Is starting depth of campaign crucial to player retention?

[Graybeard]

I've played in very detailed world games and some that only the basic details were done before the games started. Both can be fun depending on the players and what they are told beforehand. My game is a little of both. I made a map of the continent and starting kingdom\country, made a list of well known people in that country, and then let the players do the rest. As they explore and meet new NPCs, I add to the campaign world. The players all made good backgrounds for their characters and included basic historical notes for the area they were from. I included those in the campaign world and have expanded upon them. Two players even made maps of their hometowns and neighborhoods.

 

[barsoomcore]

Can there be any serious challenge to the notion that far and away player retention is determined by social, rather than game, factors? People leave games because they don't like the other gamers, or because their girlfriend wants them to stay home Thursday nights, or because their new job is wearing them out, or whatever, but very rarely because the game doesn't hold their interest.

I would be surprised to discover that dissatisfaction with campaign depth ranked in the top 100 of reasons for people to leave campaigns.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is starting depth of campaign crucial to player retention?

No.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

It's never been an issue and in fact, having to know too much about the setting can be a handicap.

 

[jdrakeh]

In my experience, no. I've played in and run lengthy campaigns that started both with and without an extremely detailed and well-established setting. Likewise, I've played in and run aborted unfun games than started both with and without an extremely detailed and well-established setting.

The degree of setting detail seems to have little to do with player retention in my own experience. Player retention seems to be more a function of Awesome, as the players interpret that word, and less a function of Detail (unless, of course, the players happen to view Detail as Awesome).

 

[Zurai]

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.

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.

Wrong. It is quite possible to run a long campaign without plotting the entire thing out ahead of time. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that it's not possible to plan everything out ahead of time for a 10+ year campaign!

 

[Lanefan]

Can there be any serious challenge to the notion that far and away player retention is determined by social, rather than game, factors? People leave games because they don't like the other gamers, or because their girlfriend wants them to stay home Thursday nights, or because their new job is wearing them out, or whatever, but very rarely because the game doesn't hold their interest.

I would be surprised to discover that dissatisfaction with campaign depth ranked in the top 100 of reasons for people to leave campaigns.

I smell a poll coming...

EDIT: And how about that...there it is!

Lanefan

 

[kigmatzomat]

Wrong. It is quite possible to run a long campaign without plotting the entire thing out ahead of time. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet money I don't have that it's not possible to plan everything out ahead of time for a 10+ year campaign!

Having a campaign in year 6, I'd agree. I'm generally 2-3 years ahead of the players on the big items but they do sometimes short circuit the plots or thoroughly derail them.

Like the time they let loose a demigod of undeath and a couple of million undead upon the world. It was either that or an unrecoverable TPK.

Can't forget when they forgot they had publicly declared themselves the enemies of a nation and then visited the capital city using old letters of introduction. They had to fake a foiled assassination attempt with one of their allies declaring them to be imposters. Political implications out the whazoo.

Or the notion to travel across the continent at one character's whim. That wound up destabilizing the mithril market and a nation's economy for a couple of months after they collapsed a mithril mine and relocated all the enslaved wild elf miners.

Yep, very few ways to plot that out in advance.

 

[the Jester]

No; many players are turned off by having too much "homework" to read before playing.

One double-sided sheet, no more, to start with.

 

[Stoat]

Is starting depth of campaign crucial to player retention?

I don't believe it's necessary to provide players with a wealth of background information up front. In my experience, unless they ask, they aren't interested.

However, it may be helpful for the DM if there's a lot of background information prepared. This can give the DM ideas for future adventures, forestalling burnout. It's also nice to have when the PC's want to do something totally unexpected.

Different DM's, obviously, are comfortable operating with different levels of background info. I like to have a city map, a map of everything within two or three days travel of the city, ten or a dozen NPC's (appearance, personality and goals, not necessarily stats), three or so possible long-term "plots" and two first level adventures. YMMV.