal.  Its all about getting everyone on the same page and to get ppl to buy into the idea of it all.  As i see it the only time they would meet would be in some final conflict sort of battle if thats how the stories would work out.  as getting 4-5 ppl together is hard enought getting 8-10 would be even harder so keeping them as separate as possible would be what id be going for. 

Yea the first group is actually my first time dming and i put a large steak on my plate by trying to add this.  Hopefully it works if it actually becomes a thing. I actually will be streaming it all so you can follow along that way if you wish. I had planed to stream the first group but i was having pc issues but they have now been resolved and that group will start streaming again this wed. 

twitch.tv/thecoutnerbob

thanks for your feedback
bob
Reply
#4
Hi counterbob, if what you're saing is true, if this is a first time as a DM, I would suggest not to do this. I played once in a small group, me and two friends. The GM was also DM a party of 6 guys and the more the adventure advanced, the more our group and the other one fought each other for various reasons. But to make a long story short... it was a gigantic mess, the DM was bad, and that didn't help for sure, but tring to master two parties... Well is just too chaotic in my opinion.

If you feel confident then you can try, and I will be more than happy to follow your idea on the stream. Just consider that if the players are not confident too it could degenerate a little.
Reply
#5
This idea has actually run around in my head, as well. The idea being similar... two campaigns of separate adventurers, one evil and one good. Near the end they meet and fight(?) each other.

It's a bear of an undertaking, and one not recommended for a newer DM. A few things to consider:

1) Evil campaigns are tough nuts to crack. The characters are, by definition, selfish, and therefore often undermine each other. In an on-going campaign, you may find that the party self-destructs, which is really what SHOULD happen.

2) An evil party would need some way to offer it cohesion, either by some greater purpose or, more likely, someone (or something) instilling cohesion through fear.

3) You want good to win, right? As a player, that might be off-putting. Why bother if the good party is supposed to beat us anyway?

It could work, and if done properly would be epic. But I might try the following first:

If you're set on two campaigns due to the amount of folks you have playing, that's fine. Run two groups in two different areas of the world. Then, CREATE that evil party on your own, and give them a little backstory. Maybe party 1 is on their trail, while party number 2 hears of their exploits. Or maybe there are two evil parties?? Then, have one of the parties meet that evil party, only have the second party PLAY THEM, like a one-shot.

I'm sure it would be a blast to play evil characters and stick it to the party, but there isn't that sense of constantly being out for yourself. It's only for a night.

Maybe coach the party beforehand... are they go for the kill and make sure they're dead? Do they leave them for dead upon victory (allowing for death saves and no TPK)?

They don't even have to be adventurers. You could make them humanoids monsters and give them the stats. "You see a minotaur, a gnoll, a slaad, and an orc standing before. An odd combination that, if working in concert with each other, is NOT good. They nod to each other and step forward... come on in guys!! Meet your foes."
Reply
#6
(05-01-2016, 09:59 AM)Alexthebalrog Wrote: Hi counterbob, if what you're saing is true, if this is a first time as a DM, I would suggest not to do this. I played once in a small group, me and two friends. The GM was also DM a party of 6 guys and the more the adventure advanced, the more our group and the other one fought each other for various reasons. But to make a long story short... it was a gigantic mess, the DM was bad, and that didn't help for sure, but tring to master two parties... Well is just too chaotic in my opinion.

If you feel confident then you can try, and I will be more than happy to follow your idea on the stream. Just consider that if the players are not confident too it could degenerate a little.

The second campaign the "evil one" would be the second game i would ever be DMing.  As i have made adjustments to my orginal idea i have had it running now for a 2 weeks and everything is running quite smooth.  Also I had the slightest idea of them maybe meeting up towards the end but as i thought and planned more I have deemed that unnecessary and plan to never have them personally run into each other but rather see what they have done or the effect they have had in certain areas of the world.   Both games have been streaming and have been alot of fun  twitch.tv/thecounterbob

(05-02-2016, 08:26 AM)MessiahMoose Wrote: This idea has actually run around in my head, as well. The idea being similar... two campaigns of separate adventurers, one evil and one good. Near the end they meet and fight(?) each other.

It's a bear of an undertaking, and one not recommended for a newer DM. A few things to consider:

1) Evil campaigns are tough nuts to crack. The characters are, by definition, selfish, and therefore often undermine each other. In an on-going campaign, you may find that the party self-destructs, which is really what SHOULD happen.

2) An evil party would need some way to offer it cohesion, either by some greater purpose or, more likely, someone (or something) instilling cohesion through fear.

3) You want good to win, right? As a player, that might be off-putting. Why bother if the good party is supposed to beat us anyway?

It could work, and if done properly would be epic. But I might try the following first:

If you're set on two campaigns due to the amount of folks you have playing, that's fine. Run two groups in two different areas of the world. Then, CREATE that evil party on your own, and give them a little backstory. Maybe party 1 is on their trail, while party number 2 hears of their exploits. Or maybe there are two evil parties?? Then, have one of the parties meet that evil party, only have the second party PLAY THEM, like a one-shot.

I'm sure it would be a blast to play evil characters and stick it to the party, but there isn't that sense of constantly being out for yourself. It's only for a night.

Maybe coach the party beforehand... are they go for the kill and make sure they're dead? Do they leave them for dead upon victory (allowing for death saves and no TPK)?

They don't even have to be adventurers. You could make them humanoids monsters and give them the stats. "You see a minotaur, a gnoll, a slaad, and an orc standing before. An odd combination that, if working in concert with each other, is NOT good. They nod to each other and step forward... come on in guys!! Meet your foes."

The thing is that i have with this idea and campaign from the "evil" side is that they aren't necessarily "evil".  This is just what they view as right and just in their eyes.  They are apart of a cult that believes their leader has the true word and should be in power sort of thing.  For the parties I have the "hero" party which had been going on for about 10 sessions before i started the idea for the second group which is now the "evil" party and they are into their second session.  

As far as the good winning and that jazz.  Yes in my head the idea is for the good guys to win but with that this is still a campaign that the other party can go on from. They are doing what they can for the cult. Laying waste to areas and using diplomacy in other areas to overthrow rule.  In the end when the dust settles these people will have a choice do they move on from the cult that has been defeated or do they try to gather the remaining forces and keep on pushing their agenda and doing what they can.  That sort of idea with it.   The way I view it and the wya im tyring to run it is that its not about trying to "win". Its about living in this world and trying to do what you can and what you see as right and succeed fo your cause. 

The evil part is part of an organized cult with an agenda working together doing what they see as right.  That is their bind and what holds them together as a group similar as to a good group with their agenda holding them together.  They are both just a band of adventures fighting for their cause.  

The parties both started at very seperate places in the map and i have no plan to make the game into a pvp game.  partly for story and partly becuase trying ot gather 5 ppl is hard enough and if i try to then gather 10 that would be insane.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)