Chaos campaigns for two players

[Church14]

So all of the Chaos campaign tracks I’ve found seem written from the point of view that one player is the GM and guiding the experience of the other players. Are there any that are written where both sides have equal agency?


The free Chaos campaign PDF is even written this way. Looking at the first fight in that PDF, it’s written from the point of view that the defender is a GM. The attacker decides if they want to face minefields, the defender just has to accept whichever way it goes.

Also, am I reading this wrong? If I’m just missing something, the please correct me. I’ve read plenty of rules wrong over the years

[Colt Ward]

There are some that offer two player sides, it just depends on the materials.

Did you back the KS?  If so you should have gotten a digital version of ER3052 which was a product that came out shortly after the Chaos system was created.  It has some generic tracks that you can use for player vs player as well as Clan specific tracks.  I know several folks created their own collection of Chaos tracks, not sure if any of those were linked.

Best suggestion I have is Campaign Ops, which has a map based campaign that can be player vs player with each encounter being played as Chaos tracks.

[nckestrel]

Vega 3039 was intended as two players.

[Colt Ward]

Good point!

Were not all the Starters opposing Chaos campaigns?  Fist & Falcon, Sword & Dragon and Wolf & Blake?

[Insaniac99]

Sword and Dragon wasn't designed as such, or if it was, I don't think it was well laid out and could have used an example of how it would be played as such since each side had completely different tracks and they fought random forces each time.

The recent Succession Wars campaign is clearly laid out for this, IMO.

[Sartris]

some are hybrid where the standard scenarios pitting one PC vs OpFor. the Touchpoints in those tend to put both players against each other

[nckestrel]

Sword and Dragon had two players, with some missions alternating each Pakistan against the other player running a random opfor, switching up roles, and then playing head2head in missions called ... I don’t remember the term. 

[Sartris]

head2head in missions called ... I don’t remember the term.

Touchpoints

[Church14]

Hm. Touchpoints seem good if we want a really open ended campaign. We might use those. We are both Kickstarter backers, so we’d have those from Era 3052 available.

Just so I understand: Mission: Defend has 3 options to increase the cost of the track. Night Combat, High Winds, and Surprised. Is it that either player can pay the extra cost to add those conditions? Because the Defender would never voluntarily pay for Surprised (-4 to defender’s init rolls for X turns).

EDIT: The more I read these missions from ER3052, the more it is a GM running a campaign for someone.

[Colt Ward]

It can be for any situation IMO . . . but honestly, for Defend?  If the attacker chose 'Surprise' my inclination would be to have a good chunk (if not all) of that WP cost go directly to the defending player.

[Cubby]

The recent Succession Wars campaign is clearly laid out for this, IMO.

P. 3 of that product presents options for both GM vs player(s) and player(s) vs. player(s).

[Greatclub]

SnD the sabers and teeth meet once, in the last scenario

Wolf and Blake you meet three times, the last in the middle of an erupting volcano