What the Villians are doing when trying to conquer the multiverse

[torelin47]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first time posting on this forum and I could use someone's help.  I am setting up a campaign based off of anime/manga/jrpg games using the BESM system since it's design features closely resembles anime/manga.  Now the sticking point is as a GM.  We all know what the heroe's and heroines are doing because they are usually front and center but what irks me is that what are the villians doing when they are not fighting the good guys.  I really hate static campaign worlds because I truly believe that a campaign world should be dynamic and free flowing, not moving from one crisis to another crisis.

In my opinion the villians are making plans, shifting their alliances to suit their needs as they see fit and if the group of them are working together the politics of them working together but each having their own agenda's I think is necessary to make the game more enjoyable in the long run.  Take as an example just for arguments sake, you have Dr. Doom from Marvel universe working in league with let's say Light from Death Note.  Dr. Doom knows that Light has a book that if he writes the a name and the way they die in the book, they die that way.  Based upon the information what does Dr.Doom do with that information, does he unexpectedly turn around and bitch slap Light into unconsciousness and then take the book away from him, because Doom sees him as a rival and a possible threat to life and limb and authority, does he do nothing but tries to stay on Light's good side, if there is one left or does he secretly develop a device that would make him immune to the Death Note's function.  These are the questions that I ponder and it irritates me to now end when I don't have a realistic and logical answer to questions like these that the character can preform in response to a threat such as this.

So the question is, has any of you, my esteemed colleagues ever encountered a situation like this and you find yourself at a juxtaposition looking for the answer ad if you did find an answer to this question, what method of resolution did you employ.

Remember, well at least for me, "the story is the game"
   

[SA]

In the hypothetical example, which choices produce conflicts of interest to your game and your players?

Find the premise first (the context and impetus for player action) then work backwards to justify your choice. Do you want two villains or one? Do you want the hyperintelligent monarch of a small European state to have both technological superweapons and the powers of a Shinigami at his disposal? Do you want the PCs to face a macro and a micro threat simultaneously: fighting a megalomaniac with the resources of a nation while also contending with the separate threat of a morally unhinged adolescent with a god complex? Do you want villains who pose different moral and strategic problems for the PCs?

Once you have your conflict, then find your cause. Obviously, Dr Doom played straight would betray Light Yagami at the first opportunity, because no way in hell would Victor leave such power in someone else's hands, but you don't need to go the obvious route. What might keep these two from perceiving each other as a threat? Light Yagami kills those he believes are "criminals", and that distinction blurs over time; does he perceive Dr Doom as a criminal? If not, why not?

But again, reason comes second. Find your conflict, then find your cause.

[Humabout]

I have an opposing view from SA.  I would work out the two individual motivations and consider their resources.  If you're not sure if one succeeds, they roll some dice or something, but just follow things to their logical conclusion.  Then, pick a pint in time during those events you come up with - preferably an interesting time (Fred, while Dr. Doom is searching for Light) and set your story then.  Do the PCs try to protect Light? Do they race against Dr. Doom to find Light first and get the Death Note? Do they use Light to draw out Dr. Doom and ambush him while he is focused elsewhere? Do they leave the two to slug it out while martial lying their own forces?  It's up to them.

Usually I set up an "uninterrupted timeline" of events that will transpire at certain times if the PCs do nothing and adjust it as necessary based on PC actions.  I try not to make this feel like railroading so much as a world with multiple players acting at once.  It has given good results in the past.  And it's always interesting to see the players trying to figure out what is coming in the future (don't be afraid to steal their own speculations and adjust your uninterrupted timeline - it'll need constant adjustment anyway as PCs meddle and muck about).

[SA]

don't be afraid to steal their own speculations

Worth reiterating. Sometimes players will unwittingly do your job for you. Take the credit.

[Velox]

I agree with SA. Reason comes second, conflict (which is essential for a good story, and is a generator of fun and interest) comes first. Figure out what you and your players would find fun or interesting, and then make that happen. It's the best way to make a game fun and interesting. That can create illogical situations that don't seem reasonable, but that happens in reality all the time, right? Unreasonable and bizarre situations are part of life, and are usually the result of unconsidered factors. If one of my players is an insane Marvel fan who loves Dr. Doom, I'm going to do what it takes to put him front and center.

If neither me nor my players particularly cares which way it goes, I let a die roll decide. Maybe roll a d6 for each villain, whoever gets higher wins. I might give Dr. Doom a bonus to the roll, because I consider him the more likely victor or just because I like him.