In Ganakagok, players belong to an Inuit-like culture that lives on a dark ice-world to which is about to come the dawn.  I ran a great game over the weekend at Dexcon (described in this thread), and Jason Morningstar came up with the idea of a "messenger feast" as a device to organize a multi-table con game:  separate tables represent two different villages that at some point during the course of play come together as a single table for a marriage-arranging and alliance-sealing "messenger feast".  Doing it right would probably require two four-hour sessions with a break between them; I can see the second session being the actual feast and its aftermath, with the first session being devoted to playing out the separate activities of each village.  But I'm totally thinking about it for Dreamation.

Has anyone ever done anything like this?  Anyone remember any actual play reports that speak to managing large groups or complex interrelated plotlines?

Anyone have any specific thoughts on how to do this, or pitfalls to avoid?

I helped run a D&D game a few years back with multiple groups sharing continuity, but it wasn't a con game so it might not be all that relevant.  I did play in one con game with two groups, and that was a disaster.  I don't think you'll have any trouble avoiding the pitfalls they fell into though, since a D20 battle with 18 characters doesn't seem too likely to occur.

I think your idea of 2 time slots at two tables is a good idea.  Since Ganakagok uses a turn based structure, you could put in a 5 minute break at the end of the turn (everyone has gone once) for the GMs to compare notes and add facts to their map and lore sheet from the other group.  That would help avoid constant running back and forth.  In between turns may also be a good time to exchange players between tables as some of the characters cross to the other side of the narrative, unless you'd rather wait until the feast to start exchanging players.

It does sound like a pretty cool idea, and I'm interested in participating.

Not directly related, but the chaotic play thread over at story-games gets into dealing with distributed groups a bit.

As I see it the biggest issue will be GM communication - you totally want to encourage people to pair up and switch tables, but with that comes an information burden - who is this new woman in the village?  What's her story?  What are her unresolved plot threads?  How does that relate to what's happening at my table?

I think part of the answer is having communal character and village generation at the outset, so everybody is exposed to the cast of characters in the other village, and has a chance to write those people into their own backstory through kinship, rivalry, love, etc. 

I think I'd set the rule that no characters have contact before the feast, but then open it up for travel and communication afterward for the remainder of the game. 

Hello Bill,

Yeah, I've seen it done, and played in it. A couple years back at DunDraCon, I played in a Villains & Vigilantes game set during WWII, with two groups playing at the same time. Each team of heroes got airdropped into Germany with specific missions, and then we were supposed to link-up at an assigned place, and assault a nazi super-villains castle in the alps.

Specifically, each team was in a separate hotel room, though the rooms were side by side, and each GM had a walkie talkie so that they could talk to each other about the progress of each team. When both teams reached the link-up location, everyone who had a character still alive crowded into the same hotel room and played the rest of the adventure. It ran seamlessly, and beautifully. One my best role-playing experiences. I truly treasure that time spent gaming.

Afterwards I talked with my GM and learned that the GM's each had some 'filler' encounters on hand in case one team ran late for the link-up.  I was told the other team ran late, so my GM had used some of the filler until the other team was ready. I couldn't tell you what was filler, and what was planned all along, because I said, it ran smooth.

By the way, thematically, each team was very different from the other, and the specific missions and encounters we had apparently played to those themes. I was in Team A that consisted of proxy versions of Flash, Superman, Captain America, The Human Torch and so on. Team B consisted of proxies for Batman, Green Arrow, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Punisher, and so on.

I would love to play in a game like that again.

I haven't played any 2-table games, but I think that you would have to determine what kind of information (and good/bad medicine) must be global (shared between the 2 GMs/tables) and what information could remain local (to a single table).

If you run it, I will come bearing Smoked Salmon. I suspect seal liver is toxic (too much vitamin A).