Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
Depends on your definition of campaign. Is it just a connected series of adventures of a single adventuring group, or is it the campaign world as a whole, where the players are running multiple parties?
Slow Advancement Rocks
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Depends on your definition of campaign. Is it just a connected series of adventures of a single adventuring group, or is it the campaign world as a whole, where the players are running multiple parties?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Can I offer a stupid suggestion at this point:
If you're going to be playing with (mostly) the same players in the following year, why not just put the campaign on hold for the summer then reboot in the fall? (or better yet, play right through the summer if you're all still in the same vicinity) That way, you can plan for a much longer and deeper campaign than 8 months can provide - and, by the by, slow the advancement down so the same level span lasts longer.
Our lot got started during university days and just kept going. The four major campaigns (as we define them) we've run went from:
1981-1992 (with some gaps near the end; about 10 years total)
1984-1994 (with a year-long gap near the start; about 10 years total)
1990-1998 (with some gaps near the start; about 7 years total)
1995-2007 (with a big gap near the start; about 11 years total)
And the three ongoing, where LE = Life Expectancy:
2001-present (LE about 1-4 more years, and this one's 3e!)
2007-present (LE about 3-7 more years)
2008-present (LE open ended; this one's mine, and I know I've got enough adventures and stories right now to do for another 5+ years, never mind what else I and-or the players might have dreamed up by then)
First thing is, I don't (usually) revolve stories around specific characters; mostly because as soon as I do they're the ones who die or whose players drop out for whatever reason.Hussar said:
Coming up with stories and scenarios revolving around the same *setting* for 10+ years: not that hard. Helpful hint: coming up with a decent history beforehand *really* helps!
In a long campaign, players come and go, and long-standing individual players have characters who come and go. A party that keeps the same membership for 5 consecutive adventures is exceedingly rare...and that's good, because that turnover is in part what helps to keep things fresh and interesting. It becomes even easier when one can run concurrent parties in the same game, as PCs (and thus players) can switch from one party to another.
So while you might be DMing the same players in the same setting for a long time, you're certainly not always going to be running the same party.
Lan-"Campaign. Earl Grey. Hot."-efan
Sylrae
First Post
Hmm. That's a possibility.
After runningthe game I ran last school year I was ready to run something Else.
I tried PFRPG in Golarion, and it's okay, but there are alot of thing's I'd like to do in the Realms. I'd also like to try Planescape at some point. and Maybe a campaign where the players advance through the hierarchy and through devil types in the Hells. I'd like to tie the campaigns together, and maybe have the characters make cameos, or even take up the same group at a higher level with a timeskip, but I think switching up players and characters works well every 8 months. I'm actually considering mini-season, wherein it's a different plot with different characters (but connected plot through history) every 4 months. It definitely helps character development that we get in 8-12 hours a week usually.
I tend to have 50% or more turnover after the year ends. Lots of people leave in the summer, not all of them come back. Some that do I find don't mesh well with my playstyle or gm style.
After runningthe game I ran last school year I was ready to run something Else.
I tried PFRPG in Golarion, and it's okay, but there are alot of thing's I'd like to do in the Realms. I'd also like to try Planescape at some point. and Maybe a campaign where the players advance through the hierarchy and through devil types in the Hells. I'd like to tie the campaigns together, and maybe have the characters make cameos, or even take up the same group at a higher level with a timeskip, but I think switching up players and characters works well every 8 months. I'm actually considering mini-season, wherein it's a different plot with different characters (but connected plot through history) every 4 months. It definitely helps character development that we get in 8-12 hours a week usually.
I tend to have 50% or more turnover after the year ends. Lots of people leave in the summer, not all of them come back. Some that do I find don't mesh well with my playstyle or gm style.
I found that 3e broke hard at 13th, when 7th level spells appeared, and was already creaking 11th-12th. Since then I've designed my 3e campaigns around levels 1-10, and found that the game works much much better like that. I either use a low-power setting, or I rescale using old 1e and B/X NPC and monster stats so that eg a Balor is 8+8 hit dice.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I suspect that the reason why some get bored, and why others do not, is related to playstyle differences and how much a persistent world is valued.
The world where you care about having a sword, waterskins, and ammo, IMHO and IME, inherently retains interest longer than the one in which the players are told repeatedly that something they are interested in spending time on "isn't important", or where the action follows the dictates of the GM's interests, rather than those of the players.
Both are okay ways to play, if they are the strokes for your folks, but one tends to have more enduring campaigns than the other. Again, IMHO and IME.
RC
IronWolf
blank
I could see the latter being entertaining for quite sometime. To me it is the playing the same characters/party over a connected series of adventures past the 1.5 to 2 year mark is where I would likely grow a little tired of my character.
But if by campaign we mean within the same campaign world, but we pick up a different set of characters while the others are either on the shelf for awhile or retired, then I could be entertained much, much longer.
DragonLancer
Hero
My campaigns tend to last around a year from start to finish. The only ones that went longer were Shackled City and Age of Worms, both of which went to 18 months. While I throughly enjoyed them I find that after about a year I am ready for a fresh start.
Hussar
Legend
Ok, seeing your and Lanefan's posts, I see that I'm using campaign differently. Lanefan isn't describing a campaign, he's describing a setting. At least, that's how I've usually seen the terms used. If the campaign rarely has characters who last more than 5 adventures, I can see how it could remain fresh.
Oh please. Just because I play a different style than you do, doesn't mean that that's why my campaigns generally don't go multi-year like Lanefan's. The primary reason my campaigns don't last that long is because my GROUPS don't last that long. And I don't keep recycling the same setting time after time after time.
I know you're a big fan of setting. That's true. But, by my definition of campaign (a group of adventures together for a series of adventures), Lanefan's campaigns don't last any longer than mine do. His setting sure does. But his campaign doesn't.
Heck, if we take Setting=campaign, then my Scarred Lands campaign lasted for four years. Lots of different players, and I wouldn't consider it the same campaign (I'd consider it three separate campaigns) but, by this definition it would qualify.
So, I guess setting wank isn't really the key to longer campaigns is it?
Considering that "wank" is a synonym for "masturbation," I think we'd rather not overuse that phrase here. Thanks. ~ PCat
Last edited by a moderator:
Bullgrit
Adventurer
This kind of thing reminds me of a time our college English class was having a discussion about domeciles. One girl kept confusing the discussion, and then we finally got to the heart of the confusion:
"I live in an apartment, but I call it 'my house.'"
Generally, I'd say, if you use the word in its own definition -- "campaign = campaign world" -- then it isn't the best term for that use. You [general "you"] say "campaign world" to mean the fictional world (setting) where campaigns take place. That suggests that "campaign" doesn't mean "world".
Just like, in the military sense, we don't say "campaign" to mean "Earth". When a campaign ends, the Earth doesn't end.
I would love a perenial world wherein we'd play many campaigns over several years.
Using "campaign" to mean "world" just doesn't make sense.
"I would love a campaign wherein we'd play many campaigns over several years."
Bullgrit
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
It isn't an insult; it's an observation. And it doesn't apply to you alone.
What I am suggesting is that what you explore in your games has a direct effect on how long those games last. Some games focus on a specific theme or narrative; others focus on a specific setting. Any given theme or narrative has a shorter shelf-life than any given setting -- the desire to focus on a specific theme or narrative tends to be shorter than the desire to focus on a specific setting. This is because the setting contains multiple themes and narratives.
IMHO, this is no different from comparing short stories and novels. The focus of each form is different, and what is desired from each form is different. That is neither good nor bad, that just is.
Persistant setting =/= setting wank.
Appropriate level of detail depends upon focus, just as what is appropriate in a novel is often inappropriate in a short story, and vice versa.
EDIT: How long does your average campaign last? If you would argue that keeping a persistent setting (Scarred Lands) allowed you to run a campaign for four years (or three campaigns in four years, apparently an average of 1.33 years each?), and your average campaign lasts for a shorter period than this (six months came up in previous discussions, I believe, but I could well be wrong....old man memory and all.....) then persistent setting really is the key to longer campaigns, isn't it?
Again, there is nothing inherently better about longer campaigns, unless that's the drum you march to. Just an observation.
RC
Last edited:
