I have been planning to make several of my games connected in an ongoing gameworld that will have lasting repercussions and will grow and change as time goes on. However as PbP can make even the shortest adventures several months long, I'm looking to collaborate. I am interested in working with some GM's to make this idea grow. I will also throw this post up in GM Discussion as well, but I'm hoping to recruit some interested takers.
I am interested in running areas with and without AP's.
So far I only have one game I plan on officially making a part of this world. That's Empire, Kingdom or, History? Although I may add Rise of Thassilon.
I think there are several options with this idea.
Further on that idea, those GM's can then let me know the rough direction they want to take the region in and I can work with them.
If you can think of other options that might work I would love to hear them.
One important point about this idea is that the world will progress in it's own timeline which will change compared to the official setting timeline. Also this would mean that an official campaign or adventure could only be run once in world. Any results from an adventure or campaign will affect the rest of the world realistically and continuously.
Any ideas or interested GM's?
Two questions for now:
- How would you handle one game falling behind or jumping ahead in the world timeline?
- How would you make this feel connected instead of just several campaigns running around each other?
1)I would hope that we can come up with some general guidelines of where a GM hopes to take a game, so that if some get ahead or behind we still have a rough idea, if the players get really curious and ask questions about an area 'time displaced' the GM should be able to answer roughly and he can always use the fact that wherever the characters are getting their information could be wrong as the world can often have confusing and conflicting rumors. For example the Kingmaker game I'm running will likely put the party years ahead of the rest of the adventures, but I hope to bring their focus primarily on the task of kingdom building.
2) The first part of this will be mostly setting the stage and up to the GM's to work together to come up with ideas that bring their areas together. Also some stage setting will be expected, I'm thinking of establishing an official 'This happened' thread or timeline so we can work off of each others ideas. I'm hoping we can establish open minded creativity that will avoid the 'you can't use my idea that way' arguements. Lastly I hope to get to an official 'second generation' point with everyone. When we get to that I hope to do a time jump where we officially retire all games and discuss where the timeline will go. Then we can start up again 10, 15, or 30 years later with new adventures and campaigns.
I've toyed around with an idea like this for some time. At least the collaborative effort and less about different campaigns or regions, but it's close enough to intrigue me. Color me interested, at least open to the idea of discussion(s) and seeing what we can come up with.
Having GM responsibilities split by campaign seems difficult due to level disparity, although if players are often switching from one campaign to another -that seems more plausible. Then it'd just be a matter of taking sections from campaigns and smooshing them together in a way that makes sense.
Absolutely interested Tobaris! I'll keep up with this and voice some comments later (on a break at the moment)
I think it might help if we establish some outlines as to how characters can travel from one campaign to another, something else to consider is that different GM's have different styles, themes, and genres they tend to focus on. I think that we can incorporate all of them into one world, as long as we remember that not everyone is seeing the same story. The heroes who chased a mad druid out of their home region, might have a happy but somewhat silly tale to tell, but their neighbors who got slammed with a sudden squirrelpocalypse are likely to see the story very differently.
Even if we don't split up responsibility along any official lines the idea of collaborative effort really intrigues me.
Mr. Mug how would you go about the collaborative effort, in fact what parts of collaborative effort interest all of you?
I'm interested in crafting a larger story with more than 4 people shaping the world, but I can't seem to quell this gut feeling that running multiple campaigns simultaneously will get hairy. I am, however, willing to help in solving the problem and putting my gut to rest.
Perhaps we could limit the AP's we will run to a region? That way the likelihood of crossover goes up and one group doesn't get stuck half the world away in Jade Regent with no chance for crossover. Maybe?
Hmmm that could work, I'm already running Kingmaker with the hopes of it being a part of this, but that's likely to get hairy on it's own. Perhaps we can work out in Varisia? There are several AP's there and they have relatively similar timescales.
Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne Second Darkness, (the beginning of) Jade Regent (though it says that a few years have passed since...), & Shattered Star, correct?
Yeah, plus Kaer Maga and the ruins in the area make for a ton of adventure opportunities. There's also the Bloodsworn Vale module.
But do any of these cross paths potentially? I'm not familiar with most of those, but could they be space-time-altered to occur in the same area/time in the interest of forcing crossover instances?
|
Your most likely crossing paths are going to be RotRL, JR and Shattered Star as they all take place in roughly the same location (or at least parts of the adventures do).
However, in regards to canon timelines you're looking at JR taking place AFTER RotRL and I'm fairly certain Shattered Star does too.
If you're looking to do this, my suggestion would be to use Golarion but homebrew your adventures and/or string modules together rather than using the adventure paths. At least then you can dictate when the parties are likely to run into one another.
It also introduces the opportunity of inter-party conflict if one of your groups are evil...
Personally I'm wondering how a collaborative GM effort would do if we do use APs from a logistical standpoint (IE: Loot, leveling, etc..). It makes my head whirl a little bit to imagine. Assuming we run them simultaneously, concurrently would be easier, I think, but we'd lose a lot of potential collaborative fun in a concurrent-AP's scenario.
Mr. Mug how would you go about the collaborative effort, in fact what parts of collaborative effort interest all of you?
From a logistical standpoint we'd each have our own game, similarly named but of course unique in some way. We'd put links to the other games/regions/APs in the campaign thread and we'd assign one (or two) GMs to a group of 4-6 (or however many). I think we'd need to abandon XP, and just level folks when we felt they were ready, to keep things consistent and prevent some folks/groups from leveling very differently from others.
Unless we only borrow heavily from some APs, rather than use them without deviation, it seems we need to homebrew. The GM's involved would of course need to craft the overall world (or their assigned portion of it) and we'd need to report on/check up on each others games regularly.
<<IDEA BING>>
#1
What if we ran APs (or portions of them) as offshoots of a 'main' storyline/AP. For example, what if the group(s) are travelers or something -maybe they could be doing the Kingmaker campaign- and the quests available to them are actually parts from other APs? I've played enough to Kingmaker to know there's quests available at Olegs, and minor things available while exploring, and these side quests could actually be sections from other APs? Having multiple groups in a Kingmaker AP type world make sense as the end-goal is actually a kingdom with subjects and nobles and people in positions of power.
#2
What if we did S&S or Kingmaker and treated it like PvP without the combat? I know in Kingmaker there's multiple groups or factions exploring/kingmaking mentioned in the Players Guide, essentially in competition with each other. What if we each ran a group, started in different areas of the map, and let them loose? It'd take effort to coordinate them, and (now that I think about it) the pbp medium would not be kind to different groups posting rates etc... So maybe this idea isn't plausible.
What do you think of these ideas?
I think we need to decide if we want this to be pvp or coop?
|
|
I've been quietly lurking in this thread because I find the idea fresh and stimulating. I had some thoughts and questions and decided that now is a good time to jump into the conversation.
I like Mug's idea of incorporating Kingmaker into Varisia. It shouldn't takes mounds of rewriting to make the changes in location. Simple name changes should suffice for most of the AP. As much as I personally dislike Sandpoint, it could suffice as an Oleg's outpost (on a much larger scale).
I also like his idea about allowing multiple parties the opportunity to play Kingmaker within the same world campaign without allowing it to resort to PvP.
I was wondering if the game masters would be interested in letting players take on the roles of NPC? For players who don't make it into this AP or that, they could instead take on the role of Oleg or the sheriff of Sandpoint or Saul Vancaskerin <sp?>, etc. It could be a way to get more players involved and help GM to see those players in action and get a better gauge of their role playing chops if, for instance, they had reservations about a particular player's abilities and had passed on them for their AP because of it, but wanted to give them a chance to prove themselves. This could also be for those people who are players (or even better GM one of the AP), who are already playing in the AP in other people's campaigns and would like to play and contribute to the overall success of this campaign by taking on the roles of an NPC.
Just a thought...
To answer Mr. Stout I think that if we use Mr. Mug's idea and simply borrow from the AP's instead of using them 'run as written' we could work around continuity problems.
To address Mr. Drayens idea of using players to run NPC's my main concern with that idea is it makes it that much more difficult to maintain cohesive storytelling when some of your actors don't respond in a schedule that meshes with your own. I would worry that an Oleg character run by a player would not necessarily be best for the story or the player. Although maybe those who would like to run a few NPC's to take the load off of the GM could be a fun idea.
I think the idea of us linking our game worlds and working out either a multi-party AP along the Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords could be a good way to do it. Alternatively the idea of a Kingmaker in Varisia could be a great idea, we would have to work out background and how the city states like Magnimar and Korvosa would play a role but it could be a lot of fun.
I also think one of the first things to nail down should be the overall tone of this venture. That could make some of these decisions for us.
We should also agree early on about some kind of BBEG, end-goal, or threat that all threads can work toward. I think a full sandbox with no end goal will only complicate things. I could be wrong on this, however. I'm a new GM (my first is my current S&S AP) so my knowledge of typical player behavior from a behind-the-screen perspective is limited.
I'm thinking maybe an Artifact could be the end goal even if we do it Kingmaker style, that can lead to multiple BBEG's vying for the same prize and could make the parties have to come together to stop it.
Hmmmm there's also the Azlanti angle/Aboleth angle/Vault-makers angle. There could be a binding thread to all of the players and until we get a party full of people interested in following that thread it simply adds depth and background.
I mean for example we decide on something whether its an artifact, person or, organization even several of these. This is the thread. This thread is in all of our games and by following it you can get closer to the ultimate theme of the game. Different groups might not be interested in an individual thread but some in each group might. Maybe towards the end these characters come together to investigate that/those thread(s)
Hell that could even be the grand goal. That everything comes down to 'The Universal Tapestry' an artifact that shows how everything is connected. That's just an idea though. The irony of this idead being posted on a 'thread' does not escape me.
I think Tobaris means "connecting interest" when he says "thread."
As in, an element found in all the games that tie them together, not a literal thread on the forums.
Coming a little late to the party, but I'd love to be a part of this, too.
One of the earlier posters mentioned the idea of having an evil party and that piqued my interest. While I understand the challenges that come from PVP, I think the idea of the parties subverting one another's efforts is kind of fun. I have no real thoughts on how that could work practically, but it makes me giddy thinking through the possibilities.
Even if that doesn't end up being a direction we pursue, I'd love to play a role in making it happen.
For the evil-good party idea:
We could be running the same AP with two groups. The opposed party simply acts as NPC's in the opposed thread, if that makes sence. It may take a bit of doing, however, as that sounds like it could get complicated really quick and be easily derailed by an MIA. I'd still be willing to give it a go.
That could work, but I was thinking something more along the lines of...
1. Two warring factions (Nirmathas and Molthune, for example) have enlisted small parties of adventurers/mercenaries to secure a neutral area. In that area are strongholds, potential allies and resources. The adventurers would be at odds, trying to secure those assets for their side, which will provide benefits in the inevitable large-scale conflict between the two factions. This would require quite a bit of coordination between the GM's to create the world, but could function relatively independently once it was up and running.
2. A sea-based adventure with multiple parties of pirates and, potentially, a (Chelish?) navy. The pirates would compete for the largest booties (hehe), while the navy attempted to right the wrongs caused or stop them from happening in the first place.
3. A group of prisoners have escaped from prison (a la Brandescar prison in Way of the Wicked), and a group of investigators and bounty hunters need to track them down and capture them. As the prisoners make their way from their escape, they cause mayhem and trouble that makes them stronger (i.e. they gain loot and level up), while also giving the investigators clues as to their whereabouts and the need to fix the problems the escapees have caused.
These three scenarios would put them in conflict with one another without requiring regular coordination between the players. The GMs would need to communicate, but could be relatively autonomous until the two (or more) parties are forced to meet.
Any of thise would work well, I think. I like the independence factors, and I think you've gotten closest to what we're going for. If it were a chase-like scenario, we would have to start the, for example, escapees thread before the pursuer thread and make it clear that there will be PC's chasing/running so they build their characters to suit.
Another idea struck me. The adventure could take place in a city on the brink of rebellion and there could be multiple factions attempting to incite or resist rebellion for their own gain. The player parties could be hired by or loyal to these factions (merchants guild, city watch, the royal family, abolitionists, mages, etc.) and, much like the warring nations in the example above, would fight over the city's resources and allies.
I like keeping things confined to a city, as it seems easier to create the "world" for the players and there are plenty of city guides already in existence. My personal choice would be to have the game set in Kaer Maga, but it seems unlikely that there would be any kind of rebellion there. We might have to come up with another hook to create conflict.
So what's the next step to make this happen? I'm pumped by the idea of this type of game!
We could use Magnimar or Korvosa as well. I think that we could do such a game by setting up three 'campaigns': One side, The Opposition, and a shared thread for crossover events.
While the idea of keeping it confined to a city would definitely set a clear world space I think that using a larger region can allow for more epic storytelling as well as make it so we can have parties that can take entire campaigns without directly interacting with other parties. We don't have to do that, but it can allow for an organic world where events come and go regardless of whether everyone is aware of it.
I think the difference is scope there, and we could leave that up to players. Another pro for keeping it confined to a city would be minimizing the time displacement that could occur from extended, uneventful travel.
So here's what we got for interest thus far, as long as I'm not forgetting folks.
Head Honcho
Tobaris
GMs Definitely Interested:
GM Choon
GM Mug
GM Lugos
GM Tallgrass
GMs Possibly Interested
John Stout
drayden
Jen the GM
---------
So it looks like we have at least 5 GMs who are wanting to participate in some fashion. Anyone have a problem with my list above? The next step is finalizing a game to run.
- Some Assumptions thus far
- Mostly Homebrew adventure
- 2 groups of adventurers (probably 5 or 6 to a group)
- 2 (maybe 3) Campaign threads needed
- Questions we need answered
- Is everyone ok with using Google Docs for Maps, Database, etc...?
- PvP or Coop?
- How to divide up workload (how many folks need to be/should be involved in running the game)
- Google doc's is fine
- I'd say indirect Pvp? So no lethal combat, but a yes to messing with each other's allies/resources.
- I have no idea as to workload, honestly.
I'm fine with Google Docs, though I also like Dropbox.
If we do an opposing forces game, I think lethal PvP can and should happen, but only at major moments in the campaign. It shouldn't be the primary focus of the game, but something that's looming out there for the players to anticipate.
I'd say if we only have two parties, we probably only need two GMs. I think one GM per party should cover it.
If I'm not a part of this particular effort, I'm definitely considering starting something up myself. We could actually start a couple of different games with this many interested GMs and test stuff out to see what works best (coop vs. PVP, city vs. region, etc.).
Thank you so much for the inspiration, Tobaris!
That sounds about right GM Mug. I can view google docs but am not often able to upload them or download them. I think that indirect PVP would most likely be the best option, where if players have a legitimate conflict they may take their own steps to deal with their opponents.
However the multiple campaign threads would largely be dependent on how closely we inter-connect our games.
For example:
A large region with various groups and adventures, might do best with;
A)1 core 'History & Rumor' Campaign thread and Numerous campaign threads that use it as a reference.
However a smaller more connected region or focus, might do better with;
B)1 crossover thread and 1 thread for each faction/party.
The workload will likely be something that we won't be able to decide until we work out our focus.
For example I will provide two ideas I like for focus:
Each group would need a thread.
We could then use a Core thread for a timeline and rumormill for the world.
Each GM will obviously be responsible for their party and, will be expected to talk to other GM's when their parties crossover.
Also GM's interested in working on specific topics, like divine interests or region-wide events could collaborate as they work on them.
This spreads a lot of workload on everybody but also opens up the opportunity for a more vibrant world.
Each Faction/Party will have a thread. There will be one Crossover thread.
An overall Timeline and event planner will be built by a 'head honcho' which can be thrown at parties by each GM running a faction.
GM's would be responsible for their faction and for working with the 'head honcho' on their effect on the city.
This narrows the focus but allows for a consistent and clear timeline. It also allows for intense competition between groups for events. As there can only be so many responsible for resolving any one event.
I look forward to hearing opinions or other ideas for how we can set this up.
Or four parties in one city all working for a different faction with one DM playing overlord for all the threads and monitoring higher level (as in resolution, grand scheme, not party-level stuff) continuity? I'm insane, aren't I? Why yes, yes I am.
That's actually the feel I was trying to go for with the Magnimar one. I like that idea.
I feel the Magnimar Faction fight would the most interesting. Kingmaker would just launch people in every other direction and probably half the threads would die before people get to actually meet.
I happen to already have some ideas I was tossing around for an event calendar for a Magnimar game it wouldn't take much to rework it.
What rank in these factions would you expect the players to have? I think that if the players were too far down, they would be unable to affect many things, while if they were too far up, I find it unlikely that they would run missions.
I saw a somewhat similar idea to this on the GiTP forums. What they did was that they had some players run faction-wide activities while others played as high-ranking agents of those factions. Might be an interesting concept and could be a good way to bring in the other DMs.
@ Jen- Do you think you could locate that so we might borrow for it? No use reinventing the wheel if we don't have to.
Well as big as Magnimar is, it is still small enough that even the higher ups in most factions would still have to dip their toes in. On top of that the factions could be nothing more than a group of friends with a dream. Yeah they would have to work with the difficulty of building an organization and contacts but they could make something entirely their own in the process. I think the downtime rules in Ultimate Campaign would be really useful.
Even if you are starting out low in a faction the events would provide an opportunity for advancement and even when you're on the top some things are just to big to ignore or delegate.
Of course it doesn't fit exactly what we had in mind, but I think it provides a useful example. They have rulers over entire realms and those rulers recruit champions, though the scale is probably too large for a party-based game.
So it seemed to me like if these rulers controlled smaller entities within the city (say, so and so merchant's guild, assassin's guild, political party A, scheming royal B), there would be plenty of opportunity for a group of four characters to do something.
The reason I suggest this is that if there was an over-DM running the factions, then it seems more like a story rather than a dynamic game, and naturally the DM running the parties can't run a faction either because of conflict of interest.
Based on the Magnimar City guide, here are a couple of factions that could come into play:
What if we modified the fame/infamy rules from Ultimate Campaign so that, instead of influencing miles, they influenced districts, on a smaller scale, "blocks" in the city. Almost like a gang and its turf. That would give universal base rules for rank and influence.
On that note, each DM could be in charge of a district and any groups shenanigans therein. That would give each region a distinct feel. However, that could also lead to GM overload if all the parties rush off to the market at once.
If we broke the GMing up by district, then wouldn't the concept of a party break down or become less important? Not necessarily saying that is a bad thing, but something to think about.
If we broke the GMing up by district, then wouldn't the concept of a party break down or become less important? Not necessarily saying that is a bad thing, but something to think about.
That is true.
I'm seeing the definate need for that GM-only reference thread if we are to keep interactions consistent with recurring NPC's and conflicting faction influences.
I think that holding GM by party might be better for example if a GM goes on Hiatus only one party has to wait it out, if a GM responsible for the Dockway District goes on Hiatus that entire district is stuck.
While the idea of an Over-DM would lead to a storyline it would still be dynamic as the factions actions can and should affect the timeline.
What recurring NPCs are you foreseeing? It seems the most important NPCs would all be associated with a faction, so if we had GMs run factions as well, they can play the NPCs in many of the threads as necessary.