Before delving into war campaigns, I think it is important to acknowledge that duets have a tendency to make narrators ambitious. This is actually a good thing. With a duet you have one narrator and one player and can really focus a campaign on one grand story arc tied to a single character. Many narrators are greatly inspired by war campaigns and this is excellent as long as they keep the story focused on the PC and remain mindful of the preferences of the player. Ambition is a good thing as long as it is tempered.

Things to Consider

I'm going to try to be blunt today with some key issues I've seen as a narrator and player over the years. Duets are very personal as there aren't other players to help absorb emotional impacts, so narrators must be careful in how they conduct a war campaign. War campaigns are tremendous fun and very challenging, but perilous for the narrator-player relationship if botched. Therefore, here are some things to consider:

Know Your Narrator/Player

War is horrible but neither narrator nor player should delve deeper in the horrors of war than their counterpart is comfortable with. This can be tricky as there is a wide range for how war can be approached from cheerful bright colors like Saturday morning cartoons to bleakest black like a movie trying to win an Oscar for its gruesome portrayal of the Holocaust. Both extremes can be very unsettling to players and narrators alike, and finding a common comfort zone can be challenging when narrator and player are coming at war from very different perspectives.

There are of course some common problem areas for narrators to avoid. Sex and sexism are all best kept off stage for most campaigns, including a war campaign. Honestly, people are more comfortable with beheading prisoners than dealing with anything concerning sex and it is not the narrator's job to challenge that comfort level. Most people will agree that sex, especially negative situations, should be kept out of a campaign, alluded to at best, but when I toss sexism into the hands-off category then people get agitated. Some will argue sexism is a necessary component of their campaign, which I can appreciate but you really don't need it. You can have biases due to religion, family, caste, and so forth, but sexism, especially if you have a female player, is trouble. Though I will say, some male players really get agitated in settings where males are the second-class citizens, which is amusing and I guess makes a point, but narrators shouldn't be making points they should be setting up an entertaining campaign. So sexism in either direction is bad. Yes, there are exceptions and some players and narrators want sex and sexism in a campaign, which is great, but both need to be a 100% sure before delving into these issues.

Sex is really the big one, but violence and gore can sometimes be problems. I was a player once under a narrator who felt the need to describe every gory detail of his campaign. You kill an orc and he wanted to describe the blood and entrails flying everywhere. It was like being trapped in a B-movie. It was also very ineffective narrating. I have said this many times and I will say it again: LESS IS MORE! Your player's imagination is better than anything you can describe. The trick to brilliant narrating is to describe situations with a few good words that trigger the imagination of your player. Pages of flavor text just tell players how the narrator wants them to see things, which is never as effective as simply inviting the players to see things as they wish in their own mind. Yes, you need enough detail to set a scene for the player to effectively interact with his environment, but less is truly more.

A Dash of Realism is Good

Yes, this is one of those articles where every point contradicts another point. While the narrator needs to tailor to the player's comfort level a degree of realism helps in a war campaign. Let's put it this way, sex obviously exists in a campaign setting or there wouldn't be beggar kids chasing the PC as they enter the city. All the evils and horrors of the world exist in your campaign; the comfort level of your player just reflects how those horrors are portrayed. A little sprinkle of the evil of war in a campaign is important for it makes it feel more real and dangerous. Now don't be surprised if a PC decides to tackle an injustice, this should be encouraged. The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who do nothing during times of moral crisis. Yes, the PC may stop one evil act while a dozen others are committed elsewhere, but doing anything at all is actually truly heroic.

The PC Shouldn't be Everywhere

A dynamic campaign is a more engaging campaign. So the PC is involved with a siege of a castle for two months of game time ñ that's great, but you should let word get to the PC of other battles elsewhere. During a war campaign there are two stories ñ the PC's story and the war's story. Sometimes the PC's story will alter the war's story, but sometimes the two stories run parallel for a time. This is good as it gives depth to the campaign.

Related to this is the surprise factor. Let's say the PC is a soldier in an interstellar army fighting a war and then back home there is a revolution and a new government is in power. It might not change anything or it could change everything, but it gives an event in the background for PC and NPCs to interact about. A changing setting is a dynamic setting.

The PC is the Campaign

If the PC dies then the campaign dies. This is tricky with war campaigns as you want mortal danger but at the same time want to keep the PC alive. Some RPGs give you outs such as resurrection while some don't. When possible try to find an RPG that works well with duets. For example, Eclipse Phase is designed to make PCs effectively immortal while also providing consistent mortal danger. This is a RPG that is nearly perfect for duets, but the setting doesn't necessarily mesh with some people. However, even RPGs where it is do or die can work with a little sleight of hand and creativity. The trick though is to create a situation where death is scary but that the narrator has an out for if things go wrong. Related to this is a necessity sometimes to fudge the rules, hit a NPC instead of PC, or generally bend the game to protect the PC. Illusions are the art of narration. We've discussed before the illusion of choice and this is the illusion of mortality. Most players will buy into these illusions and play their characters accordingly. In fact, after running hundred of duet campaigns with dozens of players, I don't think any of them ever took advantage of the illusion of mortality. This brings us to the last point.

Trust

The player must trust the narrator and the narrator must trust the player. The narrator has to trust the PC with real challenges. The player must trust the narrator to be fair to the PC and the setting. Sometimes a PC will lose and suffer setbacks; this is a moment of trust. The narrator trusts the player to step up to this challenge and the player trusts the narrator that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Trust is really 99% of all narrating/player difficulties. There is a spirit of narrator v. players in the hobby that goes against the spirit of roleplaying and definitely duets. A duet is all about trust, but trust also includes honest communication. If someone isn't happy with how a campaign is going then they need to say so and the other person needs to make adjustments. Trust isn't blind and it has to be earned.

Okay, that's an overview of the issues and as usual there is some overlap with previous articles. Next month I'll provide a framework for how to set up and run a duet war campaign.