D&D 5E "Labels" and D&D Gaming

[Eric V]

Now, this concept is very interesting to me. In a vague, hypothetical sense this sounds cool, but I can’t picture how this would actually look at the table. Would you be willing to elaborate on this, particularly in terms of specific examples in actual play? What action steps should a DM who wants to try running a game this way take?

We did this very successfully for a short while in our 4e game. We played Madness at Gardmore Abbey (great mod!) and at the conclusion they restored the abbey, attracting adventurers from all over. So, we ended up with a sort of "Justice League" scenario, where DM 1 would run adventure X and players would pick which of their PCs would go on that one. We'd have concurrent DMs to prevent burnout, and then DM 2 would run adventure Y and the players would pick their other PCs to go on that adventure.

It was great all around.

 

[Umbran]

How much of this is pre/post internet.

Honestly, not much. If you look back at various writings, you find that most of the various playstyles and campaign structures you can mention were created/discovered fairly early on. There seem to be several cases of "re-inventing the wheel" pre-internet, due to lack of communication, so several disparate people may feel they invented or originated something, having not heard of the other people who were doing it next door or across the country.

 

[Shiroiken]

If you limit yourself to only one tale, this is true.

So interweave several tales (and start with at least two), some of which aren't even going to appear until deep into the campaign but - in hindsight - have been foreshadowed from day 1, and then add more as you think of them during the campaign and-or if the players latch on to something unintended. And don't be afraid to change up your storyboard and even abandon large chunks of it if the players/PCs don't bite - it happens to all of us!

Also, allow - encourage, even! - the players to have more than one PC in the setting at a time, and allow opportunities for these PCs to form into different parties and also interweave and interact now and then (vitally important that you-as-DM don't allow them to get too far separated in game-world time!). That way later on you also end up with different characters having done different things over time and come back with different bits of knowledge, which can make things fun.

Current campaign: 11 years this month; at least four embedded APs (i.e. micro-stories) within it of 4-6 adventures each along with dozens of other adventures some of which relate to three or four macro-stories (one of which is complete though I'm not sure anyone realizes it yet!); a very large boatload of PCs have come and gone, run by a total of 13 players over the years; and it probably 3-to-4 years of play left in it even if nothing unexpected gets added in.

It can be done.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define "campaign." By your definition, I've been running a Greyhawk campaign since 5E came out, even though I consider it to be 3 campaigns. They all exist in the same world, in different parts of it, and generally continuing the timeline (current one is set parallel to the first for reasons). Arguably my campaign could be considered about 25 years old, since I've incorporated events/aspects of my 1st & 2nd edition campaigns (I skipped DMing 3E & 4E).

However, that's not how most people look at it. Even if you play in the same game world, most players consider it to be a different campaign (just the same setting). Often DMs like to create a world for a specific campaign, especially if they plan on "blowing it up" (radically altering it to make it less fun to play in). Sometimes DMs just want to create a setting for a change of pace, even if they know they'll go back to their favorite.

 

[Lanefan]

The more things change...

I still remember the old WotC data that got published just around the time 3e was released, based on the market research done in the mid-90's. That's actually closer to the origins of RPG's than to now. And, even back then, the average campaign lasted about a year.

As always when someone hauls out this chestnut, I have to debunk it: that research was highly biased at data source and thus isn't worth a hill of beans.

A prime reason why the data showed short campaigns were the norm was that they auto-excluded responses from anyone who self-identified as over 35 years of age i.e. those who would logically be the ones to have run (and-or still be running) long games.

It's not that gaming changed. It's that game designers have actually decided to design their games with an eye to how the games are actually being played. This isn't something new. It was that way back in the 90's and probably back in the 80's as well.

Au contraire - they tweaked their research to give the results they wanted and then just designed to that.

 

[Lanefan]

But there's still some communication of themes and general ideas. We can say "This will be a pirate/greek themed/witch heavy campaign" and still leave all spoilers out.

True, but the sense I got from the post I was responding to was that the poster was hoping for more character tailoring than that.

Picking on your example for a moment, "pirate greek-themed witch-heavy" really only warns me not to play a heavy tank, as heavy armour and deep water don't mix well; and even there it's still iffy as for all we know all the pirate interactions might be on land.

It doesn't tell me you've tailored the story for a low-magic stealth group e.g. a Ranger-Druid-Thief-Bard party and will be at a loose end if we bring in two Blast Mages, a War Cleric (Ares), and a Knight. This seemed more what the previous poster was getting at, and to which I objected.

Your example also tells me all races are wide open to play, as they are not mentioned.

 

[Hussar]

As always when someone hauls out this chestnut, I have to debunk it: that research was highly biased at data source and thus isn't worth a hill of beans.

A prime reason why the data showed short campaigns were the norm was that they auto-excluded responses from anyone who self-identified as over 35 years of age i.e. those who would logically be the ones to have run (and-or still be running) long games.

Au contraire - they tweaked their research to give the results they wanted and then just designed to that.

Umm, no.

1. Someone who was gaming at the age of 35 in 1995, had possibly been gaming for 10 years, quite easily. Now, they did cut off at 35 because their market research showed that gamers really stop buying after 35 (or, at least that was true at the time of the research). But, no, it wasn't "tweaked" to give the results they wanted. That would be blindingly stupid.

2. Even ignoring the actual market research, I can point you to reams and reams of anecdotal evidence of the time. Heck, poll after poll on En World, stretching back nearly two decades gives consistently the same result - most campaigns last 12-18 months. The overwhelming majority do.

3. At the time the market research was done, the average gamer was in their 20's. Again, by an overwhelming majority. Like about 4:1 to those in their 30's or older. And that ratio has stayed true throughout 3e and 4e. Dunno about now.

There is zero evidence showing that these long, multiyear campaigns are anything other than an outlier.

 

[fearsomepirate]

RAW just means we look at what the rules actually say. The problem is when you get problem players who try to wriggle through loopholes they claim to find due to some vagaries in the English language. That's why it's important to remember that while a player can be a rules lawyer, the DM is the rules judge, the rules jury, and the rules executioner.

 

[Reynard]

RAW just means we look at what the rules actually say. The problem is when you get problem players who try to wriggle through loopholes they claim to find due to some vagaries in the English language. That's why it's important to remember that while a player can be a rules lawyer, the DM is the rules judge, the rules jury, and the rules executioner.

Rules lawyering is as old as the rules themselves. probably older. It was made by wargamers, after all.

 

[Marandahir]

True, but the sense I got from the post I was responding to was that the poster was hoping for more character tailoring than that.

Picking on your example for a moment, "pirate greek-themed witch-heavy" really only warns me not to play a heavy tank, as heavy armour and deep water don't mix well; and even there it's still iffy as for all we know all the pirate interactions might be on land.

It doesn't tell me you've tailored the story for a low-magic stealth group e.g. a Ranger-Druid-Thief-Bard party and will be at a loose end if we bring in two Blast Mages, a War Cleric (Ares), and a Knight. This seemed more what the previous poster was getting at, and to which I objected.

Your example also tells me all races are wide open to play, as they are not mentioned.

If the DM has tailored the party for a low-magic stealth group and will be at a loose end if a different party is brought it, then the DM screwed up on Session 0. Full stop.

You can have a fun game if everyone enjoys the uphill battle of using the wrong team for the job, but they should know that going into the game. Session 0 is there to collection players' inputs, understand their interests and tendencies, and make sure that the game as written isn't just the DM forcing their dream-campaign on unsuspecting players. Sure, design the world and loose campaign concepts ahead of time, but I'd actually recommend doing a lot of the early core adventure crafting between Session 0 and Session 1, once you know how to build the game around the principle cast and what their motivations are.

 

[Reynard]

If the DM has tailored the party for a low-magic stealth group and will be at a loose end if a different party is brought it, then the DM screwed up on Session 0. Full stop.

You can have a fun game if everyone enjoys the uphill battle of using the wrong team for the job, but they should know that going into the game. Session 0 is there to collection players' inputs, understand their interests and tendencies, and make sure that the game as written isn't just the DM forcing their dream-campaign on unsuspecting players. Sure, design the world and loose campaign concepts ahead of time, but I'd actually recommend doing a lot of the early core adventure crafting between Session 0 and Session 1, once you know how to build the game around the principle cast and what their motivations are.

That's one way to do it, but if the GM has an existing campaign world with a lot of built in conflicts and things, the GM should provide a primer for the players and say, "This is where you'll be adventuring and the kinds of things you will likely find to do. Create characters that fit there."