Opportunity Actions: Multi-Focus Campaigns

Ok, while my Tarrasque encounter is simmering down to a delicious little event, I’d like to talk about something I’ve long held a fascination for: the multi-focus campaign. If you listen to the latest Dungeon Master Guys podcast, Dave “The Game” does a pretty good segment that hits some of the basics of the multi-focus campaign. We’ve seen this sort of thing before:

• Frodo and Sam have to go to Mordor, but the rest of the gang decide to go orc-trouncing.
• Luke Skywalker goes to learn about the force, while Han and Leia make out inside an asteroid.
• Even Scooby-Doo and Shaggy ran off to have snacks so that the rest of the Scooby gang could actually *solve* the mystery.

This creates a great model for grand-scale storytelling, but can we apply these ideas to our D&D games? I’ll do the exploring, and you can decide for yourself. I’ll break it down by numbers of people involved.

1 DM, 1 Player Group

This is an idea I’ve tried before. You get 1 DM, and his players have an array of characters that they play. Sometimes, it’s done as a flashback. Sometimes, one group is in a different part of the game world. It could be that the characters know each other, either by association or reputation. Regardless of the possible connections, there is one thing that I think is essential to the reason for doing this: cohesion. Parallel to the idea that characters need a reason to adventure together, there needs to be a good reason to justify the involvement of all these “extra” heroes.

Also important is unity of purpose. There can be individuals who don’t necessarily have goals that follow the plot arc, but that’s fine, assuming they’ll eventually come around to the goals of the greater good.

Pros:

• Deeper story elements
• Character deaths don’t need to be as devestating

Cons:

• It’s sometimes hard to keep track of all the different characters, especially for the DM.

1 DM, 2 Or More Groups

This is something I actually played in, and let me tell you, the work here can be mind-blowing. I was involved in a campaign for a few years that I later found out had been going on some 10 years prior. Adding on to this, I met someone from the original group, and we traded stories back and forth as though we were talking real world history. This idea works if you are playing a game and people’s real lives (what are those?) interfere. It also works if the campaign wraps up, but one or more people feel there are stories left untold.

Pros:

• The “Endless Story” model (a campaign with no clear ending)  can really come into its own here.
• This campiagn can survive rotating players like no other.

Cons:

• Do you really want to commit 15+ years of your life to just 1 idea? If yes, you’re braver than I am.

2 Or More DMs, 2 Or More Groups

Here’s where it gets fun. Or complicated. Or both. This can take many forms, from the group rotating DMing responsibilities to a full-on living campaign, like Living Forgotten Realms. Now, I have nowhere near the reach to address the LFR, but I can comment on the rotating DM concept.

How does this work, you may ask? There are many ways it can, obviously, but I’d like to focus on a framework where there’s a regular order. What order you follow relies heavily on those involved. It could rotate by session, adventure, a time allotment, whatever. The important point here is that one person runs the game, and then at a regular interval, running of the game shifts to another player, in some pre-determined order. Each DM follows the main “spine” for the campaign, but explores different aspects of the story. This will require A LOT of preplotting, before everyone goes off in their own directions. One or more people involved can even run an evil campaign, playing out the other side of the story. Personally, I think this would be a great experience, and everyone involved would have the opportunity to get the same amount/kind of satisfaction out of seeing this through.

Pros

• Minimized DM burnout. We’ve all seen it. The DM can’t keep focus. The game’s weighing on him, but he plugs on, trying his best not to disappoint his friends who come with faithful buy-in to every session. Imagine how different it could be if everyone shared the burden.
• Deep, interwoven plots. If two players get inspired, their plots could begin to tie in closely to each other, playing either side of a war, for example, or having both groups hear about each other’s exploits as they travel from one place to another. The possibilities are endless, and being a player in both games could lead to exciting places.
• Crossovers. Like good comic books, people will want to see what happens when favorite characters meet certain other favorite characters, and there’s no reason why this shouldn’t happen. The logistics might get a hair complicated, but the payoff could be phenominal.

Cons:

• Metagaming. This could get meta in a hurry (“My character died last week in Steve’s game. I’m running this week. Steve’s going down!”). That can put a strain on friendships, and we all know, even when there isn’t that level of control shared by all, it’s bad. So, recognize it early. Don’t let the game be the reason knees get skinned. That’s just good advice in general.
• Bad attention span. You know it’ll happen. There’s that one guy in your group who, while a great weaver of tales, will get so wrapped up in his own story that your overall plot will look like this:

So, try to fix it. Talk to the guy. If he won’t budge, it’s time to pull out the magic retcon pen, and set things right. Oh, and mess with his continuity. It’ll drive him nuts.

Conclusions

Is this an exhaustive cataloguing? Not by any means.  But, hopefully it opens the door for these kinds of collaborative games, and the stories shared ca be legendary.

As always, be sure to comment, and keep an eye on those threatened squares. (Did I just find a catchphrase?)

Cheese photo is property of Getty Images, and, of course, it stands alone.