D&D General Defining "New School" Play (+)

[Thomas Shey]

Although you didn't preface this, I assume you are speaking only of your own experiences and anecdotal evidence?

While it may be ancedotal, it matches with mine and the research WOTC did at one point. Even campaigns lasting two years were very much an outlier.

(There were some weird cases back when I started where the meaning of "campaign" was hard to pin down since people and characters cycled in and out a lot. Some of those went on a long time.)

 

[CandyLaser]

There's another one I've seen claimed in the same space--I want to say something like "Neon Veldt" but I'm not finding anything under that name so it can't be right.

Luka Rejec's Ultraviolet Grasslands?

 

[MerricB]

While it may be ancedotal, it matches with mine and the research WOTC did at one point. Even campaigns lasting two years were very much an outlier.

(There were some weird cases back when I started where the meaning of "campaign" was hard to pin down since people and characters cycled in and out a lot. Some of those went on a long time.)

There are a few campaigns that go on and on! And they're great.

I've been continuously running games in my version of Greyhawk for over 20 years at this point (getting close to 25), but they're not all one "campaign". And I have a stable Friday group which I've been playing with for just over 20 years (a few people have come and gone, but a few players have been there all through that).

But those aren't these massive campaigns you hear about. Most of my individual campaigns run from 1st level to high levels over the course of 2-3 years, then end and we start a new game in a different part of Greyhawk a little later in the timeline.

In the "modern" period, the longest campaign I ran last six years (mostly fortnightly session) in 4E, of all systems!

The original long-running campaign I participated in back in the 80s intended to run through the three compilation modules (T1-4, A1-4, GDQ1-7) and then finish in H1-4 Bloodstone Pass. We got to the end of A1-4 before breaking up.

One of the odd things (lies, damned lies, and statistics) is by its very nature, more D&D campaigns will be shorter than longer. Because in the time it takes one group to play a 10-year campaign, another group can play ten 1-year campaigns!

But yes, based on what I've seen of Wizards' research, long-running campaigns aren't the most common. (And it's worth noting that the big Wizards survey was done before 3E was released). Here's a link: RPGnet News

Of note:

The "year" column is how long they've been playing the game. See that even with the most experienced gamers, they're averaging below 20 sessions for a campaign! (There is a caveat: There's a cap on the age of the gamers surveyed.)

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Desdichado]

Although you didn't preface this, I assume you are speaking only of your own experiences and anecdotal evidence?
[...]
To be clear, I am not saying you didn't have your own experiences or have heard such things from others, but I don't think it is fair to to make any claim about "the vast majority", that's all.

No. WotC referenced market research done prior to the release of 3e.

 

[mamba]

But in New School they are at best optional and lots of game choose not to use them.

they are optional in OS too, I am not even sure they are more frequently used in OS than NS

 

[Thomas Shey]

Luka Rejec's Ultraviolet Grasslands?

That's the one! Thank you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just a purely anecdotal side note, back in the 80's even groups that played D&D would often rotate them with other game systems so that the constant ongoing campaign wasn't a thing because people would want to move on to something else. Among other things, the allergy to learning more than one game system didn't seem as common as it appears to be now.

 

[ezo]

Here's a link: RPGnet News

No. WotC referenced market research done prior to the release of 3e.

This article says absolutely nothing about how long-run an OSG campaign were likely to go.

The table you included...

says the following:

1. Players ("newbies") who have been in the game a year or less are likely to play shorter sessions, have smaller groups, and will "restart" with new characters more quickly. (Logical: TPKs, players exploring new PC options/builds, etc.)

2. Players ("experienced") who are 1-5 years involved increase their chances of longer sessions, larger groups, and more time before a "restart".

3. Players ("veterans") with 5+ years are the most likely to have long sessions, larger groups, and much longer between restarts. Remember also that although sessions are likely longer, veterans aren't as likely to have as frequent play.

Now, if there is anything else I've overlooked, let me know, but frankly I see nothing in that article to support any such claims. Otherwise, I'll not dispute anecdotal evidence---everyone has their own.

While it may be ancedotal, it matches with mine and the research WOTC did at one point. Even campaigns lasting two years were very much an outlier.

(There were some weird cases back when I started where the meaning of "campaign" was hard to pin down since people and characters cycled in and out a lot. Some of those went on a long time.)

Sure, I'll accept and take anecdotal all day long... I know my personal experience is not likely the same as most others, but I've also met a lot of gamers who've also enjoyed many long-run campaign, spanning 2+ years (and often decades long---lucky punks! ).

Just a purely anecdotal side note, back in the 80's even groups that played D&D would often rotate them with other game systems so that the constant ongoing campaign wasn't a thing because people would want to move on to something else. Among other things, the allergy to learning more than one game system didn't seem as common as it appears to be now.

Yeah, we played D&D 80+% of the time, but WEG SW, Vampire, Shadowrun, GURPS, and others were tossed in from time to time. Then when MtG came out, we incorporated playing that when we felt like a "break" from D&D in the 90's.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One of the troubles with "Old School campaigns lasted a long time" is that, for the vast majority, they didn't.

A very few continued. Most ended - and didn't even last a year.

The more modern design of faster levelling (which is now 24 years old - yikes!) was in large part due to that observation: that groups didn't play that long together. But even so, you look at BECMI D&D where the Companion Rules gives advice on the DM setting levelling rates, suggesting 3-5 sessions to gain a level if playing weekly, or 6-8 sessions to gain a level if playing more than once/week. (And these are for adventures past level 9). (Companion DM book, page 2)

That weekly rate? Not all that dissimilar to the 3E progression rate. 5E is a bit quicker, but I think it varies greatly in practice.

Contrast with Gygax's advice for rate of levelling in OD&D (from an early The Strategic Review) - 40-60 sessions in a year to reach level 9, then 1-3 levels gained per year of play thereafter.

And then you see old school folks saying "We spent ten sessions at level 1" or similar, and you begin the realise the divergence in play styles.

Cheers,
Merric

I figured most groups didn't stick together very long (you always hear about the exceptions, not the normal games) but I didn't realize the speed difference in leveling. That's kind of nuts.

 

[MerricB]

I figured most groups didn't stick together very long (you always hear about the exceptions, not the normal games) but I didn't realize the speed difference in leveling. That's kind of nuts.

It's... sort of unreliable.

Back in the early 2000s, we had a series of threads examining the amount of XP and treasure in the early AD&D adventures, and the totals indicated a very similar levelling speed to that of 3E.

But, and this is a big but, we're also aware that a lot of early groups got rid of XP for treasure in the early days. (That faction eventually came out on top in AD&D 2E and relegated XP to treasure as an optional rule). In theory, story-based XP was meant to replace it, but AD&D 2E's guidelines made that a lot less than the XP for treasure. (As I recall, it was capped to be equal to the monster XP, so instead of the 20% monster/80% treasure split, you became 50% monster/50% story, which given the same number of monsters, meant level gain was more than halved in frequency). Did those early gamers make up the XP, or were they happy with slow level-gain?

By the time of 3E, it's mostly all monster XP. And by 5E, the designers seem to like "DM gives out levels when they think appropriate".

In the case of the D&D Adventurers League, where an ongoing DM is not assured, it's possible under the current rules to gain a level after every 2-hour session! This isn't how 5E works in most homes, however!

Going back to the "old days", you also have the Monty Haul gamers. Anyone think they were going up at slow rates?

There is likely a "typical" group, but I'm not sure that even the folks at TSR were really aware of what that was.

Cheers,
Merric