A New Kind of Campaign (Feedback Wanted)

airwalkrr

Adventurer
It seems to me that the most prevalent style of campaign today is one where a DM gets a group of players together and they meet for a regular time and play an adventure or series of adventures. But suppose there were a campaign that was a little more flexible, similar to a Living campaign (like Living Greyhawk), but a bit more intimate.

Here is my vision. The campaign would meet on a regular basis, but the players would not always be the same. Players would attend as they like when their availability allows and for each session, they would receive an entry on a log sheet detailing how much XP they earned, any items the PC received, and coin earned. I would speed a lot of things up for this campaign so that more could be accomplished in the space of one session. For example, damage calculation would be streamlined by using averages in all cases; characters still roll attacks rolls, saves, skill checks, etc. normally of course. I would also have any dungeon maps prepared ahead of time instead of drawing them in real time on a map as the PCs played. I have also devised (and almost completed) a simpler skill system that eliminates the need for a number of skill checks. The focus of the campaign would be on adventure and role-playing and less time would be devoted to abstract calculations for the sake of realism.

To make things fair, each PC would be built on a 25-point buy. PCs could use anything from the three core rulebooks to create their characters, but each character would have expanded options as well so as to allow the use of rules from other books. The PCs would have the following options for expanded characters:
-Each PC gets to use one item (feat, spell, class, prestige class, magic item, or mundane item) from another rule supplement for each character level.
-A PC can play a monster race (defined as a race not found in the PH, and this includes subraces such as grey elf) at the cost of one expanded slot per ECL of the race (minimum one). So a PC could play a goblin (no LA) by spending only his 1st level slot, but a PC would have to use up his first three slots to play a gnoll (ECL 3). PCs choosing to play a race with an ECL higher than 1 must use a monster class progression as per Savage Species.
-A PC can trade ALL of his expanded slots for the opportunity to use all items from one sourcebook. For example, a PC could give up his expanded slots to be able to access all the rules items in the Player's Handbook 2. Another PC might choose to give up his expanded slots so he could play a shadowcaster and use shadow magic from Tome and Magic.
-A PC can trade his expanded slots for extra points to build his character with point buy, to a maximum of 7. So a PC could trade his first 7 expanded slots to create a 32 point-buy character. Such a character would be limited to the core rulebooks for his first seven levels, but would otherwise be a more powerful character.

All PCs would pay upkeep for their characters using the Upkeep variant from the DMG. Every 28 days of campaign time the character would be required to pay additional upkeep with the first upkeep due on the date of character creation. I would track the campaign time continuously, so characters that miss a session might need to catch up by paying upkeep. Though this might seem unfair, characters can use this "down-time" to perform non-adventuring activity, like creating magic items, crafting mundane items, practicing a trade, or performing. Thus, such characters, if they invest in a Profession or Perform skill are actually likely to come out ahead in character wealth.

The adventures would center around excursions to Castle Greyhawk with infrequent forays into other parts of the Domain of Greyhawk. On occassion, a group of players might be allowed to use their characters to play a "mini-campaign" by playing an adventure from Dungeon magazine or another published adventure. These sessions would always include the same players and characters and these characters would not be allowed to join in the normal sessions until the mini-campaign has been completed (which may take several weeks), although they could create new characters to play the normal sessions. The in-game time required to complete the mini-campaign would be determined and the character would not be allowed to join the normal sessions until the in-game time had passed for that character. So in essence I would track separate timelines for the mini-campaign and the main campaign and a given character could not join back in the main campaign until it caught up with the timeline of the mini-campaign (although, as mentioned the player could create a new character to play the main campaign). If the main campaign was ahead in time of the mini-campaign, the characters could re-join and perform non-adventuring activity (like item creation or a Profession) in the gap time.

The advantages of the mini-campaigns would be that they would allow a more cohesive group of PCs to play in a more typical D&D style game from time to time. In addition, mini-campaigns would continue the plot of the setting in parts of the world other than the Domain of Greyhawk.

I think this would be a pretty cool idea. It would be a very organic world in which not everything is always tailored completely to the PCs so they would need to be more circumspect about their choices. It seems like it would be similar to the original D&D campaigns Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz used to run. Does anyone have any comments or feedback about this campaign idea? I am thinking of starting it sometime next year.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Uhm.... seems to me you are talking about three seperate issues here.

One is the issue of the 'expanded slots', which sounds as a sort of action points/campaign points, which can be used fairly flexibly. This sounds kinda cool, I am not clear however what happens to someone who decides to use his first seven EP for extra point buy and then at level 8 decides he wants to have access to another (non-core) book. Would this be allowed by handing in the remainder of his points? Sounds like this is simply some sort of house-rule.

Another issue is that of the upkeep, which sounds simple enuff. Is really nothing more than choosing for a certain option.

The other issue revolves around the flexibility of the character roster. I am assuming that you envision a large group of players (I'd expect at least 10+), many of whom will not be able to meet regular scheduled sessions, so you make the adventures such that within one session there is a clear end and beginning such that a new roster of PC's for the next session does not cause any problems. This last can be done regardless of other issues, and IMHO is more of an issue of adventure planning, which is obviously helped by taking the time-saving shortcuts you mentioned (i.e. standard damage etc.).

The issue which bothers me a bit is that about the side campaigns. Why would one want to do those? If you assume the players already have tight schedules, what makes you think they'll have the time to play out a multi-week sidequest? I would personally choose to have seperate 'non-standard' sessions with sidequests at other times, but try to round them out within one session, such that the main campaign can remain on-track. If there is already a problem foreseen with attendance, then the restraint of not being allowed to attend a session with you 'main' character when it is on a side quest seems overly restrictive to me, and might cause additional problems.
 

Whisper72 said:
Uhm.... seems to me you are talking about three seperate issues here.

One is the issue of the 'expanded slots', which sounds as a sort of action points/campaign points, which can be used fairly flexibly. This sounds kinda cool, I am not clear however what happens to someone who decides to use his first seven EP for extra point buy and then at level 8 decides he wants to have access to another (non-core) book. Would this be allowed by handing in the remainder of his points? Sounds like this is simply some sort of house-rule.

They can only select an entire rulebook if they forfeit ALL their points, including the opportunity to make a character with a higher point buy. Basically, you have to make the decision at 1st level if you want to have access to an entire book. Thanks for bringing that up. It might be something that needs clarification.

Whisper72 said:
Another issue is that of the upkeep, which sounds simple enuff. Is really nothing more than choosing for a certain option.

The other issue revolves around the flexibility of the character roster. I am assuming that you envision a large group of players (I'd expect at least 10+), many of whom will not be able to meet regular scheduled sessions, so you make the adventures such that within one session there is a clear end and beginning such that a new roster of PC's for the next session does not cause any problems. This last can be done regardless of other issues, and IMHO is more of an issue of adventure planning, which is obviously helped by taking the time-saving shortcuts you mentioned (i.e. standard damage etc.).

Yes, I plan to have each session wrapped up neatly by the end. Of course, the adventure will basically be a big dungeon crawl (into Castle Greyhawk) most of the time. So when the session is over, the PCs leave the dungeon and go back to Greyhawk. Of course, the dungeon might be a little different the next time as the inhabitants react to their excursion, so they would be advised to not leave a fraction of a group of enemies alive. Basically, each session could focus on one level of the dungeon perhaps.

Whisper72 said:
The issue which bothers me a bit is that about the side campaigns. Why would one want to do those?

There are a couple reasons. First, although there will be many interesting chances for roleplay in the main dungeon campaign, there won't be much of a plot or storyline. The side treks will have more of a story to them and let the PCs get a chance to feel like they are a part of something bigger than one small pocket of the world. The second reason is to give a little variety and allow a group of PCs to have a short series of sessions with a more cohesive group on occassion. The idea is simply to allow things to get mixed up from time to time.

Whisper72 said:
If you assume the players already have tight schedules, what makes you think they'll have the time to play out a multi-week sidequest?

Not everyone will, but if a group of 3-6 players does, I think it would provide a welcome opportunity for those with the time.

Whisper72 said:
I would personally choose to have seperate 'non-standard' sessions with sidequests at other times, but try to round them out within one session, such that the main campaign can remain on-track.

Maybe I miscommunicated what I meant. The side quests would be scheduled at a different time than the standard campaign. For instance, if I held the main campaign on Sunday afternoons, then a group wanted to play a side quest, we might meet Saturday evenings or maybe Thursday nights depending on the group's availability.

Whisper72 said:
If there is already a problem foreseen with attendance, then the restraint of not being allowed to attend a session with you 'main' character when it is on a side quest seems overly restrictive to me, and might cause additional problems.

True. But it gives them an opportunity to play with a second character. I'll have to think about it a bit more though because you do raise a good point.

All good points actually. Thanks for the insight.
 

Air,

my only problems with this are two fold:
1) I don't have any real life players
2) If I did most don't have the time or energy for such endeavours at the moment...
 

I'm so sorry to hear about that Nightfall. Of course, this kind of campaign isn't for all DMs. It could potentially offer a DM more work, but I think the end result would be worth it. In the meantime, I am fishing for suggestions to improve the idea while I hash out exactly how and when I'm going to start it.
 

I read your post and like the general idea.

I am guessing the general idea is to be able to handle a rather large group of potential players (10+, maybe even 20) who will be attending in groups of 4 to 6 at a given session.
Furthermore, you want the campaign-world to undergo consistent changes caused in part by the actions of the players, and don't want players who can't make it for extended periods to fall to far behind.

Aside from that, you introduce various house-rules that I assume you introduce to reduce the work you have as a DM and speed up combat.
However, I don't see those rules working very well.

Let's start with the average-damage-rule. This would reduce the number of dice rolls, but only to a minimal degree. I suggest you either apply this rule to all die-rolls or not at all.
(to allow for critical hits and misses, you might rule that on a d20 roll, a 1 is a critical miss, a 20 a potential critical hit, and all other results are considered '10')

on the subject of 'expanded' characters:
I am assuming you introduced this rule to minimize the number of rules taken from non-core books. However, if you have a potential group of 20 players, and each uses rules from different sources, you still have a lot of work.
A different approach could be to let each player create one or two characters before the start of the campaign. They may select classes, feats etc. from any sourcebook you have approved. (I suggest only approving books you have access to yourself...)
Then, compile a list of all 'items' taken from those books.
Characters may now freely use these 'items'.
Whenever a player wants to use something not yet on that list, the normal procedure of DM approval takes place.

As for mini-campains: Whenever a small selection of players is available more often, you can always split off that group from the main campaign. They will then no longer be available in the main campaign during the time they play the mini campaign, but I don't think they will see that as a problem (I don't know many players that have time to play 2 or 3 sessions a week, or find it a problem to skip one of the sessions if another campaign happens to have a session in the same week)

About the setting:
Dungeoncrawls are not the best of locations for roleplay based gaming in my experience.
I suggest designing a large city instead, having ample oppertunity to contain thief guilds, competing merchant houses, and royal families with age-long feuds that resort to the hiring of mercenary adventurers to make life a bit harder for their counterparts.

Hope this helps,
Herzog
 


airwalkrr said:
I'm so sorry to hear about that Nightfall. Of course, this kind of campaign isn't for all DMs. It could potentially offer a DM more work, but I think the end result would be worth it. In the meantime, I am fishing for suggestions to improve the idea while I hash out exactly how and when I'm going to start it.

Not entirely your fault. I'm just offering my 0.02 on the subject. While it might work for some, in my experience the more "experienced" DMs of today generally don't have the players that are willing to put in the effort. The DM might. But the players...not so much.
 

Your description makes me think of EGG's original D&D campaigns, or what I've read of them anyway.
 


Remove ads

Top