Player vs. Player Campaign

[Raellus]

Has anyone ever tried to run two ,simultaneous campaigns between opposing player groups? For example, having one party made up of NATO PCs and another of WTO PCs, each contending for a similar goal (RESET or something like that).

I was just thinking about doing something like this. It would be a lot of work for the GM but it would be an awesome challenge for the players. Instead of going up solely against the GM's imagination and creativity, groups of players would be going up against the combined intellects (and luck) of their opposite numbers. Skills would be higher so combat would be deadlier. Not to disparage GMs or anything (I'm one too), but it would be like playing a computer game against a tough AI and then playing it against another player. After a while, the AI gets a bit predicatable. An opposing player- or several- add new, dynamic challenges.

It seems like something that could be done in PbP; I don't think you could pull if off FtF unless you had groups in different rooms and a mobile GM.

Am I crazy? Can it be done? Should I try?

Anyway, fusilier and I already pulled off the first PbP campaign NPC cross-over in T2K history (as far as I know) and the players that we share in our respective games got a real kick out of it.

[jester]

We discussed this in 01, and some of the opfor games they had thought about doing it. As for how far along they got, I have no idea.

[Marc]

You're not crazy.

It can be a great experience! In my village we've organized it three times, but never playing Twilight 2000. And I remember another time (this time as a player, not as a referee) in Barcelona, in the UPC (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya), in the annual roleplaying day that the university's Roleplaying Club used to celebrate.

I must recognize that we did not organize a campaign in any case. We prepared a long adventure that lasted the entire day. We used to play in a warehouse, each group separated from the others by mobile panels. Each group with its master, characters and objectives. But all the groups playing "in the same map" at the same time, but beginning in different places. The masters periodically met in another room and take note of every group positions and status.

In all the cases, the characters were generated previously by the referees. Generating the characters the same day stole too much time to the game. Of course, the objectives and backgrounds of each group were carefully plotted. After all, they determine the way the groups will react when they met each other.

And when two or more groups finally meet each other, everything is possible. Are they enemies? Have they the same objective? Can they cooperate? Is an alliance against other group possible? Will they rely in the word of the other? One group has first detected the other and is preparing an ambush?

Of course there are some problems. Some of them can be solved. But I'm afraid that others are inevitable. The referees must be well organized and they must try to keep the same rhythm. Leak of information between game tables must be avoided. But when combat erupts...

First, the rhythm goes to hell. You will realize that specially if you're the kind of dynamic referee that likes to resolve the combat turns in a realistic quick way (not as playing chess). Perhaps the first actions will be quick, if surprise is archieved. In a medieval game the players of both groups who are not hidden can meet in the same table and make their characters kill each other openly (with the two referees arbitrating). Then everything is solved as a normal roleplaying combat. With the great difference (for me very, very satisfactory difference ) that it is not possible to make a plan in the middle of the combat without the other group could not hear it. Of course a player can make a hidden action talking with the referee.

If the combat is a modern firefight kept at a hundred meters, it's better not to get the groups together. Each group can play in its table with its referee, with the difference that, after each initiative step, the referees meet in another table were they annotate, in a common map, all the fresh positions of the characters. Of course, each group has his own map were players plot their actions and the referee giving them the information that they can know.

You have a lot of options. You must think about the plots, the NPC's, the characters, the place, the maps, the referees. Sometimes one player get upset with their "killer". A discussion can erupt. Characters feel more comfortable dying at the hands of an NPC.

But always, the better is when everything has finished and all the players get together. Some beers will help. Then everyone discovers the tricks of the others, the status and intentions of each group, the heroic deeds, the funny critical misses, who has killed who...

In short, a lot of work, but a very satisfactory experience.

[General Pain]

HQs campaign is basically a player vrs player campaign...I'll bet he would disagree but it's not so many sessions ago I beheaded a fellow PC with my 2 10gauge sawd off shotguns..

On the other hand it seems the whole world is out to get us so it might be more of a player vrs universe campaign....

In the olden days I had a D&D campaign with half the party good and the other half evil.... It was fun but a proved to be stressfull since I had to ask 50% of the players leave the room in intervals.....

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by General Pain

HQs campaign is basically a player vrs player campaign...I'll bet he would disagree but it's not so many sessions ago I beheaded a fellow PC with my 2 10gauge sawd off shotguns..

On the other hand it seems the whole world is out to get us so it might be more of a player vrs universe campaign....

In the olden days I had a D&D campaign with half the party good and the other half evil.... It was fun but a proved to be stressfull since I had to ask 50% of the players leave the room in intervals.....

I wouldnt say that it is a player vs player campaign from the outset -but it didnt last long before rivalry turned to infighting ,infighting to feuding and thus - civil war ,among my group of 5 players ..

The allegiances shift ,but normally the most powerful of the pc/warlords has to watch his back from 3 of the other envious plotters who secretly/semiopenly covet his position and connive to take it .one player normally allies himself with the top guy -getting all sorts of land grants,special gear and priveliges for it .

The list of player vs player "crimes" in our campaign list roughly as follows:
- PC-attempted murder by various instruments: probably 10 seperate ones
-PC takes out a contract on fellow player : app. 10 instances
-PC kills other PC outright : 1
-PC ousts PC in a military coup: 2
-PC imprisons PC/PCs family in medieval conditions for longer periods of time:3
-PC sides with NPCs against PC : 5-10 ?
-PC robs PC himself or by NPC : countless
-PC wages regular war on PCs fief forcing concessions: 2
-PC vS PC threats : XXXXXX

This is a top of my head list -many items I am sure have been left out ..

But I dont encourage such actions by my PCs as a GM.
On the contrary I encourage cooperation,honour,compassion,loyalty and esprite de corps-sadly my players dont believe in these values -and sneer at eachother and scramble for their own hides or interests as soon as they face ANY danger or ANY situation where there is profit.

This can make for a good laugh and a good game also-after all-they cant all be paladins can they ? Some are rogues ,cowards and bad men also .

I can usually get some sort of cohesion and team spirit out of the gang if they are alone ,faced with grave danger or /and overwhelming odds and if their resources are depleted.When they are stranded ,out of ammo,hounded and hunted like animals,fighting their enemies for every inch-thats when they will shine -saving eachother,showing courage ( pencil and paper courage -but still..),act with the groups interests in mind..Thats when they know that if one man goes down its one less between them and the same fate -its 20% less fighters on their side -its selfpreservation through team effort .

[Targan]

I've had countless instances of PvP in other games I have run, especially in my last Gunmaster Cyberpunk 2020 campaign but PvP hasn't really been an issue in my Gunmaster T2K campaign. There have been a few minor incidents and certainly PCs have considered acting against each other but since Major Po has been in charge there has been virtually none of that. I think it is due to naked fear of Po.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Waaayyyy back when, there was a guy running multi group game. One group was NATO, one group was Warsaw Pact and the third group was in it for themselves. IIRC, he was trying to run a Kelly's Heroes type game, where there was some gold stashed away somewhere and all three parties were trying to recover it.

He used to have sites up on geocities, but knowing geocities, they are probably gone now.

Come to think of it, you could run this with King's Ransom, Last Submarine (MilGov, CivGov, NA, and other warlords trying to get the sub), Black Madonna (MilGov, CivGov, KGB, GRU, Krakow, Margrave of Silesia and other warlords)

ummmmm and one time in another now defunct campaign, my pc intentionally shot another pc.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've had countless instances of PvP in other games I have run, especially in my last Gunmaster Cyberpunk 2020 campaign but PvP hasn't really been an issue in my Gunmaster T2K campaign. There have been a few minor incidents and certainly PCs have considered acting against each other but since Major Po has been in charge there has been virtually none of that. I think it is due to naked fear of Po.

Yes, I've had quite a bit of intraparty tension in my campaign as well. A little adds some interesting dynamics but I've found that too much drama starts dragging players down. Some players don't seem to realize that, in many ways, T2K is a team game.

Yes, Boogie, that's the sort of thing I was thinking about. Free City of Krakow would make a good PvP setting as well- CIA, DIA, KGB, GRU, Mossad, ORMO, Marauders... it almost makes one's head spin.

[Snake Eyes]

I ran a 1-shot PvP game session back in high school where one team was the surviving crew of a downed B-52 and the other team was a squad of Russians chasing them down. Not a lot of roleplaying involved in that one, but the combat was fun. More tactical wargame than RPG. It was a great way to kill an afternoon, but I imagine turning it into a long-term F2F campaign would have taken a lot of work. I think the grouping feature on RPoL could make that work well on an ongoing basis in a PbP game, though.

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

I think the grouping feature on RPoL could make that work well on an ongoing basis in a PbP game, though.

I have pondered this notion many...many......MANY times.

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I wouldnt say that it is a player vs player campaign from the outset -but it didnt last long before rivalry turned to infighting ,infighting to feuding and thus - civil war ,among my group of 5 players ..

The allegiances shift ,but normally the most powerful of the pc/warlords has to watch his back from 3 of the other envious plotters who secretly/semiopenly covet his position and connive to take it .one player normally allies himself with the top guy -getting all sorts of land grants,special gear and priveliges for it .

The list of player vs player "crimes" in our campaign list roughly as follows:
- PC-attempted murder by various instruments: probably 10 seperate ones
-PC takes out a contract on fellow player : app. 10 instances
-PC kills other PC outright : 1
-PC ousts PC in a military coup: 2
-PC imprisons PC/PCs family in medieval conditions for longer periods of time:3
-PC sides with NPCs against PC : 5-10 ?
-PC robs PC himself or by NPC : countless
-PC wages regular war on PCs fief forcing concessions: 2
-PC vS PC threats : XXXXXX

This is a top of my head list -many items I am sure have been left out ..

But I dont encourage such actions by my PCs as a GM.
On the contrary I encourage cooperation,honour,compassion,loyalty and esprite de corps-sadly my players dont believe in these values -and sneer at eachother and scramble for their own hides or interests as soon as they face ANY danger or ANY situation where there is profit.

This can make for a good laugh and a good game also-after all-they cant all be paladins can they ? Some are rogues ,cowards and bad men also .

I can usually get some sort of cohesion and team spirit out of the gang if they are alone ,faced with grave danger or /and overwhelming odds and if their resources are depleted.When they are stranded ,out of ammo,hounded and hunted like animals,fighting their enemies for every inch-thats when they will shine -saving eachother,showing courage ( pencil and paper courage -but still..),act with the groups interests in mind..Thats when they know that if one man goes down its one less between them and the same fate -its 20% less fighters on their side -its selfpreservation through team effort .

Anti-paladins are paladins too.....

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I wouldnt say that it is a player vs player campaign from the outset -but it didnt last long before rivalry turned to infighting ,infighting to feuding and thus - civil war ,among my group of 5 players ..

The allegiances shift ,but normally the most powerful of the pc/warlords has to watch his back from 3 of the other envious plotters who secretly/semiopenly covet his position and connive to take it .one player normally allies himself with the top guy -getting all sorts of land grants,special gear and priveliges for it .

The list of player vs player "crimes" in our campaign list roughly as follows:
- PC-attempted murder by various instruments: probably 10 seperate ones
-PC takes out a contract on fellow player : app. 10 instances
-PC kills other PC outright : 1
-PC ousts PC in a military coup: 2
-PC imprisons PC/PCs family in medieval conditions for longer periods of time:3
-PC sides with NPCs against PC : 5-10 ?
-PC robs PC himself or by NPC : countless
-PC wages regular war on PCs fief forcing concessions: 2
-PC vS PC threats : XXXXXX

This is a top of my head list -many items I am sure have been left out ..

But I dont encourage such actions by my PCs as a GM.
On the contrary I encourage cooperation,honour,compassion,loyalty and esprite de corps-sadly my players dont believe in these values -and sneer at eachother and scramble for their own hides or interests as soon as they face ANY danger or ANY situation where there is profit.

This can make for a good laugh and a good game also-after all-they cant all be paladins can they ? Some are rogues ,cowards and bad men also .

I can usually get some sort of cohesion and team spirit out of the gang if they are alone ,faced with grave danger or /and overwhelming odds and if their resources are depleted.When they are stranded ,out of ammo,hounded and hunted like animals,fighting their enemies for every inch-thats when they will shine -saving eachother,showing courage ( pencil and paper courage -but still..),act with the groups interests in mind..Thats when they know that if one man goes down its one less between them and the same fate -its 20% less fighters on their side -its selfpreservation through team effort .

BTW: I had a just cause for all of my actions - even when it seems incomprahensible to my fellow players---- my conscience is clean and I usually sleep as a baby (u know silence with some intermissions of moodswings and loud screaming)