So, it sounded like you have a backstory for various factions in your world, and you're having trouble coming up with Fronts in that they're too expansive?

( @Shalvenay )

@JoelHarmon in that I am concerned I may have too many :)

or is throwing the party into the middle of a geopolitical furball OK in DW? :)

Technically, you should have a first session and then hammer out Fronts you want to use after that.

For general advice, I'd suggest trying to stick to the front-generation rules. If you have one Front with, say, 4-6 dangers, then consider splitting it into two or three Fronts.

It may behoove you to re-read the First Session section. Whatever plans you come up with, the players will end up latching onto something unexpected and derail most of them.

The nice thing about Fronts is they're concise yet general enough that they can be reused in a later campaign.

I think part of the problem is that the "geopolitical furball" approach basically isn't "adventurers vs. BBEG", its "adventurers get to choose how much bedfellowing to do with who for what goals" :) -- each of the Fronts in my mind is a double-edged sword, and they all will march on, but they cannot all succeed

One thing I'd suggest avoiding is starting with everyone in one place. At least personally, I tend to do a very poor job when representing two different NPCs having a conversation with each other in the presence of the party.

It just takes away too much player agency. They should be the main characters, and you're their biggest fan; don't sideline them.

I think you're dead on with Fronts progressing naturally to one conclusion or another. That's actually telegraphed well, in a kind of meta-level "tell them the consequences, then ask" via Fronts' Impending Dooms.

@JoelHarmon yeah, I think the big question is 'what if you have campaign fronts that oppose each other?"

@JoelHarmon so start with folks scattered about a bit?

What if you have any two campaign fronts with opposing requirements? There are raiders on the eastern roads and orcs on the march in the west. Where does the party go? Either way, they're leaving one side vulnerable and will face the consequences of their decision later.

@JoelHarmon that's an oversimplification -- what I'm talking about is if the party say runs off in a different direction, only one of the raiders on the eastern roads and the orcs on the march in the west will get their way

In the case of opposed political groups, they have the interesting option of trying to find a third/fourth/tenth way, splitting the difference. They may try to avoid particular impending dooms from various fronts, possibly with hilarious and/or dramatic consequences.

@JoelHarmon exactly!

that's the idea I want to capture with this -- the party's playing geopolitical Iron Chef with various elements of the various Fronts as their ingredients

Do you have a specific opposing pair of fronts I can poke at?

@JoelHarmon actually - a triad

Sure.

although I have not fleshed them out fully

You don't need to; your players can help with that on the fly.

You and four other people will always be more creative than just you.

:)

Time check: I've got maybe 10 more minutes

we have the Ambermoon Warbands, for which their Impending Doom is Rampant Chaos, as they are really not hip on central gov't :P and would likely remold the entire world into city-states or the likes if given free reign (they are nomadic Orcs, traveling in caravans that are largely self-governing/independent, albeit connected by courier)

we have the Drakensreich, for which their Impending Doom is Usurpation, for dragons care not for human concepts of who should or shouldn't run the show, believing themselves rightful rulers of the world

and then we have the Purifiers, for which their Impending Doom is Tyranny, of those considered pure over those considered "lesser"

got it @JoelHarmon?

I think so.

Two powers each thinking they should be in charge (to the likely detriment of the populace), plus some people who want to watch the world burn (also the likely detriment of the populace)

@JoelHarmon two powers who each believe that they should be the rulers of a centralized gov't, with a third that would much rather everyone ran their own show :P

(I am also working on a fourth faction that really does want the world to burn)

Sure. You may also want a clear statement from each of them about what they think of the other groups, philosophically speaking.

Currently, it seems like this is one front with three dangers (one for each group). Likely this is Campaign scale, rather than Adventure.

@JoelHarmon nods definitely Campaign scale for sure

So, there are some Impending Dooms. What kinds of Grim Portents are you looking at for each?

(and presumably the Dangers themselves are the various groups)

@JoelHarmon claims of terrain, victories in battle, or political subterfuge moves, depending on precisely what's happening -- the fog of war swirls thick, and not all of the portents will be clear in their meaning

@JoelHarmon yes

I think the other key here is that things are going to be irrevocable -- there is no way for the adventurers to put things back to the way they were before

I need to run now. I'd suggest you look at the form the book has for Fronts and try printing it off and filling it out by hand. In particular, pay attention to the guidelines on the number of each thing.

@JoelHarmon yeah, I take it Fronts can be pretty arbitrary groupings of danger/grim portent/impending doom tracks then?

Not really; it's a strict hierarchy. Dangers have one Impending Doom each; Impending Dooms have 3-5 Grim Portents each (for campaign fronts).

@JoelHarmon I get that much (why I said "track") but I take it there is no need to unify the danger/doom/portent tracks within a Front with some overarching theme?

Dangers have some kind of want/desire to be fulfilled, which gives rise to the Impending Doom. The Rebels (Danger) want independence, so they plan a Coup (Impending Doom), which escalates after some Assassinations, Riots, and Propaganda Speeches.

@JoelHarmon you still don't get it :/ we have these clusters that consist of a Danger, some Grim Portents, and an Impending Doom each

They should be unified in their overall theme, because it's a kind of fractal of problems.

Sure.

The overall Front name would be something like "The Impending Civil War", right?

I'm asking "can you arbitrarily assign these clusters to Fronts, or should each Front have an overarching common theme shared among the clusters within it?"

@JoelHarmon only it's not just a civil war ;)

Ideological war, then?

more like World War

Ok.

I'm trying to ask to determine how much flexibility I have in splitting an oversized Front up

I'd say that if you can come up with a reasonably short name for it, and it has ~3 major Dangers, then it's a coherent Front.

Unfortunately, I'm overdue for heading out. I'll try and jump back on later in the week.

@JoelHarmon OK, cya later