I am DMing for the first time in a homebrew setting. Basically, nature is declaring war on civilization and attacks are starting to happen. There are players on both sides of the conflict. It is set up to be very “chose your own adventure” with both sides being fairly grey/ neutral and lots of different paths to end the conflict.
Because I have players on both sides of the upcoming war, I was planning on an unconventional starting encounter to get them all into the same party. I plan on having 3 groups. 1) the civilization side escorting an important diplomat to the capital city 2) a group of elves/ nature supporters that attack them with the goal of killing the diplomat and 3) my monk player and his master (he is a duality/ balance monk with a master that is well known and respected by both sides).
Basically, half way into the fight between the civilization side and the nature side, the monk’s master would intervene. He warns that this battle would have dire consequences and escalate the war. Neither side would benefit from the chaos it will bring. He gives his life to resurrect any fallen NPCs and tasks his student with the protection of an important artifact and getting the diplomat to the capital safely. The attackers understand the importance of the master’s words and sacrifice and agree to call off the attack. The ensure that this gesture is not taken advantage of, they send the party members on nature’s side to go with the monk and the civilization side escorting the diplomat. The diplomat, seeing the master’s sacrifice, will vouch for them when they reach the capital and protect them from harm.
The idea is that they are thrown in together in an uneasy truce under the request of their superiors. Over time, they will come to see the reasons for both side’s actions and have to figure out together how to keep the peace.
My question is, does anyone with some experience have any suggestions for how to make this plan work? I was planning on having a session 0 with each side to establish what they are doing and what the goals will be in session 1. Beyond that, I am kinda winging it and hoping that the combat does not get too out of hand. I plan to have plenty of NPCs to hopefully prevent the party from directly attacking one another, but that may add to interesting party conflict if it happens.
How well do you know your players is my first thought? It a big risk. Most players, when they start a fight, they keep fighting until everyone on the other side is dead or they are. Now, in their heads, the players may metagame and realize they're actually supposed to end up working together, so they might be willing to listen to the old monk and stop. But, in character, why would they stop? Why would the nature side allow the diplomat to go? That's a high-value target right there. Maybe they could be convinced to capture him, but I doubt they'd just let him go. If you have people that will play their characters in-character, no matter what, you could end up with some real problems.
Having intra-party conflict, as long as it stays at the character level and doesn't bleed over into player problems, can be great. But that takes me back to the first question of, do you know the players well enough to trust them to go along with your plans? Because it seems like there's a lot of ways this could go wrong.
And I would not do the session 0 with each side separately. You're all on the same team: Team, let's play the game and have fun all together. Don't start introducing us-versus-them mentalities before you even start playing.
The first suggestion that's coming to mind is to actually start everyone on the same team -- let the party pick which during session 0 and make characters accordingly. Then, over the course of the campaign, as they are exposed to other ideas and the other side (maybe an NPC prisoner or two), they realize maybe the other guys have some good points. And maybe they run into some corruption on their own side and realize they aren't the perfect good guys they had thought they were. Then after they have more information, they have to commit to one side or the other.
You may want to consider replacing the altruistic NPC’s ‘heroic sacrifice’ with the revelation of a 3rd party that seeks to stoke the conflict between nature/civilization. Self sacrifice is great when players are the ones doing it, but an NPC doing it just doesn’t carry the same weight (least of all in session 1).
By introducing a BBEG (maybe it turns out to be the master) you can provide motivation for the two sides to work together, the diplomat & monk would vouch for the actions of either party. They would petition their respective sides to cease the conflict (or at least slow it down for a time) while the two parties work towards solving the real problem.
I’m not confident that most parties would really dive into a ‘please stop the conflict because an NPC nobody is attached to asked you nicely’ campaign. While I’m sure you’ll set expectations in session 0, I think you may need to consider a stronger start. Hope this helps a little!
That is a good point. I know these players incredibly well. One is my boyfriend, all are friends of several years, and I have played other dnd campaigns in the past with all but one of them (some have been in multiple with me). The one player that I have not played with before is incredibly experienced and we have talked extensively about expectations and how the rest of us tend to play. They all are very well aware of the fact that this is my first time doing and they are aware of my plan to start them separately and have them join forces. I fully expect for them to play along. I am just hoping for tips on how to make it as smooth as possible. or perhaps alternatives to make it more interesting.
Admittedly, I was partially relying on them knowing that they are supposed to go together and the monk player being very vocal in urging the party to follow what his master said (we all know each other really well and ik he would do this).
I have also been posting campaign teasers before we start so they have a basic idea of some future plot points and lore in the world.
I think I will incorporate some reference to the *why* it's so bad if this plays out (basically the goddess of chaos is ******* around in the world and the disharmony is destabilizing magic). I have teased the gods and several party members have a personal connection to them. Still not so much a BBEG, but something that would be really bad. (Basically the idea is they are supposed to figure out that neither side is right and that the disharmony between them is the real threat). But u think you are right that is will help set the stakes and motivate them more.
It’s great that you have a supportive group for your first time DMing!
Sounds like the ‘disharmony’ is effectively the BBEG, you could consider manifesting that as a major artifact or (insert thing here) that is being tampered with. Once you have the ‘why’ figured out you can build it out from there.
I’m of the opinion that a strong start is the way to go, and it sounds like you have some really good ideas to build on. Your main challenge will be to keep the two parties on track, good luck!
I would suggest only running the combat for a round or two before the monk’s master intervenes. That way you’ll reduce the chances of party members fighting each other and maybe accidentally hurting each other in more than a superficial way.
I had another idea I’ll throw out. Basically current the plan is starting the campaign with a what is basically a railroad (a 1-encounter railroad, but still): There is one correct course of action, and if the players don’t take it, everything starts to go sideways pretty fast.
It’s kind of to the point that the players don’t really need to be there, since you’ve already decided how things are going to end before they start.
But you can get away with a bit of that at the beginning of any campaign, it’s a necessary contrivance to get everyone together. My thought is since the players don’t really have any agency about what happens in the fight, skip past it. So, what you could do is start things right after the monk stops all the fighting. Narrate the two sides eying each other warily, still breathing fast from the exertions of battle, while the monk explains how the opposite groups need to work together. This removes the chances that the PCs keep fighting each other anyway, or someone gets hit with a crit and just dies to another PC (because if the players don’t screw up your plans, the dice always will). If you write the intro well, you can still build the tension without the risks and just get to the part where they get to start making choices. As a side benefit, you can keep the monk alive. If they’re alive, you can always choose to use them again. Or at least let the characters get attached to him before you kill him, so his death will mean something and be more impactful.
Has anyone already said that this probably won't go as envisioned? As a fellow DM, I've learned to stay as far away from "then, the players will do X" as possible when planning.
The attackers understand the importance of the master’s words and sacrifice and agree to call off the attack. The ensure that this gesture is not taken advantage of, they send the party members on nature’s side to go with the monk and the civilization side escorting the diplomat. The diplomat, seeing the master’s sacrifice, will vouch for them when they reach the capital and protect them from harm.
The idea is that they are thrown in together in an uneasy truce under the request of their superiors. Over time, they will come to see the reasons for both side’s actions and have to figure out together how to keep the peace.
......
Beyond that, I am kinda winging it and hoping that the combat does not get too out of hand. I plan to have plenty of NPCs to hopefully prevent the party from directly attacking one another, but that may add to interesting party conflict if it happens.
I really hope it goes well, but generally players will be very uninformed compared to the DM when making decisions, and they can (and will) miss the point that you're trying to make, usually accidentally. Starting with an uneasy alliance is great, but starting the game with the players in direct conflict with one another is probably only something that a person who's been DMing for a while could pull off well. I've been doing it for close to 10 years and that idea still scares me!
Though at the end of the day you know your table best. If they trust you, and you know them enough to suspend their character's feelings for the sake of coming together as a party then that'd set up a very cool intro. I'd just be prepared for things to go sideways fast.
EDIT to add an example of what I mean: regardless of how it gets played out, the players WILL have an opinion on which side caused the "respected master" to die. Yes, he gave his life in the name of balance, but the fact remains that he died on the battlefield between these two. Maybe it won't come up, but it's something to think about.
I am DMing for the first time in a homebrew setting. Basically, nature is declaring war on civilization and attacks are starting to happen. There are players on both sides of the conflict. It is set up to be very “chose your own adventure” with both sides being fairly grey/ neutral and lots of different paths to end the conflict.
Because I have players on both sides of the upcoming war, I was planning on an unconventional starting encounter to get them all into the same party. I plan on having 3 groups. 1) the civilization side escorting an important diplomat to the capital city 2) a group of elves/ nature supporters that attack them with the goal of killing the diplomat and 3) my monk player and his master (he is a duality/ balance monk with a master that is well known and respected by both sides).
Basically, half way into the fight between the civilization side and the nature side, the monk’s master would intervene. He warns that this battle would have dire consequences and escalate the war. Neither side would benefit from the chaos it will bring. He gives his life to resurrect any fallen NPCs and tasks his student with the protection of an important artifact and getting the diplomat to the capital safely. The attackers understand the importance of the master’s words and sacrifice and agree to call off the attack. The ensure that this gesture is not taken advantage of, they send the party members on nature’s side to go with the monk and the civilization side escorting the diplomat. The diplomat, seeing the master’s sacrifice, will vouch for them when they reach the capital and protect them from harm.
The idea is that they are thrown in together in an uneasy truce under the request of their superiors. Over time, they will come to see the reasons for both side’s actions and have to figure out together how to keep the peace.
My question is, does anyone with some experience have any suggestions for how to make this plan work? I was planning on having a session 0 with each side to establish what they are doing and what the goals will be in session 1. Beyond that, I am kinda winging it and hoping that the combat does not get too out of hand. I plan to have plenty of NPCs to hopefully prevent the party from directly attacking one another, but that may add to interesting party conflict if it happens.
How well do you know your players is my first thought? It a big risk. Most players, when they start a fight, they keep fighting until everyone on the other side is dead or they are. Now, in their heads, the players may metagame and realize they're actually supposed to end up working together, so they might be willing to listen to the old monk and stop. But, in character, why would they stop? Why would the nature side allow the diplomat to go? That's a high-value target right there. Maybe they could be convinced to capture him, but I doubt they'd just let him go. If you have people that will play their characters in-character, no matter what, you could end up with some real problems.
Having intra-party conflict, as long as it stays at the character level and doesn't bleed over into player problems, can be great. But that takes me back to the first question of, do you know the players well enough to trust them to go along with your plans? Because it seems like there's a lot of ways this could go wrong.
And I would not do the session 0 with each side separately. You're all on the same team: Team, let's play the game and have fun all together. Don't start introducing us-versus-them mentalities before you even start playing.
The first suggestion that's coming to mind is to actually start everyone on the same team -- let the party pick which during session 0 and make characters accordingly. Then, over the course of the campaign, as they are exposed to other ideas and the other side (maybe an NPC prisoner or two), they realize maybe the other guys have some good points. And maybe they run into some corruption on their own side and realize they aren't the perfect good guys they had thought they were. Then after they have more information, they have to commit to one side or the other.
You may want to consider replacing the altruistic NPC’s ‘heroic sacrifice’ with the revelation of a 3rd party that seeks to stoke the conflict between nature/civilization. Self sacrifice is great when players are the ones doing it, but an NPC doing it just doesn’t carry the same weight (least of all in session 1).
By introducing a BBEG (maybe it turns out to be the master) you can provide motivation for the two sides to work together, the diplomat & monk would vouch for the actions of either party. They would petition their respective sides to cease the conflict (or at least slow it down for a time) while the two parties work towards solving the real problem.
I’m not confident that most parties would really dive into a ‘please stop the conflict because an NPC nobody is attached to asked you nicely’ campaign. While I’m sure you’ll set expectations in session 0, I think you may need to consider a stronger start. Hope this helps a little!
That is a good point. I know these players incredibly well. One is my boyfriend, all are friends of several years, and I have played other dnd campaigns in the past with all but one of them (some have been in multiple with me). The one player that I have not played with before is incredibly experienced and we have talked extensively about expectations and how the rest of us tend to play. They all are very well aware of the fact that this is my first time doing and they are aware of my plan to start them separately and have them join forces. I fully expect for them to play along. I am just hoping for tips on how to make it as smooth as possible. or perhaps alternatives to make it more interesting.
Admittedly, I was partially relying on them knowing that they are supposed to go together and the monk player being very vocal in urging the party to follow what his master said (we all know each other really well and ik he would do this).
I have also been posting campaign teasers before we start so they have a basic idea of some future plot points and lore in the world.
I think I will incorporate some reference to the *why* it's so bad if this plays out (basically the goddess of chaos is ******* around in the world and the disharmony is destabilizing magic). I have teased the gods and several party members have a personal connection to them. Still not so much a BBEG, but something that would be really bad. (Basically the idea is they are supposed to figure out that neither side is right and that the disharmony between them is the real threat). But u think you are right that is will help set the stakes and motivate them more.
It’s great that you have a supportive group for your first time DMing!
Sounds like the ‘disharmony’ is effectively the BBEG, you could consider manifesting that as a major artifact or (insert thing here) that is being tampered with. Once you have the ‘why’ figured out you can build it out from there.
I’m of the opinion that a strong start is the way to go, and it sounds like you have some really good ideas to build on. Your main challenge will be to keep the two parties on track, good luck!
This sounds like a great idea! Good luck :).
I would suggest only running the combat for a round or two before the monk’s master intervenes. That way you’ll reduce the chances of party members fighting each other and maybe accidentally hurting each other in more than a superficial way.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I had another idea I’ll throw out.
Basically current the plan is starting the campaign with a what is basically a railroad (a 1-encounter railroad, but still): There is one correct course of action, and if the players don’t take it, everything starts to go sideways pretty fast.
It’s kind of to the point that the players don’t really need to be there, since you’ve already decided how things are going to end before they start.
But you can get away with a bit of that at the beginning of any campaign, it’s a necessary contrivance to get everyone together. My thought is since the players don’t really have any agency about what happens in the fight, skip past it. So, what you could do is start things right after the monk stops all the fighting. Narrate the two sides eying each other warily, still breathing fast from the exertions of battle, while the monk explains how the opposite groups need to work together. This removes the chances that the PCs keep fighting each other anyway, or someone gets hit with a crit and just dies to another PC (because if the players don’t screw up your plans, the dice always will). If you write the intro well, you can still build the tension without the risks and just get to the part where they get to start making choices.
As a side benefit, you can keep the monk alive. If they’re alive, you can always choose to use them again. Or at least let the characters get attached to him before you kill him, so his death will mean something and be more impactful.
Has anyone already said that this probably won't go as envisioned? As a fellow DM, I've learned to stay as far away from "then, the players will do X" as possible when planning.
I really hope it goes well, but generally players will be very uninformed compared to the DM when making decisions, and they can (and will) miss the point that you're trying to make, usually accidentally. Starting with an uneasy alliance is great, but starting the game with the players in direct conflict with one another is probably only something that a person who's been DMing for a while could pull off well. I've been doing it for close to 10 years and that idea still scares me!
Though at the end of the day you know your table best. If they trust you, and you know them enough to suspend their character's feelings for the sake of coming together as a party then that'd set up a very cool intro. I'd just be prepared for things to go sideways fast.
EDIT to add an example of what I mean: regardless of how it gets played out, the players WILL have an opinion on which side caused the "respected master" to die. Yes, he gave his life in the name of balance, but the fact remains that he died on the battlefield between these two. Maybe it won't come up, but it's something to think about.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?