So I would like to hear what you guys think…

So I would like to hear what you guys think…

So I would like to hear what you guys think…

I would like a run a dungeon world game in a third-person omniscient style, taking a story for example of one of the character’s “child/beloved/sworn escort” being kidnapped and marched off to be “sold as slaves/sacrificed in a ritual/married against their will” in a distant land.

I want to keep the pace and tension of the story effective by switching back and forth from the Big Bad’s travel group including the hostage and the valiant band of heroes engaging on a journey to catch up and rescue the hostage.

I have ideas such as…

“1 session focus of questing party then 1 session focus on baddies/hostages” But I don’t know if that would be too much.

Other issues involve…

“should the players switch and play hostages in a survival against the elements and hardships of unjust treatment?*” or…

“Important named bad guys in the band of baddies who must survive the journey and the cruel nature of their leader”

I would like to know how you guys think best to…

Play a third-person omniscient campaign

How the players should play the 2nd group

8 thoughts on “So I would like to hear what you guys think…”

  1. A problem that occurs to me is that if you have them play baddie characters, and then eventually the good guys catch up, will the players be into having one set of their characters trying to kill another set of their characters?  

    You may be in somewhat uncharted territory here.  The closest I’ve ever come is occasionally having players take the roles of secondary characters in scenes when their primary PCs are absent.  Which can be fun!  But they’re not really fully playing the secondary characters – they don’t have character sheets, and the GM retains a say in what they want and what they do.

    I guess my suggestion would be to start each session with a single scene or short interlude with the bad guys & hostages, then switch back to primarily focus on the chase group.  Dunno if that’s what you want, though. 

  2. I love the idea, it seems the only hurdle is player buy-in. It’s sometimes harder for some folks to get into things if they don’t have that first-person investment.

    I would switch back and forth between the groups during a single session, perhaps after short breaks so people can shift gears. I think you can get a richer sense of narrative that way, through finding the right times to “cut” from one scene to the next and making them feel directly related.

    I would have them play the bad guys, no question. Getting into the mindset of and sympathizing with the opposition has the potential for epic drama, and it’s just so much more interesting. But it will require some serious shifting of gears on the part of your players.

    Would love to hear how it goes, after the fact!  

  3. colin roald I like your suggestion for the scene switch, a few minutes of insight into the situation of the hostages and baddies may be better than a session’s worth.

    When I used Baddie Characters I might wish to insert “not exactly completely evil”. A henchman who gets the dirty job of scouting the path and treated poorly by the big bad, the second in command who tries to hide his compassion for the hostages, or a warrior who is forced to serve for the sake of his family.

    All these are “Baddie” characters the heroes may catch up, be face to face with and might not just end with a simple duel to the death. In other words, it gives the opportunity for the players to flesh out characters making fans of characters on both sides rather than chase a quest goal all campaign. This is the way I see Developing bad guys appropriate (You may even get the bonus of being able to fight Goody forces and opposition).

    If this worked, the players could enjoy in anticipation in having a different style and mind to play with, not to mention interacting with the hostage and big bad bringing more focus on the goal.

  4. When it comes time for the confrontation, how do you think you’ll orchestrate it?  A few options that seem possible to me are:

    * Baddie characters revert to the GM and the PCs fight as normal, just with some more fleshed-out and sympathetic opponents

    * Players attempt to play both sides of the scene at once (not sure how well this will work, but you can try it)

    * Careful fictional positioning so that the Good Guy of one player only ever engages Bad Guys of different players.  Then resolve using usual PVP techniques (which, admittedly, are not a strength of DW)

    It could be awesome if you make it work.  But it doesn’t sound easy.

  5. Jason Lutes The fact is I got the idea from the Redwall book Mattimeo.

    And I do agree giving the players personal development of a possible rival character makes for a better “Penultimate Boss Fight”

    Everyone loves when the hostage says “Oh (Hero) please be safe…” to jump cut to him dangling for his life as a great beast towers over him. That has to happen.

    I’ll definitely post the results.

  6. Following on Colin’s idea about the confrontation scene, I would consider allowing the individual players to choose at that point which characters they want to play, regardless of side, and have the GM control whomever’s left.

  7. colin roald *IF* the baddies the players controlled WANT to fight, then options 1 seems the best. Notes would need to be taken to make said custom enemy with a note on particular goal or possible preferred target.

    option 2 would only work if the role playing wouldn’t prove too difficult, otherwise I think it could be a mess.

    option 3 might work if the baddie characters somehow detached or got lost, something that would make him a sitting duck to be found.

    Jason Lutes idea would be the choice I would make if this option came to be.

    This is only IF the Baddie characters are chosen or forced to engage the hero party in combat. After all, the final conflict is open to different outcomes.

    Play to see what happens. “Does the 2nd in command, who cares deeply for the enslaved child, clash blades with the child’s father who faced death and Hades just to embrace him, or does he turn his blade instead on his master, committing treason and risk the wrath of his master. “

Comments are closed.