How do you like to start a campaign

[zakael19]

That game ran for 12 years.

Always curious about the frequency and hour length of a game like this. Is it weekly?

 

[Lanefan]

Always curious about the frequency and hour length of a game like this. Is it weekly?

It was weekly for the first year or two, then very intermittent for a year or two, then weekly for a while, then twice weekly (too many players so they split up into two groups running on different nights) for most of the last six years.

Typical evening sessions, so 4 hours or so each with some variance; and maybe one all-day session a year just for kicks.

 

[zakael19]

It was weekly for the first year or two, then very intermittent for a year or two, then weekly for a while, then twice weekly (too many players so they split up into two groups running on different nights) for most of the last six years.

Typical evening sessions, so 4 hours or so each with some variance; and maybe one all-day session a year just for kicks.

As often with your posts, a glimpse for me into an incomprehensible alternate dimension of TTRPGing!

 

[jdrakeh]

The last Black Aegis campaign started off with the plane the PCs were in being sabotaged when they were flying over the jungle. I used a stopwatch to time how long they had to grab accessories before they had to jump. And then rolled to see how many of the parachutes had been sabotaged. There were six agents and four functional chutes. We roleplayed the entire jump sequence.

 

[aco175]

I tend to start with a combat. A bit like the Lost Mines box set wit the PCs traveling to Phandalin with a wagon of goods.

 

[Celebrim]

I like to have a Session Zero that includes group PC creation wherein the players decide on preexisting relationships between the PCs. I very much dislike having opening scenes where the players are all strangers who have to introduce themselves.

It is desirable to establish connections between characters, but you can come up with scenarios that don't require that.

Disasters are a big one. Another is to have them all be friends and acquaintances of some NPC who knows them even if they don't yet know each other that well, and have that NPC be the mover that gets the group together, arranges the introductions, and then hits them all with news of the disaster.

I also find it hard on my suspension of disbelief when two people who only met yesterday are suddenly willing to risk life and limb for each other.

So, imagine it's the middle of winter and the PC's are all inhabitants of a certain city when a 24HD ancient red dragon comes and murders all the 10th level characters in town, and burns down everything and now the PCs are all refugees trying to journey in the wilderness together with a bunch of commoners that will die without protection. Or maybe all the PCs are castaways shipwrecked on an island together. And while the rest of the campaign kind of sucks, the initial start to Skull & Shackles where you are all pressganged aboard a ship and have to secretly conspire together to mutiny without arousing suspicions of the officers I thought was awesome.

 

[zarionofarabel]

There's ways to make this highly believable in the fiction, however.

It is desirable to establish connections between characters, but you can come up with scenarios that don't require that.

Oh indeed it can be done, and at one time was the norm, but it's not my personal preference anymore. I actually reaffirmed my preference recently when I started watching AP videos on YT. Several times I've watched groups struggle to get good starts to games when the PCs are unknown to each other, often wasting whole sessions on what I feel is pointless banter and fake suspicion and hostility to just end up deciding to work as a cohesive group anyway. Which is the basis of my preference. TTRPGs for the most part, are about a group of individuals that pretty much trusts each other and supports each other in order to tackle precarious situations. While I do like the occasional PC vs PC hiccup, having PCs who are actively working against the group dynamic makes for a poor game in me experience. Plus, as I stated earlier, the idea that people who have just met, no matter the circumstances of how, suddenly being willing to risk physical harm or even death to protect one another inhibits my suspension of disbelief. All of those things are instantly avoided if the PCs are a group of people who have already known each other for an appreciable amount of time before the game begins. Just my personal preference really. But since I will not run a campaign without having a Session Zero that includes cooperative PC creation, it's simple enough to tell players to make PCs that already know each other and trust each other and all that good stuff.

 

[corwyn77]

Current game: We're all former students of a prestigous fencing school brought back to do a mission for the Bishop (a good guy Richilieu) to find out why the monsters of our fairy tales are coming to life. Spoiler: They've actually been around for millenia.

Same GM: 1742, we are all impressed by the British army and sent over to a new fort is St. Johns, Newfoundland where we soon fought witches, cyborgs and time travelers and got superpowers.

Earlier game: All brothers (5 from 3 different mothers) have to band together when one (me, first born noble) is framed for treason and we go on the run.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh indeed it can be done, and at one time was the norm, but it's not my personal preference anymore. I actually reaffirmed my preference recently when I started watching AP videos on YT. Several times I've watched groups struggle to get good starts to games when the PCs are unknown to each other, often wasting whole sessions on what I feel is pointless banter and fake suspicion and hostility to just end up deciding to work as a cohesive group anyway.

I don't consider those sessions wasted in the slightest, for a string of reasons:

--- having to introduce their character in-character - and thus by extension being forced to speak in character right away - can help give the player an idea of what might make that character tick and-or spark some ideas as to how to roleplay it going forward (even including whether the cool character voice you have in mind is actually going to work in practice)
--- the "pointless banter" serves more of the same purpose - the players gets to know not only their own characters but those of the other players; meanwhile the DM gets to know all of them
--- sometimes that "fake suspicion and hostility" isn't fake at all, and it's probably better they get it out of their systems before going into the field rather than once they get out there (sometimes this phase can provide the best moments of the whole damn game!)
--- as I prefer players roll up their characters mostly without knowledge of what everyone else is rolling up, giving the PCs a chance to get to know what each other can do before hitting the field also allows them time and opportunity to fill in any real or perceived gaps in their lineup via recruitment of NPC adventurers if they so desire.

 

[AnotherGuy]

With a ying and a yang and a yippity-do.