Two groups, same scenario?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post


Because of the amount of players and the distance between them I need to have two groups however they both want a game of D&D as soon as possible. Would it be okay to give them the same scenario? They all know each other and I'm a bit worried about them telling the other group what's going to happen, especially since it will be very likely that one group will be meeting more often than the other. Part of me really wants to see how differently the two groups will react since they're very different age groups.
If I don't get a scenario for both groups it will be likely that they can't play due to bad snow.
I've never DMed before and I'd love the help.



They all know each other and I'm a bit worried about them telling the other group what's going to happen

Avoid putting yourself or your players in a position in which foreknowledge or inside knowledge about the game or the scenario could make it less enjoyable for anyone involved. Doing otherwise puts the DM in the position of policing the players, and getting upset if they somehow figure things out. That's not a stable place to stand.

[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy



Because of the amount of players and the distance between them I need to have two groups however they both want a game of D&D as soon as possible. Would it be okay to give them the same scenario? They all know each other and I'm a bit worried about them telling the other group what's going to happen, especially since it will be very likely that one group will be meeting more often than the other. Part of me really wants to see how differently the two groups will react since they're very different age groups.
If I don't get a scenario for both groups it will be likely that they can't play due to bad snow.
I've never DMed before and I'd love the help.






When My most recent campaign began I almost had to split it into two groups, and my plan was to have them play in the same setting. In fact if you ever read Chris Perkins' DM articles, he regularly talks about his homebrew world and his monday night and wednight groups, in which both run in the same world. I recall reading at least once he even had them both play on one night as a sort of fun thing. Pretty sure it's something he didn't recomend (although that may have been due to the two groups having significantly different play styles.)
What you could do is have the second group active in the same campagin/world, but they are a few days behind the first group.

Could add intresting things like : Both groups are sent to clear out a goblin infested cave system. First group clears it. As the second group comes upon the cave, they notice alot of dead bodies. This would draw the attention of different monsters or even  one of the first group of monsters gets away and comes back with back up to take back the caves. You could have the second group have to fight their way out rather than in.

Or have someone in the first group unknowing, or knowingly wrong someone from the second group. The second group could be chasing them down. A twist on that could be have the second group be in the service of a BBEG, and he has sent them after the first group.  That is a dynamic I have always wanted to try.
What you could do is have the second group active in the same campagin/world, but they are a few days behind the first group.

Could add intresting things like : Both groups are sent to clear out a goblin infested cave system. First group clears it. As the second group comes upon the cave, they notice alot of dead bodies. This would draw the attention of different monsters or even  one of the first group of monsters gets away and comes back with back up to take back the caves. You could have the second group have to fight their way out rather than in.

Or have someone in the first group unknowing, or knowingly wrong someone from the second group. The second group could be chasing them down. A twist on that could be have the second group be in the service of a BBEG, and he has sent them after the first group.  That is a dynamic I have always wanted to try.




My original plan at the start of my campaign had the second group 100 years ahead of my first group and I planned to have the sessions staggered 2 weeks apart. that way, anything the first group did in a world that was relatively new and untouched, greatly effected the world in the future, the kind of cities and places there were etc, effectively forming the world for the second group, perhaps including the second group finding heroic monuments of the first group and so fourth. The idea never came to fruition though, and it would have been a lot of work.
I have done a lot of run throughs of the exact same campaign since I wrote it a few years ago.  The campaign is designed to take players from level 1 to 20 and it builds itself like a choose-your-own adventure novel.  Basically I outlined a series of decisions the players could make that would effect the outcome of which path they took.  They all started in the same place, but a lot of little choices in the beginning drastically effected how the party percieved things and they split into completely different groups going different ways.

Let me give an example.

My campaign opens up with a festival in a coastal village celebrating the halfway point of the "dry" season. During the festival people can air out their greivances and talk about the coming year.  A guy from a nearby city is talking about the city making a garrison in the town and basically explaining why it would be great for the city (1).  During the festival the players talk to different NPCs about different things going on in the town (2)(3).  As the festival starts to wind down for the day there is a caravan of wounded people that comes into town (4).  As they are helping the wounded people a huge storm is seen on the horizon blowing towards the town (5).

 Once in the storm shelter the people are scared and two different factions try to calm them.  One is the innkeeper, one is the speaker from out of town (6).  As the storm hits there is a knock on the door and a wounded person asks to be let in from the dangers of the storm.  It is quickly revealed that this person is one of the Rebels (7).  After a little bit of time, whether they let him in or not, the storm continues to worsen and another group of people comes seeking shelter.  This time they are a group of well-armed, well-equipped soldiers who are clearly displaying rebel colors.  I make it clear to the players that they would not be an easy group to beat if it came to a fight.  The soldiers swear on their honor to do no harm, they only want shelter (8).  

If the players leave the people outside the storm worsens and it becomes clear that the people outside are going to die from lack of shelter.  Depending on who they left outside, if any, they may try to forcefully break into the shelter and a fight may break out. If they let people in they find that the group of Rebels was tracking the lone rebel to kill him for betraying them.  They won't break their word to keep their weapons in place, but loudly talk about what they are going to do to the other rebel once the storm clears.  The players are given the opportunity to help the situation if they choose (9).

Show


1: What they think about the proposition.  This can be based on backstory or how the players take my speech.  He also speaks at length of the atrocities of a Rebel faction located between the city and the town.
2: There are bandits in the woods to the north.  They learn this if they talk to mostly out of towners.
3: Notice the innkeeper is basically the leader of the town, but keeps talking to a crippled man who he keeps to himself but to whom the innkeeper seems to defer.  They notice this if they talk to mostly townsfolk.
4: Depending on if they help, how much they help, and what they learn from this effects things greatly.  In general the players learn from the speaker from out of town that there is a rebel faction that causes problems and that this rebel faction attacked the caravan.
5: They can choose to take shelter in the town, or I had mentioned a cave to the East where the town takes shelter in times of the great storms.  They do not know it yet, but taking shelter in the town will lead to a skill challenge of getting to the shelter once they realize how bad the storm really is.
6: They use different arguments to calm the people.  The players are prompted to aid on one arguement or the other to help calm the populace.
7: The innkeeper and the speaker each make a case for letting the person in, or not letting the person in.  They have to pick sides.  If they do not pick a side the speaker wins and the guy is left in the storm.
8: The actually will abide by their word, but need the PCs to convince them to let them inside.  This time the argument against them is much stronger as a lot of the wounded people inside are scared.
9: They may learn this is a matter of honor between the lone soldier and the group and that one of the members of the group really doesn't want to go through with it.  He is the lone soldier's brother and will kill his brother over an issue of honor but with a heavy heart.  The players, if they like this story line, can choose to help ease the situation.


It continues from there, but you get the idea.  Now your players are much more likely, even experienced players, to believe you have a specific path set in mind.  Like there is an order to the opperations and they have to find it.  As long as you keep it open you can have the players feel like, if they are thinking about things, that they are always picking the right path.  Any obstacles or problems in their way tend to be seen as parts of the story built to be in their way.  During one of the times where two groups started on this campaign at the same time two of my players, one from each group, sat down and started talkinga bout the campaign.  They had been playing for a half-dozen sessions and their paths had diverged so wildly that they each thought the way they had gone had been the "main plot" but in their minds the two end results were so radically different that the othe group must have done something wrong.  Missed something along the way and gotten distracted.  Through 12 iterations of this campaign (soon to start on a 13th) no two groups have picked the same path, so the problem was avoided pretty easily.

The key to making this work is to set up a series of decisions you think the players can take and write down into your little chart anything the players do during the session that you didn't account for.  Between sessions see if you can see how they effect other things down the line.  Flow Charts work well for this.  Its easy because it doesn't work with a lot of specifics and you don't have to write a book.  Just a simple either or answer to a lot of things and the story continues down a path.  If they choose to side with the innkeeper and his people things go one way.  If they choose to go with the speaker things go another way.  

From this simple opening I've had groups get into discussions with other out-of-towners and decide that the Bandits were the real problem and go do that.  I've had groups decide that the speaker's point of view makes a lot of sense and that a lot of money could be had making the town agree to put the garrison in and go with him.  I've had groups join the rebels, or join the town against the rebels.  I've had groups that decide that the storm, so out of place at this time of year, is the real plotline and venture off to learn more about that.

The most important thing, in my perspective, for running a story more than once is to keep it interesting for you as DM.  If your players are constantly coming up with new stuff, or picking different lines of adventure that the other groups haven't picked then its really fun to see where they take it.  Since they make so many different choices if Group 1 ends up at level 5 in the area group 2 was in at level 1 then their have been a lot of changes.  The old problems have either gone away or exploded out of proportion.  New changes are constantly happening in a magical world.

Sorry, that was a huge wall of text, but I do these sorts of campaigns a lot so it was something I felt I could weigh in on. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Avoid putting yourself or your players in a position in which foreknowledge or inside knowledge about the game or the scenario could make it less enjoyable for anyone involved. Doing otherwise puts the DM in the position of policing the players, and getting upset if they somehow figure things out. That's not a stable place to stand.


How woud I do that without having a very simple plot?



When My most recent campaign began I almost had to split it into two groups, and my plan was to have them play in the same setting. In fact if you ever read Chris Perkins' DM articles, he regularly talks about his homebrew world and his monday night and wednight groups, in which both run in the same world. I recall reading at least once he even had them both play on one night as a sort of fun thing. Pretty sure it's something he didn't recomend (although that may have been due to the two groups having significantly different play styles.)


My two groups have extreamly different styles mosty due to their ages: in one most of them are adults and in the other most of them are under 13.


What you could do is have the second group active in the same campagin/world, but they are a few days behind the first group.
Could add intresting things like : Both groups are sent to clear out a goblin infested cave system. First group clears it. As the second group comes upon the cave, they notice alot of dead bodies. This would draw the attention of different monsters or even  one of the first group of monsters gets away and comes back with back up to take back the caves. You could have the second group have to fight their way out rather than in.
Or have someone in the first group unknowing, or knowingly wrong someone from the second group. The second group could be chasing them down. A twist on that could be have the second group be in the service of a BBEG, and he has sent them after the first group.  That is a dynamic I have always wanted to try.


I might inclued that a little. Maybe start with the same scenario but as they two groups go different ways inculed things one group has caused in to the other. I'd probably try to have it so the two groups are running in the same timeline.



My original plan at the start of my campaign had the second group 100 years ahead of my first group and I planned to have the sessions staggered 2 weeks apart. that way, anything the first group did in a world that was relatively new and untouched, greatly effected the world in the future, the kind of cities and places there were etc, effectively forming the world for the second group, perhaps including the second group finding heroic monuments of the first group and so fourth. The idea never came to fruition though, and it would have been a lot of work.


I'd love to see that happen though I suppose if your first group didn't manage to play as often as the second it could cause problems.


I have done a lot of run throughs of the exact same campaign since I wrote it a few years ago.  The campaign is designed to take players from level 1 to 20 and it builds itself like a choose-your-own adventure novel.  Basically I outlined a series of decisions the players could make that would effect the outcome of which path they took.  They all started in the same place, but a lot of little choices in the beginning drastically effected how the party percieved things and they split into completely different groups going different ways.
Let me give an example.
My campaign opens up with a festival in a coastal village celebrating the halfway point of the "dry" season. During the festival people can air out their greivances and talk about the coming year.  A guy from a nearby city is talking about the city making a garrison in the town and basically explaining why it would be great for the city (1).  During the festival the players talk to different NPCs about different things going on in the town (2)(3).  As the festival starts to wind down for the day there is a caravan of wounded people that comes into town (4).  As they are helping the wounded people a huge storm is seen on the horizon blowing towards the town (5).
Once in the storm shelter the people are scared and two different factions try to calm them.  One is the innkeeper, one is the speaker from out of town (6).  As the storm hits there is a knock on the door and a wounded person asks to be let in from the dangers of the storm.  It is quickly revealed that this person is one of the Rebels (7).  After a little bit of time, whether they let him in or not, the storm continues to worsen and another group of people comes seeking shelter.  This time they are a group of well-armed, well-equipped soldiers who are clearly displaying rebel colors.  I make it clear to the players that they would not be an easy group to beat if it came to a fight.  The soldiers swear on their honor to do no harm, they only want shelter (8).  
If the players leave the people outside the storm worsens and it becomes clear that the people outside are going to die from lack of shelter.  Depending on who they left outside, if any, they may try to forcefully break into the shelter and a fight may break out. If they let people in they find that the group of Rebels was tracking the lone rebel to kill him for betraying them.  They won't break their word to keep their weapons in place, but loudly talk about what they are going to do to the other rebel once the storm clears.  The players are given the opportunity to help the situation if they choose (9).
Show

1: What they think about the proposition.  This can be based on backstory or how the players take my speech.  He also speaks at length of the atrocities of a Rebel faction located between the city and the town.
2: There are bandits in the woods to the north.  They learn this if they talk to mostly out of towners.
3: Notice the innkeeper is basically the leader of the town, but keeps talking to a crippled man who he keeps to himself but to whom the innkeeper seems to defer.  They notice this if they talk to mostly townsfolk.
4: Depending on if they help, how much they help, and what they learn from this effects things greatly.  In general the players learn from the speaker from out of town that there is a rebel faction that causes problems and that this rebel faction attacked the caravan.
5: They can choose to take shelter in the town, or I had mentioned a cave to the East where the town takes shelter in times of the great storms.  They do not know it yet, but taking shelter in the town will lead to a skill challenge of getting to the shelter once they realize how bad the storm really is.
6: They use different arguments to calm the people.  The players are prompted to aid on one arguement or the other to help calm the populace.
7: The innkeeper and the speaker each make a case for letting the person in, or not letting the person in.  They have to pick sides.  If they do not pick a side the speaker wins and the guy is left in the storm.
8: The actually will abide by their word, but need the PCs to convince them to let them inside.  This time the argument against them is much stronger as a lot of the wounded people inside are scared.
9: They may learn this is a matter of honor between the lone soldier and the group and that one of the members of the group really doesn't want to go through with it.  He is the lone soldier's brother and will kill his brother over an issue of honor but with a heavy heart.  The players, if they like this story line, can choose to help ease the situation.

It continues from there, but you get the idea.  Now your players are much more likely, even experienced players, to believe you have a specific path set in mind.  Like there is an order to the opperations and they have to find it.  As long as you keep it open you can have the players feel like, if they are thinking about things, that they are always picking the right path.  Any obstacles or problems in their way tend to be seen as parts of the story built to be in their way.  During one of the times where two groups started on this campaign at the same time two of my players, one from each group, sat down and started talkinga bout the campaign.  They had been playing for a half-dozen sessions and their paths had diverged so wildly that they each thought the way they had gone had been the "main plot" but in their minds the two end results were so radically different that the othe group must have done something wrong.  Missed something along the way and gotten distracted.  Through 12 iterations of this campaign (soon to start on a 13th) no two groups have picked the same path, so the problem was avoided pretty easily.
The key to making this work is to set up a series of decisions you think the players can take and write down into your little chart anything the players do during the session that you didn't account for.  Between sessions see if you can see how they effect other things down the line.  Flow Charts work well for this.  Its easy because it doesn't work with a lot of specifics and you don't have to write a book.  Just a simple either or answer to a lot of things and the story continues down a path.  If they choose to side with the innkeeper and his people things go one way.  If they choose to go with the speaker things go another way.  
From this simple opening I've had groups get into discussions with other out-of-towners and decide that the Bandits were the real problem and go do that.  I've had groups decide that the speaker's point of view makes a lot of sense and that a lot of money could be had making the town agree to put the garrison in and go with him.  I've had groups join the rebels, or join the town against the rebels.  I've had groups that decide that the storm, so out of place at this time of year, is the real plotline and venture off to learn more about that.
The most important thing, in my perspective, for running a story more than once is to keep it interesting for you as DM.  If your players are constantly coming up with new stuff, or picking different lines of adventure that the other groups haven't picked then its really fun to see where they take it.  Since they make so many different choices if Group 1 ends up at level 5 in the area group 2 was in at level 1 then their have been a lot of changes.  The old problems have either gone away or exploded out of proportion.  New changes are constantly happening in a magical world.
Sorry, that was a huge wall of text, but I do these sorts of campaigns a lot so it was something I felt I could weigh in on. 


I really love the idea of having it branching off like that but I imagine you would really have to work on your world since you have little idea of were it will go. Also a very good abillity to make up the game as you go along which is something I've never been very good at. Maybe once I've set down the first scenario I could start working on something like that.


Thank you all very much for your help, you've all been really kind.
About the "very simple plot"..,

Make your scenario about locations and situations. Don't write the plot. If you write the plot it will only reall go one way and, yes, it can be ruined by the players in the groups talking to each other. DM should never write plots.

If it is about location only for your prep and no plot you can play it over and over with different groups and get some different results and stories made during play. It is also much more work for DM to write a plot. It like a lot of work to shoot yourself in the foot.
Avoid putting yourself or your players in a position in which foreknowledge or inside knowledge about the game or the scenario could make it less enjoyable for anyone involved. Doing otherwise puts the DM in the position of policing the players, and getting upset if they somehow figure things out. That's not a stable place to stand.

How woud I do that without having a very simple plot?

A plot doesn't need to have anything hidden from the players in order for it to be complicated and enjoyable.

[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy

In truth I'm not really sure how to do that, would you be able to give an example? ^^;
This will be my first game I've ever looked after, not just of D&D, and there's a lot I don't know about game making.
A sample plot I always throw out to newer DMs is "Vampires". Its tyhe sort of plot that writes itself, and your players immediatley will know most of the tropes. I'd also assume you've seen enough revisions of the "Vampires" plot to know a wide variety of complications and reactions to throw out there. 

To expand, the PCs are adventurers and stop at an inn in some remote village.  While resting for the night, someone runs in and says something like "He has struck again, oh my poor anastasia has been taken". Turns out this town has a creepy castle 3 hours to the north where a vampire lives. He comes down every so often and eats people's kids.  The towns people would be super grateful if the PCs dealt with it, they noticed all their gear and assume they are adventurers. 

Now your PCs can haggle with the townsfolk on pricing or terms for saving them (Or maybe they do it because they are honorable?). You can safely assume your PCs investigate,
Show
and if they choose not to, you can have him strike the next night, someone in the inn. If they decide to move on, they are sort of un-heroic, but whatever, at that point ask them a plot they would be interested in.
While traveling to the castle you can have some crazed wolves attack as they travel the forest.  Next they probably need a way to break into the castle. Let them guide it, and just throw some obstacles as they come up with it.


  • "We need to scale a wall and go in a window" 

  • "We need to slip in through the main gate when his carrage goes through" 

  • "We need to wait until daytime"

  •  "Lets just bust in the front door"

  • I bet he has a secret cave entrance nearby, lets look for it. 


All are viable options, and you can't care which. Let any succeed, but give all an obstacle. climb checks, stealth checks, time delay, strength checks and obviousness. then just describe some creepy castle rooms,  and throw some zombies/vampire spawns in the castle. Maybe the final boss before the vampire is his vampire brides. 

When it comes time to actually kill the vampire forever, just let them discuss the various methods they have heard  to fully kill one, and pick 2-3 that sound cool. Ask for a religion check and whoever beats an average DC knows that those are the ones that work in your setting. 

End of scenario, the PCs now have a super grateful town, who are willing to let the PCs keep the haunted castle, and would love to keep them nearby in case those werewolves [really whatever you want] the vampire drove out return... 

-----------
End result is you have two different campaigns, but only have to do the prep work for one. The first group might decide to do the work for free for the town, but waits until daylight, spending the night looking for rumors and clues, then they slip in through the secret cave. The second group might bend the towns people over in order to take the quest, but then bust in the front door. 

If you feel comfortable adding some complications, the towns people don't know who the vampire is. They just know that someone is coming and sucking the girls dry. There are two probable suspects, the dark and mysterious new miller who only works his mill at night, or the dashing mayor of the region who lives in a nearby castle. Elected mayor because he drove out a tribe of werewolves. the obvious clues point to the miller, who has a skin condition keeping him out of the sun or he breaks out in a rash, but some more subtle clues can lead the mayor. "Sure he's handsome, charming, and everyone loves him, but there is something unnatural about the way he looks at me" says one of anastasia's classmates (Or really any young girl you can find a way to get the PCs to talk to) Everybody in town is pretty sure its the miller but none can prove it, and the PCs can hear all sorts of wild stories about him. You can drag the investigation out as long as your players are interested in it. Could be 20 min, could be 3-4 sessions.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"

"Your advice is the worst"

Just a note, you don't actually have to run that exact scenario, but I think its a good example of a "Location" as a plot. This town has a vampire problem. Deal with it.  Letting the players drive the correct solution takes a lot of work off the DM, which is nice if you are running two groups.

That vampire problem could easily be Vampires, Yeti, Murderers, Mind Flayers. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"

"Your advice is the worst"

In truth I'm not really sure how to do that, would you be able to give an example? ^^;

The simplest way is just to run whatever plot you feel like, and not care if the players know about it in advance, and have their characters act on that knowledge. If the encounters you set up for the characters rely on them not knowing certain things, such as the monster's weakness, then it's possible that the game will be much easier than you expect. But it might be much easier than you expect, anyway.

Don't make learning about hidden information the focus of the plot, is all. Take Star Wars: there were some surprises for the characters, that, had they known about them they might have taken a different course - for instance, the fact that the "moon" they were headed for was not a moon - but discovering the Death Star's weakness was not the challenge, and even if everyone had known it from the outset they might not have been able to use it. The challenge was in using it, and for that to happen, many other things had to happen in the course of the story.

Bottom line: don't be concerned about what the players know about what's really going on in the game.

[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy

Would it be okay to give them the same scenario?

Absolutely. Indeed, organized play (like Living Forgotten Realms) relies in doing so. In fact, using any published adventure is effectively doing this.

I'm a bit worried about them telling the other group what's going to happen

Meh. That's usually not a big deal (unless your scenarios rely on major secrets). Plus, you can freely alter some details on the fly (especially if it seems like the group knows something). The players should already know not to rely on out-of-character knowledge.

Besides, groups talking to each other is a good sign... it just means they are more interested in the game. And eventually they'll try to avoid spoilers.

I have a campaign that I ran at Tabletop that I'm running online in play-by-post. One of the players is in both games. The reactions of the party members, the action of the players, and a variety of other events results in having a major difference between the campaigns. In one version, they turned the villain of the story over to the city council for punishment. In another, they turned the evidence over to the rival theives' guilds. The first ended in a trial and exile of the villain into the barbarian lands. The other resulted in a guild war, and the villain returning as the party was one of 3 groups trying to hunt him down and end the guild war.
In one, the party gained acclaim and recognition. In the other, the party was viewed less favorablly as schemers and politicians out to manipulate the fate of the kingdom.
This changed who would hire them a bit.

I also have a cult of necromancers running around, trying (and failing) to invoke the name of the one that inspired them, and each member working to be the true successor to the great Necromancer King. Heh. Loosers are worse than the whiney Sith.
They all know each other and I'm a bit worried about them telling the other group what's going to happen

Avoid putting yourself or your players in a position in which foreknowledge or inside knowledge about the game or the scenario could make it less enjoyable for anyone involved. Doing otherwise puts the DM in the position of policing the players, and getting upset if they somehow figure things out. That's not a stable place to stand.

Not on a permanent basis perhaps, but for one session? Just tell everybody involved you are doing so and also explain why. Afterwards players might actually really enjoy discussing how the others solved the same problems. I know that is certainly one of the draws of Organized Campaigns where people really love to talk about it. Of course, you should not worry too much about minor spoilers and a bit of meta-gaming, but I have stopped worrying about that a long time ago.

Note that the biggest reason NOT to keep using the same adventures on the long term is simply because chances are that each group will go in a different direction and you really do not want them to stick on the same rails depending on whomever went first.

I'm building a quest like that and the way I'll build it is... ( In fact, I might have more than 2 groups )

[Quick Overview]
One group will start South East of the Kingdom and one will be North West of the same Kingdom and they must gather people across the Kingdom to help for a ritual! In a year ( In-game ) the ritual will start. I'll try to keep the groups at the same pace ( Slowing the progress of a faster group ). So, in the end, I'll add up every people they gathered for the ritual and see if they have everyone they need! Then, the quest will be over!

This is the way I'll try it...Hope it will work!

I'm playing: Abin Gadon, Halfling Bard Winston "Slurphnose", Gnome Sorcerer Pasiphaé, Minotaur Shaman Eglerion, Elf Ellyrian Reaver (Ranger) DMing: Le Trésor du Fluide (Treasure from the Fluid) Un Royaume d'une Grande Valeur (A Kingdom of Great Value) La Légende de Persitaa (Persitaa's Legend) Une Série de Petites Quêtes... (A serie of short quests) Playtesting: Caves of Chaos We're building the greatest adventure ever known to DnD players! Also playing Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy. Sébastien, Beloeil, Qc. I am Neutral Good and 32 years old.