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

[TwoSix]

Ok. Right there. You have lived in the same area for decades. You do realize how much of an outlier right there that makes you, don't you?

And considering one of the largest segments of gamers is the military, not designing for people who are in the military seems like a very bad idea.

Yep.

At the core, the argument here is "Does it make sense to design a game with the expectation that 5-6 participants will be able to meet regularly every week or two for a half-decade or more to be able to actually finish the game?"

And the related argument of "Does it make sense to design an open-ended game that is never intended to actually come to a conclusion?"

 

[payn]

Yep.

At the core, the argument here is "Does it make sense to design a game with the expectation that 5-6 participants will be able to meet regularly every week or two for a half-decade or more to be able to actually finish the game?"

And the related argument of "Does it make sense to design an open-ended game that is never intended to actually come to a conclusion?"

Neither. I know, I know, "too many tomes with too much readin already Payn!" but I think a DMG II is necessary for campaign discussion, instruction, etc.. Show people how to knock out a metaplot campaign from 1-20 in 18-24 months. Show people how to run weekly campaigns that end when you say they do. Talk about organized play for experience and adventures to mine. Talk about campaign play instead of letting the fanbase shake fists at each other about how it should be done.

 

[Hussar]

Neither. I know, I know, "too many tomes with too much readin already Payn!" but I think a DMG II is necessary for campaign discussion, instruction, etc.. Show people how to knock out a metaplot campaign from 1-20 in 18-24 months. Show people how to run weekly campaigns that end when you say they do. Talk about organized play for experience and adventures to mine. Talk about campaign play instead of letting the fanbase shake fists at each other about how it should be done.

TBH, I 100% agree with this. I think the idea of a DMG 1 and DMG 2 and even a DMG 3 isn't a bad one at all. I understand exactly why it's not going to happen, but, maybe some Name's Guide to Creation (ok, I suck at naming) book every few years would certainly not be remiss.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok. Right there. You have lived in the same area for decades. You do realize how much of an outlier right there that makes you, don't you?

No. I don't think that makes me an outlier at all.

And considering one of the largest segments of gamers is the military, not designing for people who are in the military seems like a very bad idea.

Interesting, if true.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep.

At the core, the argument here is "Does it make sense to design a game with the expectation that 5-6 participants will be able to meet regularly every week or two for a half-decade or more to be able to actually finish the game?"

Perhaps it makes sense to design a game with the expectation that - other than the DM - the players who start it might or might not necessarily be the ones still playing it X-years later.

In other words: design as if player turnover is, over the long term, an expected and acceptable occurrence.

And the related argument of "Does it make sense to design an open-ended game that is never intended to actually come to a conclusion?"

To that I say yes it does make sense, in that having it open-ended means groups can play that game for whatever length of time they like, be it a few months, a few years, or a few decades.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Nvm

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep.

At the core, the argument here is "Does it make sense to design a game with the expectation that 5-6 participants will be able to meet regularly every week or two for a half-decade or more to be able to actually finish the game?"

And the related argument of "Does it make sense to design an open-ended game that is never intended to actually come to a conclusion?"

Its not even just that, but the question of whether they'd be interested in staying with the same campaign for that period. The current 13A game I'm running includes mostly people who could have been playing in the same campaign for half a decade (I've known most of them for 30 years now), but I'm not sure a one of us would be interested in playing a single campaign for longer than a couple years.

 

[Hex08]

That I might push for dms to pull their thumb out and increase the pace of their games makes sense when I’m part of that 50%. OTOH dms or players who almost always complete campaign would see no need to increase pacing.

Obviously, your experiences are your own (and I may have mentioned this similar point earlier) but I don't think laying the blame on slow DM pacing is fair. I can't think of a campaign that I stopped playing in or that just fell apart that had anything to do with DM pacing, it's always been due to uncontrollable life issues, or the rare occasion I joined a new group that I didn't enjoy playing with, If someone gets a new job opportunity and has to move ASAP pacing isn't the issue. Don't get me wrong, I am sure some DMs drag their feet but they shouldn't be expected to account for the uncontrollable aspects of life.

Basically, just because 50% polled are experiencing the same problem doesn't mean they all have the same cause in common.

 

[Hussar]

Obviously, your experiences are your own (and I may have mentioned this similar point earlier) but I don't think laying the blame on slow DM pacing is fair. I can't think of a campaign that I stopped playing in or that just fell apart that had anything to do with DM pacing, it's always been due to uncontrollable life issues, or the rare occasion I joined a new group that I didn't enjoy playing with, If someone gets a new job opportunity and has to move ASAP pacing isn't the issue. Don't get me wrong, I am sure some DMs drag their feet but they shouldn't be expected to account for the uncontrollable aspects of life.

Basically, just because 50% polled are experiencing the same problem doesn't mean they all have the same cause in common.

But, you're missing my point. It's not that pacing is causing problems. It's not. It's that DM's seem unaware that their campaigns are on a ticking clock and then spend considerable time on things that are not necessarily needed to spend time on.

The probem isn't that the DM's are running slow games, so people quit. It's that real life steps on the neck of games so often that, for someone like me, the odds of me actually completing a campaign is very, very small. So, I would prefer the DM picks up the pace, maybe skips over some of the not so necessary stuff, and get to the conclusion before real life steps on the campaign.

Again, I never said anything about causes. I frankly don't really care why the campaign ends. It's the fact that the campaigns very often do. So increasing the pacing is a solution to the problem of time limits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, I never said anything about causes. I frankly don't really care why the campaign ends. It's the fact that the campaigns very often do. So increasing the pacing is a solution to the problem of time limits.

The problem with that is that its just as easy for that to turn into compression that doesn't give the campaign time to breath.