Clint_L
Legend
My campaigns are heavily integrated into D&D Beyond so everything mathematical is already automated. I also don't run tons of encounters, focusing more on story.The point is, long campaigns aren't a some kind of feature of rules-heavy games. It's a byproduct of human beings resolving complex rules that makes the density of important events per session low.
D&D, when played on a properly configured VTT that automates everything isn't suited for years-long campaigns either, because you are chewing of 3-4 PnP sessions worth of content in one.
I'm trying to clarify your argument - do you think that folks are engaged with years-long campaigns because they just have no other choice? If so, then I disagree. I am arguing that there is a system of intermittent rewards built into the heavy emphasis on rules and randomness that promotes long-term engagement. Other long-form, shared storytelling options are available, but folks keep overwhelmingly choosing this one.
Edit: I emphasize that I am not taking sides or arguing that one thing is better than another. My favourite RPG is Dread, an indie-RPG with rules so simple you can, and I have, explain them in their entirety in less than a minute before successfully playing the game. No dice. Almost all narrative.
I am trying to look at the success of rules-heavy RPG games, particularly D&D (though from my perspective, they're all basically D&D) and speculating as to causes. If the density and slowness of the game was strictly a negative, then it seems reasonable to suggest that people would stop playing it. But the opposite has happened. So maybe those aspects are features, not flaws, at least from the perspective of many players.
Last edited: