Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wedgeski" data-source="post: 5262732" data-attributes="member: 16212">I voted in agreement with the OP but when I think back to how I've used the term through the years, the meaning tends to have changed as we've got older.We had 3 DM's in our group growing up so "campaign" usually associated with the DM running it. "Are we playing Rich's campaign this weekend?" In those days it would have been D&D or MERP but we definitely associated the campaign with the style of the DM, not what setting or system we played.As the years went on, and the three DM's began to be associated with specific settings, that question would change. "Are we playing Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms next week?" In this case the adventuring party would remain a constant even if the DM occasionally changed for a guest shot from someone else, and the campaign was most definitely the linked adventures, associations, and general legacy of the party.Nowadays, we've kind of left published settings behind in favour of homebrew, and strangely the campaign is wrapped up in *who plays*. If enough people are missing we'll postpone the next session of my homebrew and play some random one-shot instead. It might even be in the same setting. But it would not be considered part of my campaign, and the events that took place wouldn't have any bearing on the ongoing adventure.All very odd, and I've never really thought about it before.</blockquote>