[OOC] Borenhold's Tavern

[HereticForLife]

Well, they could have escaped only to be slain honorably in combat later. I can see it now...

[Megiddo]

I'll be updating as many threads as I can today, and probably more tomorrow. RL has me pretty busy. I have to take a trip to the DMV today, but there's a flood warning, so we have to get the trailer all squared away first.

[OllieNorth]

Sweet, I've been antsy over here!

[sethdot]

Indeed. Let me know if I ended on a bad note and need to expand upon it.

[Megiddo]

Everyone is pretty fine, but the problem I am having is that I basically signed up to run seven separate games, and I'm still working out how to get you all together

And I don't want to update anyone separately from everyone else, so I will mostly only update if it is possible for me to sit down and give all of you the time you deserve- otherwise someone will pull too far ahead.

[sethdot]

Alternatively you could just cycle updates. Two here, the next four there. Finish off the last one and get started on the next round. That kind of thing. As long as you update people one at a time it should be good. *just really excited to get started*

[TheMystic]

Originally Posted by Megiddo

Everyone is pretty fine, but the problem I am having is that I basically signed up to run seven separate games, and I'm still working out how to get you all together

And I don't want to update anyone separately from everyone else, so I will mostly only update if it is possible for me to sit down and give all of you the time you deserve- otherwise someone will pull too far ahead.

It is not necessarily the number of posts that governs this, but the ingame timescale. As I mentioned I GM a game with a similar structure and I have one player with twice the posts that is the only one yet to complete more than an ingame day. (This doesn't matter too much as a time skip is near for them and all of the characters will likely take months to meet each other)

[HereticForLife]

I like Sethdot's idea there. Worst-case scenario, if someone ends up making considerably more progress than everyone else, you can just tell them to wait a little while and go through a whole extra cycle before you get back to them.

Speaking of timescale... is everyone starting at the same time in-game? If not then you can shift starting dates around so you can pair up someone who pulls ahead with someone who only has a handful of posts.

[JasonWFD]

You do have quite the workload here Megiddo, I don't envy you. I'm sure we'll all be patient, as we can understand the work that you're putting into this game.

[Megiddo]

Oh, I'm finagling the in game timescale, but it will take roughly the same number of posts to get everyone through the individual scenarios.

[Togot]

There’s a kind of game I’d love to play, but it would be very hard to run. It would basically be two games run simultaneously in the same world. In one game, the heroes would be moving into an untamed territory and trying to make it safe for civilization, kinda like the king maker campaign .

But in the other game, a group of monstrous creatures are trying to stop this incursion into their lands.

This would have two groups of players acting against one another without realizing it, unless you wanted them to know, creating interesting rivalries between the two groups, and really challenge the players, because who better to fight players than other players?

The game would likely have a high body count, as any engagements between the two groups would almost certainly end in casualties on both sides before one group either retreated or got wiped out. To get around this, you could have them roll up new characters as fresh recruits. Simple fix.

Of course not all of the missions would be player vs. player. In fact they would only encounter each other rarely to keep such events special and memorable. Most of the time they would be acting against each others’ factions, though they could still affect one another. The humans build a fort, and the orcs have to take it down with a siege weapon. The orcs raid a tower and the humans get sent in after they’ve gone, but maybe the orc players left some traps? The humans wipe out and orc camp, and now the orc players have to escort the refuges. That kind of indirect influence.

I think it could be fun.

Thoughts?

[JasonWFD]

With the right players, it could be really awesome in theory. Would be a lot of work, planning and improv-wise, on the GM's party. PvP conflict can be difficult and not fun unless the right people are involved, from my experience. I would personally avoid a game like that but the concept has plenty of fun potential.

[sethdot]

I've often thought of the day when I'll put on my DM hat and see what things are like on the other side of the screen. I've toyed with an idea almost exactly like what you're thinking of. PvP has been done plenty of times, but I like the fact that they don't know about each other. how I think it would have to work is that you (or you and a co-dm) pitch two different games at two different times to recruit for the two sides. Run them as completely different games: One billed as a traditional kingmaker taming the wilderness and the other billed as Monsters as PCs sandbox. Put them on a confined space like a large island and conflict is inevitable. I really like the idea, but I think it would take someone more experienced than I to make it work unless I had serious help.


Also: the best part could be if there's a player in both games he could end up fighting himself. Would he be able to detect his own tactics?

[Megiddo]

And of course, my Internet was just down for a day and a half. I'll update all threads in the morning. Damn boonies.

[JasonWFD]

Weeeeeeee technology!