D&D General How often do you complete a campaign as a player?

[James Gasik]

In the 80s, "milestone leveling" for us was often "roll up an X-level character for this adventure I just bought at B Dalton."

Ah, B. Dalton's. My favorite store in the mall back in the day. Now only a memory.

 

[Lanefan]

Some DM's were world builders early on, creating complex game worlds full of lore and things to explore, but it's true, most of us were just running adventures and seeing what would stick. PC's had a high rate of attrition, ...

The running of adventures and seeing what sticks does, over time, lead to setting exploration even if only by osmosis.

I mean, by the time you've run ten or fifteen adventures with the same players and their various characters, those players (via their characters) will likely have seen - and maybe even interacted with - a big chunk of setting. Even more so if between-adventure downtime is at all important, as that's where setting interaction tends to rise to the fore.

 

[Lanefan]

My response would be the reason rarely actually matters. If campaigns are fizzling in the middle, then use shorter campaigns.

As far as voting goes, this will be the third time I’ve stated this: do you feel that the campaign has had a satisfactory closing? Then it did. I refuse to dive down into “what does end mean”. It means whatever you feel comfortable with it meaning.

And by the same token, I don't feel I can give an honest vote in this poll without that vote being used to help "prove" a stance opposed to that which I hold.

 

[Hussar]

And by the same token, I don't feel I can give an honest vote in this poll without that vote being used to help "prove" a stance opposed to that which I hold.

Ok. Put it this way. If you had a 50:50 chance of every adventure you started ending halfway through the adventure, would you change your approach to gaming?

Fifteen adventures with the same characters? Dude, most people are lucky to get three.

You are so far outside the norm that of course this poll won’t work for you.

There is no “stance” here. I was accused of hating roleplay because I suggested that DMs speed up the game. The reason for the poll was to see if I was the outlier here. If most people felt they were successfully completing campaigns, then fine my advice would be bad advice.

But telling people who almost never complete campaigns, hell most end in the middle of an adventure, that they should be just happy with playing is incredibly tone deaf to the problem.

 

[payn]

My issues have not even been well gelled groups coming apart for real life reasons. I have been plagued with character hoppers who cant play a single PC for more that 1-3 sessions. That and system hoppers who cant play a single system for more than 1-5 sessions. I have had good long running campaign player groups in the past (covid killed my last one) so I know how to do it. Its just a PITA process everytime to find that right mesh of playstyle and commitment.

 

[TwoSix]

My issues have not even been well gelled groups coming apart for real life reasons. I have been plagued with character hoppers who cant play a single PC for more that 1-3 sessions. That and system hoppers who cant play a single system for more than 1-5 sessions. I have had good long running campaign player groups in the past (covid killed my last one) so I know how to do it. Its just a PITA process everytime to find that right mesh of playstyle and commitment.

1-3 sessions is a little extreme, but I definitely start feeling the itch to move on to a new PC after about 10-12 sessions.

I’ve been trying to kill off one of my characters for multiple sessions now, but since we’re 10th level, it’s almost impossible to die.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok. Put it this way. If you had a 50:50 chance of every adventure you started ending halfway through the adventure, would you change your approach to gaming?

Yes; I'd find players (or a DM, as appropriate) with more of a sense of long-term commitment, and carry on from there.

And by long-term commitment, I mean things like intending to live in the same city for the foreseeable future, willing and able to stick to the game schedule as agreed, and not being flighty when it comes to always wanting to try new settings, systems, and so forth.

Fifteen adventures with the same characters? Dude, most people are lucky to get three.

You are so far outside the norm that of course this poll won’t work for you.

Why am I so far outside the norm, though? And, really, should I be?

The short-campaign-as-normal thing is IMO a direct result of WotC marketing* in the 3e era (and since), as short campaigns are extremely likely to lead to more demand for books and materials. WotC outright said, for 3e, that the game is designed to go from start to finish in 18 months give or take; and people took that to heart and (sadly) normalized it. WotC sold more books, and then watched and learned as Paizo refined the process into the single-path-as-whole-campaign model, leading to the current-day corporately-mandated "normal".

* - sure, some were playing designed-to-be-short campaigns pre-WotC, but I posit they were at that time the minority.

As for character career length: the benchmark for a character to get into our Hall of Fame is ten adventures. Including a few long-term adventuring NPCs, who we view as being the same as PCs, since 1983 we've put about 130 characters in there. The longest career in terms of adventures is by a character who has been in play on and off since 1981 and is currently in her 39th (!) adventure.

There is no “stance” here. I was accused of hating roleplay because I suggested that DMs speed up the game. The reason for the poll was to see if I was the outlier here. If most people felt they were successfully completing campaigns, then fine my advice would be bad advice.

Yes, and if I vote "nearly never" you'll take that as data to support your speed-up-the-game position, with which I disagree.

 

[Lanefan]

My issues have not even been well gelled groups coming apart for real life reasons. I have been plagued with character hoppers who cant play a single PC for more that 1-3 sessions. That and system hoppers who cant play a single system for more than 1-5 sessions. I have had good long running campaign player groups in the past (covid killed my last one) so I know how to do it. Its just a PITA process everytime to find that right mesh of playstyle and commitment.

Character-hoppers are easy to deal with: just let 'em roll up new characters in the same ongoing campaign. I've seen and been that many a time.

System hoppers, though, can go play somewhere else.

 

[Lanefan]

1-3 sessions is a little extreme, but I definitely start feeling the itch to move on to a new PC after about 10-12 sessions.

I’ve been trying to kill off one of my characters for multiple sessions now, but since we’re 10th level, it’s almost impossible to die.

If you're trying to kill it because you're bored of playing it, why not just have it in-character retire from adventuring and bring in something new?

 

[TwoSix]

Why am I so far outside the norm, though?

You answered your own question in the preceding paragraph.

And by long-term commitment, I mean things like intending to live in the same city for the foreseeable future, willing and able to stick to the game schedule as agreed, and not being flighty when it comes to always wanting to try new settings, systems, and so forth.

Finding a group of people with these characteristics, who you also get along with and share gaming tastes with, is a very tricky business.

There are plenty of things I like about classic/OSR style play. But if you told me, "Hey, are you interested in playing in a campaign that will last a decade+ and we'll just keep playing the same system," I'd nope right out of there.