Is starting depth of campaign crucial to player retention?

[Pinotage]

No - at least not the way I've always dealt with homebrews. As a player I hate reading through lots of material before a game starts, and as a DM I hate providing it. I much prefer the approach where players discover the world around them as they progress through it, and if needed they get information handed to them if something comes up or if the DM thinks it might be necessary or important.

That said, when players create a background, they pass ideas to me on their character, and I help them integrate into the campaign on a individual basis. Much easier and more personal which creates a more rugged and interesting character.

Pinotage

 

[kensanata]

All of the above. I'm with Pinotage: I hate reading through lots of stuff before we can get started. I want to play a game, not read a book. Thus, when I run games myself, we start with some basic geography around the starting point and that's it. If players want a particular something they can talk to me about it and I'll add it happily. And for those players that don't come up with anything, that's just fine as well.

As a counter example, however, I had a new player complain about a missing world, a missing history, and claim that it prevented him from investing into his character. As it turned out, our play styles and personalities differed so much that we ended up not playing together.

So, both situations are possible. I myself am firmly in the "low buy-in" camp.

 

[Phlebas]

If you develop a campaign world as you go it can be fun, but it does make it difficult to bring new players in if the background is scattered throughout the players and DM's notes. (on the other hand it can be an excuse to develop the next county along so its not a golden rule, just a factor)

handing a new PC a book / handout and circling the bits that are relevant to them can make integrating them easier - and even bring out more depth to the campaign

having said that i'm playing in eberron - (lots of background), cauldron (no background outside the city) and DM'ing a homebrew (lots of ignored stuff from previous campaigns and stuff developed on the fly)

all have been running at least a year so far (3 for the homebrew) and showing little sign of fizzle.

 

[Zurai]

No...

sometimes having a blank slate that is 'built' by the players adventures works best...

really depends on the players

Yep.

I've never seen a campaign world successfully created by the players though...how does that work?

Check my PbP game 'Into the New World' for an example. I provided one semi-detailed town of ~900 people, a couple dozen NPC names with tiny scraps of background, and a general technology level; the players have done the rest so far. You can also read Shilsen's story hour, which is set in Eberron but the campaign is totally player-driven.

 

[jgbrowning]

No, IMO. However, it really depends upon the players. Some people prefer a more detailed background and find starting without it less enjoyable.

joe b.

 

[amethal]

In the campaign I am playing in, we started out as castaways from whichever campaign settings took our individual fancy, washed up by a magical storm onto the shore of a world which was completely unfamiliar to us.

The world has a very detailed background, but at the start we didn't know any of it. We've been gradually finding out that things are not what they seem, and for me this has been the most enjoyable part of the whole experience.

A particularly nice touch was one or two things that seemed like your typical DM homebrew nuisance "change for the sake of change" (e.g. the fact that silver is very rare here, and is worth ten times its usual value) turned out to be very relevant (and sinister!) parts of the plot.

To take a less extreme example, I think a points of light setting where the PCs start off as the stereotypical farm boys who have never been further than half a day's journey from their homes and know very little can also work well. As they adventure further and further afield they build up knowledge about the world they live in.

They learn by experiencing, rather than by DM handout.

On the other hand, a world where the only thing beyond the horizon is the next dungeon, with no consistency or overall "feel" to it, is pretty boring in my opinion.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I've never seen a campaign world successfully created by the players though...how does that work?

Its a cooperative venture where the GM provides the framework of the setting and the characters motivation drive where the campaign goes. There is less work for the GM to do, and alot less of that work gets wasted by the group going other ways.

One of my old campaigns started as simply as possible, the PC's were all from a village and were returning after thier apprenticeship for the harvest festival to find it destroyed in a battle between 5 different factions. The group's choice as to where to go drove the rest of the campaign and 'fleshed in' the largely blank campaign map. To start, all I had was 6 organizations and a map that resembled the british isles.

As the campaign moved forward, the PC's alliances and motivations drove where the campaign went, and too a degree how the world was set up. It made being a GM very easy.. I knew where the PC's wanted to go and was able to design those portions of the game as we went. I also knew what the players long term goals were, so I could tie in an overarching plot that made sense.

I tried this style after being part of a SW game that the players plans and schemes were the primary focus of each session. We never walked into a session asking 'so, what do we do now...', it was always an IC discussion of whose plan needed taking care of first.
{technically the game is on 'hold', but the odds of getting the entire group together again is getting slimmer each passing year }

 

[kigmatzomat]

I generally find that providing anything past a cursory description of the "big picture" is more trouble than it is worth. In games with detailed settings, if the DM doesn't limit the origins of the party in some way, it's very difficult for there to be a party.

Without the "shipwreck/prisoners/slaves" kind of game kick off, the characters tend to be too diverse with no unifying thread.

Besides, the depth that I, as a DM, find interesting isn't necessarily going to mesh with the players' interests.

 

[Lanefan]

It largely depends on how long a campaign you have in mind. If you're thinking of a single story arc of 6 adventures and that's it, then don't worry too much about it other than how the story arc fits in. But if you're designing for something with a projected lifespan of 10+ years spanning lots of story arcs, then you need a lot more detail going in...even though the players may or may not ever see it.

Starting out, all most players seem to want to know is a few bits about local geography, politics, maybe a shred of history, and where their PC(s) fit in if at all. From there, they go out and learn the rest - as much as they want - through discovery.

Which means, of course, that "the rest" all has to be in place before you start; so you as DM know what comes next and can introduce it at useful or appropriate times, and tell them what they learn. Without this, player retention might become an issue in a long campaign unless you're *really* good at both winging it and remembering later what you (winged?) (wung?).

Lanefan

 

[prospero63]

No...

sometimes having a blank slate that is 'built' by the players adventures works best...

really depends on the players

Agree completely. A fond saying in my group is "there is no wrong way to play DnD". If the players want a rich campaign, then give it to them. If they want a faceless dungeon crawl, give it to them.