I have two different campaigns set in the same setting and in the same time period. Recently their interests have overlapped. The games take place on two separate days and I recently ran into a potential issue. Party A went to a city to deal with some Demon Toads. They left the city and followed a trail to find a magic spear shaft. Session ended. Party B on their session day went to the city in the wake of the other group, dealt with the problem, and then moved on to another place following the trail of the leader of the Demon Toads. Session ended. Then back to Party A, they resumed, and one of the players was contemplating going back to the city to contend with the demon toads. This surely would have meant an interaction with the other party since they were currently there handling the problem. The issue is, I already ran the event for the other group and no such interaction took place. So I am curious how you might deal with this. It would be very strange if the player went back to the city but I made it impossible for him to interact with the other party. But if I allow it to take place that could change some outcomes from group B's session (or at the very least require me to retroactively inform them of a meeting they had while in the city that didn't actually occur during their game).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898300This surely would have meant an interaction with the other party since they were currently there handling the problem. The issue is, I already ran the event for the other group and no such interaction took place. So I am curious how you might deal with this. It would be very strange if the player went back to the city but I made it impossible for him to interact with the other party. But if I allow it to take place that could change some outcomes from group B's session (or at the very least require me to retroactively inform them of a meeting they had while in the city that didn't actually occur during their game).
I fudge the timelines so that the other group arrives after the conclusion of party B. Otherwise you start crossing the streams and you don't want to do that ;-)
On a more serious note, it an accommodation of the fact we are use pen & paper and people meeting at fixed times to simulate a setting's reality. This takes advantage of the fact that unless I point it out, the players of B are rarely aware of where they are in the timeline in relation to the players of A.
Two different games, two different universes; there is no intersection.
Quote from: 3rik;898321Two different games, two different universes; there is no intersection.
This is how I have done things in the past, but I wanted to make keeping track of things easier (not have the same NPC alive in one reality, dead in another,etc). I like having them in the same reality better, but there is this one area where things can get crazy.
Quote from: estar;898313I fudge the timelines so that the other group arrives after the conclusion of party B. Otherwise you start crossing the streams and you don't want to do that ;-)
On a more serious note, it an accommodation of the fact we are use pen & paper and people meeting at fixed times to simulate a setting's reality. This takes advantage of the fact that unless I point it out, the players of B are rarely aware of where they are in the timeline in relation to the players of A.
This was a solution I considered, but I was worried my players might feel like I was cheating. However given that the other possibility potentially robs the other group of their history, I think this is the better way to go.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898300The issue is, I already ran the event for the other group and no such interaction took place.
It looks like you answered your own question. However, I would say if they did go back, what they would find is the effects of the other party's actions, just assign a reasonable time span between the two.
Quote from: dragoner;898324It looks like you answered your own question. However, I would say if they did go back, what they would find is the effects of the other party's actions, just assign a reasonable time span between the two.
This is how I had intended to do it using the time fudge that Estar mentioned. I suppose my issue was, if I am being honest about my timeline, they would have been in the city during the same time (given how long they traveled north and how long the other party was in town---and the time they arrive). But I think in the end, you and Estar are correct. this is the only workable solution that doesn't potentially undo stuff that happened with the other party the previous session.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898300Then back to Party A, they resumed, and one of the players was contemplating going back to the city to contend with the demon toads. This surely would have meant an interaction with the other party since they were currently there handling the problem. The issue is, I already ran the event for the other group and no such interaction took place. So I am curious how you might deal with this. It would be very strange if the player went back to the city but I made it impossible for him to interact with the other party. But if I allow it to take place that could change some outcomes from group B's session (or at the very least require me to retroactively inform them of a meeting they had while in the city that didn't actually occur during their game).
We can look at this in several ways.
- Philosophically – since Party A didn’t interact with Party B during Party A’s first session and Party B didn’t interact with Party A during Party B’s first session, then obviously no such interaction between Parties A and B can have occurred.
- Contractually –Party A (the party of the first part) had an opportunity to interact with the demon toads during their first session, but they did not. Now either (i) the party of the first part didn’t interact with the demons in the first session due to player choice or (ii) the party of the first part didn’t interact with the demons due to time running out in their first session. In the first case the party of the first part’s choice was fairly made, so the opportunity for choice now moves to the party of the second part during their first session. In the second case, since speed of play is strongly controlled by the ability of the players to quickly formulate and articulate a plan, it is not unfair to consider the second case equivalent to the first case. So again, the choice now moves to the party of the second part. Since the party of the second part in the next session played by either party, chose to interact with the demon toads, that event must be allowed to stand. During that set of actions there was no interaction with party of the first part and since an interaction with the party of the first part has the potential to change or invalidate the result of the fair choice of the party of the second part, no interaction between the parties of the first and second parts can have occurred.
- Practically – retroactively changing what happened in a party’s session sucks. So no change can occur retroactively. Party A is free to help devise a reason why they didn’t or couldn’t interact.
- Temporally – allowing retroactive changes to the timeline risks creating a temporal rift which is explicitly prohibited by paragraphs 23.17.4 and 23.17.6 of the Global RPG bylaws of 2374.
- Childishly – Party B got there first and finders keepers, losers weepers. Party A is out of luck.
I had something like this happen in my Star Wars campaign. The two groups were in the same location at the same time but played out on different days. I had the activities of Party A form some of the local color and the backdrop to the location when Party B played. It helped that the location is a very large bar/dance club/casino/sporting arena/brothel named Gazi’s “the place with something for everyone!” And I was fortunate that my two parties were not after the same ends. I’m not sure what I would have done if the players in Party B had tried to interfere with the activities around Party A. As a first choice, I’d have tossed a difficulty or distraction in the path of Party B. Likely that would delay them long enough for Party A to exit the location (which is what they did during their session). Otherwise I would have run with two separate timelines since those two groups were completely separate at that time.
As an observation, these potential issues is why strict accounting of time was used in the multiplayer, multiparty games run by Arneson, Gygax, Barkere, et al. And also why Barker used strict 1 week sessions.
Some thoughts.
1: Have the the groups deal with different sects of the enemy. Group A Met X and its cronies and Group B met Y and their cronies. X and Y are part of one large organization but the PCs havent uncovered that yet.
2: Group B returns. But was delayed and so end up finding the aftermath. Bad weather slowed them, stops signs, a festival in the streets makes getting from A to B hard to impossible, etc. And that might even have been a ploy by the enemy to stall them. Think of some way to prevent intersection so that when the group gets there they find the aftermath.
As mentioned a few months ago. The campaign I am in with Kefra and Jan is part of a larger 3 party tandem. We sometimes come across eachothers deeds, or what we suspect were. But never intersect. Or if we have, it was in such a way that we could not interact.
This is because the DM is very against taking over or NPCing the players characters. This requires the occasional stall. But we are all aware of the situation, are ok with that, and will think up stalls to accomodate if needed. In general though theres usually a slight time differential between the groups such that intersections are not as likely. And we all in general took different routes to things in the area. Though the DM reported that groups A and B have overlapped alot more than out group C has. Our group has been doing alot more overland travel and so are usually in a different time zone as it were compared to the other two.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898323This was a solution I considered, but I was worried my players might feel like I was cheating. However given that the other possibility potentially robs the other group of their history, I think this is the better way to go.
It is cheating but we cheat in several different areas to make the campaign possible. So we just live with the consquences.
As an aside and related to the compromises we make for tabletop RPG is using Roll20's virtual lighting feature combined with line of sight. Now normally in tabletop roleplaying (face to face or VTTs) we get a god's eye view of the action as players and as the referee. Not too much we can do about that as the game is built around a bunch of folks viewing the playing surface or in the case of miniature less sessions, all listening to the referee.
In contrast live-action role-playing there is a lot of "fog of war" "limited perspective" challenges due to the use of live-action. Separated parties can be a far worse things because not only they are physically apart, they lack vital information about how each segment of the group is doing.
Roll20's virtual lighting replicates this far better than any other technique I seen used in tabletop. With line of sight in place, the party can get separate and literally be fumbling around in the dark. But it take a bit to setup it up right so it isn't without it is cost. Of course relies on the fact everybody is interacting through the internet.
Here my post about the session.
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/where-is-glasstaff-5e-adventure.html
Also Fantasy Grounds, Roll20 and VTTs can be used to manage multiple groups running around in the same setting at the same period of time. Because you can jump from face-to-face to VTTs and back easily what you could do is have your normal face to face sessions but also have one-off or even ongoing sessions with the PCs that are off doing their own thing in between the face to face session in separate groups. It would take a bit of juggling to keep the time-lines straight but the ease of getting on the internet over gathering physically together means you can be flexible in doing this.
For example if a player really like interacting with the NPCs of a tavern you setup but in general doesn't get to do it often because the group is trying to put together the seven widget to stop the uber doom from happening. What you could do is get together on-line for an hour or two and do some roleplaying where he goes and does whatever at the tavern. Then at the next session it back to saving the world.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898326This is how I had intended to do it using the time fudge that Estar mentioned. I suppose my issue was, if I am being honest about my timeline, they would have been in the city during the same time (given how long they traveled north and how long the other party was in town---and the time they arrive). But I think in the end, you and Estar are correct. this is the only workable solution that doesn't potentially undo stuff that happened with the other party the previous session.
In a way, it is an honest solution, in that you aren't pandering to either group, and no matter how close ("the ashes are still hot") there could be that interval between them. The real problem I see arising is if the one party wants to go find the other party, that will call for a tricky solution.
Quote from: Bren;898328As an observation, these potential issues is why strict accounting of time was used in the multiplayer, multiparty games run by Arneson, Gygax, Barkere, et al. And also why Barker used strict 1 week sessions.
Why a 1 week session? How does that work?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;898347Why a 1 week session? How does that work?
This was discussed on the Chrine thread maybe 1000 posts ago. As I understand it, they played weekly and a session covered 1 week of game time, so real time to game time was effectively 1-to-1. I don't know for sure how they synched up different parties, but the idea was if you played on Tuesday and looted a tomb and the next group played after Tuesday they'd find a looted tomb. So I assume that the week was counted from play date through play date + six days. And at least for Tekumel there was some correlation between real world dates and game dates.
I suppose things could still become problematic if say your group played on Tuesday. In game they walked 3 days to the Tomb of Undying Death and looted it the next day, so on Game Day 4. And on Wednesday (equal to your Game Day 2) another play group teleported or flew to the Tomb of Undying so they could loot it on your Game Day 3. What would they see? How would that get resolved?
I'll toss the question over to Chirine and see what he says.
Quote from: Bren;898328As an observation, these potential issues is why strict accounting of time was used in the multiplayer, multiparty games run by Arneson, Gygax, Barkere, et al. And also why Barker used strict 1 week sessions.
In a way, strict accounting of time is what led to the issue (or at least what led me to have to directly answer how to handle the issue). I was keeping very strict time, much stricter than normal, when I realized the player's may intersect (normally I am not concerned with hours and minutes as much as days or times of day).
The way I deal with this is to fudge the time and keep it indistinct. I've handled games like this before and it's the only way to make it work.
That or when everyone is supposed to meet up you have them come together for one mega session IRL. But I never did that.
Quote from: dragoner;898339In a way, it is an honest solution, in that you aren't pandering to either group, and no matter how close ("the ashes are still hot") there could be that interval between them. The real problem I see arising is if the one party wants to go find the other party, that will call for a tricky solution.
For me the most important thing is I just want to be above board about it and have a consistent way of handling the problem. In an intersection situation like mentioned, I think time fudging a bit is the way to go. If they specifically seek out each other, I may incorporate Skype and it might require pausing the action until we can get everyone there. Both groups know they are sharing a campaign world (and I've told them who the other party is so there are not surprised about it).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898355In a way, strict accounting of time is what led to the issue (or at least what led me to have to directly answer how to handle the issue). I was keeping very strict time, much stricter than normal, when I realized the player's may intersect (normally I am not concerned with hours and minutes as much as days or times of day).
Fair point.
Usually days is good enough. I did run an arc recently where hours (and rarely minutes) mattered since the villains were performing ritual sacrifices set during specific times of night on specific days and were moving about and hiding out in between sacrifices while the players were searching for clues and eventually the villains. So it mattered who was doing what where. I also needed to track the expenditure of Arcane Magic Points by the evil witch for her rituals and the points expended for magical counter measures she took against the PCs as well as her recovery of points expended. I did have the party split up into separate groups a number of times so tracking time was important. Fortunately, I've found reasonable players are reasonable about having to occasionally manage time or place via GM fiat or fudging or cheating or whatever one chooses to call it when the GM says "You can't go there at that time, because the other PCs already went there then and you'd bump into them which would be awkward and might cause real problems with the timeline."
Quote from: estar;898313I fudge the timelines so that the other group arrives after the conclusion of party B. Otherwise you start crossing the streams and you don't want to do that ;-)
The other option is to explicitly firewall extant continuity: Just tell your players that there are known events at Location A (or whatever) that have been established by other sessions and they won't be able to contradict them.
You can run into this same problem even with a single group when they split up: Tammy goes to Location A while Bob goes to Location B. We play through several hours of Tammy's activities and then cut back to Bob. 15 minutes into Bob's activities, he wants to call Tammy on her cellphone. You can either go with a hard firewall ("You can't do that because we already know Tammy didn't get a phone call, so at best you can try the call and it won't connect") or a soft firewall ("Okay, but you can't say anything that would change what Tammy did").
Quote from: Bren;898352This was discussed on the Chrine thread maybe 1000 posts ago. As I understand it, they played weekly and a session covered 1 week of game time, so real time to game time was effectively 1-to-1. I don't know for sure how they synched up different parties, but the idea was if you played on Tuesday and looted a tomb and the next group played after Tuesday they'd find a looted tomb. So I assume that the week was counted from play date through play date + six days. And at least for Tekumel there was some correlation between real world dates and game dates.
I did something similar when I was running an open table: I started by just having every session run forward in real time, but this meant that the campaign was moving much faster than real time (if I ran three sessions in a single week, each covering an expedition lasting 15-20 says, you'd have months whizzing by) and players who missed a few sessions could find that their characters now had months of missing time. So I swapped to the game world passing in real time. This meant that characters who went on a 15 day expedition in a single session would be locked down and unavailable for play during the next 15 days in the real world (they were busy). (This wasn't a problem because everybody had a stable of characters.) The things those characters were doing and the places they went were firewalled during the time they were there.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898359For me the most important thing is I just want to be above board about it and have a consistent way of handling the problem. In an intersection situation like mentioned, I think time fudging a bit is the way to go. If they specifically seek out each other, I may incorporate Skype and it might require pausing the action until we can get everyone there. Both groups know they are sharing a campaign world (and I've told them who the other party is so there are not surprised about it).
This sounds both fair and workable as a solution. Players who'd object to that just aren't thinking about the logistics or they are probably unreasonable people about other things as well.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;898364The other option is to explicitly firewall extant continuity: Just tell your players that there are known events at Location A (or whatever) that have been established by other sessions and they won't be able to contradict them.
That could work. I'm pretty sure I've used that before. I'd be more likely to use that in a situation where I thought it was unlikely that the intersection would be likely to cause conflicts. For example, fairly static or inactive activities like research and training can often coexist in the same space and time since they seldom lead to conflicts.
If I thought conflicts were likely (say both groups going after the same McGuffin contained in the same Tomb of Undying at the same time) I'd go with preventing the second group from getting there until later since a conflict seems a likely outcome of letting both groups be there and saying "You can't open that door" because stuff already happened behind that door seems more awkward than just forcing a delay.
QuoteYou can run into this same problem even with a single group when they split up: Tammy goes to Location A while Bob goes to Location B. We play through several hours of Tammy's activities and then cut back to Bob. 15 minutes into Bob's activities, he wants to call Tammy on her cellphone. You can either go with a hard firewall ("You can't do that because we already know Tammy didn't get a phone call, so at best you can try the call and it won't connect") or a soft firewall ("Okay, but you can't say anything that would change what Tammy did").
Those work. Also one can time switches in POV based in part on game time. So you switch back to Bob before several hours of time go by for Tammy. But that may mean the player whose actions (walking, searching, etc.) are measured in 10-minute game turns has to sit around a lot when the other PC's actions are measured in 12 second melee turns.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that there is no perfect solution for all situations.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;898347Why a 1 week session? How does that work?
It was the interval between game sessions; using a calendar made time-keeping easier for the GM. Phil would keep very detailed records of who played when, and would refer to my notes for what happened. It was all part of the continuing meta-game he was running for his collection of 1,500 NPCs on his index cards.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898359For me the most important thing is I just want to be above board about it and have a consistent way of handling the problem. In an intersection situation like mentioned, I think time fudging a bit is the way to go. If they specifically seek out each other, I may incorporate Skype and it might require pausing the action until we can get everyone there. Both groups know they are sharing a campaign world (and I've told them who the other party is so there are not surprised about it).
Nice, it does look like you have a plan. It would be interesting to hear an AAR if that does go down. The ultimate PvP (Party vs Party).
Quote from: Bren;898352This was discussed on the Chrine thread maybe 1000 posts ago. As I understand it, they played weekly and a session covered 1 week of game time, so real time to game time was effectively 1-to-1. I don't know for sure how they synched up different parties, but the idea was if you played on Tuesday and looted a tomb and the next group played after Tuesday they'd find a looted tomb. So I assume that the week was counted from play date through play date + six days. And at least for Tekumel there was some correlation between real world dates and game dates.
I suppose things could still become problematic if say your group played on Tuesday. In game they walked 3 days to the Tomb of Undying Death and looted it the next day, so on Game Day 4. And on Wednesday (equal to your Game Day 2) another play group teleported or flew to the Tomb of Undying so they could loot it on your Game Day 3. What would they see? How would that get resolved?
I'll toss the question over to Chirine and see what he says.
There''ll be a longer reply in the 'Questioning Chirine ba Kal" thread, too.
Yes, this is correct. Phil synched what happened in each game session by day, so that if the Monday group did something that happened on a Tuesday, it happened on our Tuesday as well. It was very, very rare to get both groups in the same city at the same time, let alone getting them into the same location at the same point in time. If this did happen, the 'custom of the house' was to have everybody show up on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon and have one big combined game session.
If we had shown up on Day 3, we would have looted the tomb, and gotten away. The other group would have arrived on Day 4, and looted the tomb all over again. And, this being Tekumel the way Phil played it, they then would have gone looking for the party of clerics, guards, and bearers who had just gotten through restocking and resealing the tomb to see what other goodies might be had. We met up with all sorts of parties like this over time, as Phil ran his world as a living entity - he based this on the misadventures of the cadre of priests and guards who looked after the Valley of the Kings, who left us all sorts of rather plaintive records of how many times they had had to deal with parties of tomb-robbers. Tutankhamun got robbed twice, for example.
Quote from: dragoner;898389Nice, it does look like you have a plan. It would be interesting to hear an AAR if that does go down. The ultimate PvP (Party vs Party).
I am not sure what AAR means in this instance, but player versus player, at this stage, is unlikely because they both come from good sects with similarly aligned principles. There is one wild card in the mix that could change that though.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898395I am not sure what AAR means in this instance, but player versus player, at this stage, is unlikely because they both come from good sects with similarly aligned principles. There is one wild card in the mix that could change that though.
AAR = After Action Report
Whatever happens is cool, it could just be social conflict, either way, it would be interesting to see how you handle it, instructive. I have never had two parties encounter each other.
Eh, this isn't even the worst possible outcome in such cases. The worst outcome is when Party A's actions or experiences (what the world does around it) would have a material effect on what Party B is encountering, only Party A is dawdling, and Party B's advancing to the point that they're going to leapfrog past Party A.
This is currently happening in my game; basically, the civil/world war that's affecting both parties is hinging on the outcome on a critical battle of Waterloo/Agincourt/Stalingrad-level impact. Party A are material players in that battle, and Party B would know (and act upon) the outcome.
Happily, Party B has stepped up big time, and have just resolved to put their PCs on hold and go back to playing a previous set of characters for a while, to buy me more time.
Intersectionality! :mad:
(Don't mind me, I just had an opportunity and had to take it. :p I too am actually interested in how to handle this as it's always a good idea to broaden one's judgment repertoire. Carry on!)
Quote from: Opaopajr;898549Intersectionality! :mad:
(Don't mind me, I just had an opportunity and had to take it. :p I too am actually interested in how to handle this as it's always a good idea to broaden one's judgment repertoire. Carry on!)
I actually paused briefly before posting to consider that people might mistake 'intersecting parties' for intersectionality. But I couldn't think of a more precise word for what I was describing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898551I actually paused briefly before posting to consider that people might mistake 'intersecting parties' for intersectionality. But I couldn't think of a more precise word for what I was describing.
And now your confession of contemplating self-censorship shall breach the dam of pent up frustration against those barbarians at the gate, the DSWs! No, wait, that's Designer Shoe Warehouse... Shit, who was it that's threatening the foundation of Western Civilization again?
Quote from: Opaopajr;898554And now your confession of contemplating self-censorship shall breach the dam of pent up frustration against those barbarians at the gate, the DSWs! No, wait, that's Designer Shoe Warehouse... Shit, who was it that's threatening the foundation of Western Civilization again?
Storygamers.
Or Pundit.
Depending on who you ask...
Its never pretty when those two intersect.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898300I have two different campaigns set in the same setting and in the same time period. Recently their interests have overlapped. The games take place on two separate days and I recently ran into a potential issue. Party A went to a city to deal with some Demon Toads. They left the city and followed a trail to find a magic spear shaft. Session ended. Party B on their session day went to the city in the wake of the other group, dealt with the problem, and then moved on to another place following the trail of the leader of the Demon Toads. Session ended. Then back to Party A, they resumed, and one of the players was contemplating going back to the city to contend with the demon toads. This surely would have meant an interaction with the other party since they were currently there handling the problem. The issue is, I already ran the event for the other group and no such interaction took place. So I am curious how you might deal with this. It would be very strange if the player went back to the city but I made it impossible for him to interact with the other party. But if I allow it to take place that could change some outcomes from group B's session (or at the very least require me to retroactively inform them of a meeting they had while in the city that didn't actually occur during their game).
Why did you get yourself into this in the first place?!
Anyways, the answer is obvious: Earth-1 and Earth-2
While it had appeared up till now that both groups were playing in the same world, you can now reveal that the campaigns have been going on in nearly-identical parallel worlds. They can be accessed through magic, or the speed force.