D&D 5E is a campaign setting necessary?

[Sunseeker]

I really like this idea. I love world building, but could give that all up for such a simple premise.

Well, the sad part is that "wizard who sends us on missions" is all that remains of a rather grander campaign the DM had created that got trashed by our terrible group we split off from. You can read about that fiasco in my other thread wherever it went. Though its a bit of a bummer that game was ruined it provides us nice room for something we can pull out when we don't want to take part in the other campaigns we trade off through (we usually spend about two weeks playing one game, then switch off to another game and another DM to avoid burnout). A nice 1-session sort of thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

For my next campaign, I'd like to do something a bit more episodic. Essentially, I just want to take a bunch of short, unrelated adventures (from Dungeon and the like) and run them with minimal modification. Many such adventures aren't set in any specific campaign setting. Do you think it would work to just run them like that without giving the PCs a map or any hard-and-fast setting information? They're essentially just wanderers who go from place to place doing good deeds or whatever - but where those places are in relation to each other isn't clear and ultimately doesn't really matter.

Traveling and downtime would be things that mostly took place off-screen in between episodes. I was thinking I'd do it like the Adventurer's League does it, so after each adventure, PCs would earn a set number of downtime days that they could then spend off-screen doing whatever it was they wanted to do with them.

Would that work? Does that sound appealing to anyone? Do you think you could play in a campaign where you don't know exactly where your PC is on a map? Where there are no homogenous religions and cultures and such-like?

I don't see the least problem doing that.

Most of the people in the real world before fairly modern times lived just like that.

 

[JWO]

If I were playing I don't think I'd be able to really get invested in a game that played like that as I like there to be overarching story-lines in the games I play and consequences to the decisions I make but if you and your players are down with it then why not?

I think, like what other posters have written, it'll probably end up playing out like a 'monster of the week' TV show and bits of continuity will creep in eventually whether you like it or not...

 

[pukunui]

I think, like what other posters have written, it'll probably end up playing out like a 'monster of the week' TV show and bits of continuity will creep in eventually whether you like it or not...

"Dungeon of the week" ("adventure of the week"?) is exactly what I'm going for here. If "bits of continuity" creep in, that's fine. I won't try to fight it. I just don't really see it happening if I go with the Sliders-style campaign, where they're continually shifting from one prime material world to another. Unless I introduce some other creatures that can do it purposefully and can therefore follow them, just like Sliders eventually did (from what I understand - I think I only ever watched the first season).

 

[Jan van Leyden]

In this context a campaign outline I created in my 3e days may be of interest. It aimed at a campaign sporting different DCC adventures without giving much thought to background and internal logic.

I assumed a former adventurer had inherited his father's fief including a nice castle. Being a bit paranoid he subscribed to a certain conspiracy theory according to which all the curious, isolated dungeons were symptoms of some big bad guy. He called his former compatriots to his side and they set up a kind of hub for adventurers.

As DM you could read some basic information (say, the backcover blurb of the adventure to be played) to the players, give their characters some (more or less) helpfull stuff, have them teleported to the location, and presto! Instant dungeon adventure!

 

[aramis erak]

"Dungeon of the week" ("adventure of the week"?) is exactly what I'm going for here. If "bits of continuity" creep in, that's fine. I won't try to fight it. I just don't really see it happening if I go with the Sliders-style campaign, where they're continually shifting from one prime material world to another. Unless I introduce some other creatures that can do it purposefully and can therefore follow them, just like Sliders eventually did (from what I understand - I think I only ever watched the first season).

You've just defined the campaign setting right there...

The biggest drawback to such a campaign tends to be lack of player investment.
Secondarily, without a setting framework, even a minimalist one, PC's have no place to be from, and thus no ties (hostile nor friendly) to the local setting. This dramatically cuts the tendency to roleplay the interactions.

 

[pukunui]

The biggest drawback to such a campaign tends to be lack of player investment.
Secondarily, without a setting framework, even a minimalist one, PC's have no place to be from, and thus no ties (hostile nor friendly) to the local setting. This dramatically cuts the tendency to roleplay the interactions.

I'm not too worried about that. Most of my players are avid roleplayers who don't need specific ties to get into roleplaying their interactions with the locals. They don't generally care about where their characters have come from (some of the PCs in my current FR campaign don't have specific hometowns); they're more focused on the now. And 5e's personal characteristics really help them with that. So it's all good!