Perennial campaign worlds vs. one-shot campaign worlds

[Quasqueton]

As a Player in a D&D game (not as a DM), which do you prefer:

A continuous/perennial campaign world -- a world in which you and/or others have multiple campaigns, probably with multiple in-game parties and/or out-of-game groups. For instance, you may play a campaign from level 1 to 20 in the World of Greyhawk, and then play another 1-20 in the World of Greyhawk. Or maybe play one 5th-level adventure in the World of Greyhawk for a few game sessions, then make new 10th-level characters for another adventure in the World of Greyhawk for a few game sessions, then make new 2nd-level characters for another adventure in the World of Greyhawk for a few game sessions.

A one-shot campaign world -- a world that only exists for one campaign, probably one in-game party and/or out-of-game group. For instance, you may play the campaign from level 1 to 20 in the Forgotten Realms, and then for the next 1-20 run you play in Eberron. Or maybe play one 5th-level adventure in Ravenloft for a few game sessions, then make new 10th-level characters for another adventure in Dragonlance for a few game sessions, then make new 2nd-level characters for another adventure in a homebrew for a few game sessions.

Do you like world continuity? Do you like a D&D world with a history with the DM or with the game group? For instance, does it matter to you that the castle on the hill over there is the domain of a previous PC under the DM in this world, or just a regular NPC?


In my early D&D career (circa 1980-1995), the "living world" concept was exciting and important to me. The flavor of the rules seemed to support and expect this concept. When PCs reached high levels and built castles and retired in the world, they became fixtures of that world. New PCs started up in the same world and could see the same things that the previous or other PCs did. If a DM ran multiple groups, they all still played in the same world.

If you joined my game group in 1991, your PC played in the same world as those in 1983. You could visit the same places that those in my earlier games visited. You might see the end result of previous PCs' handiwork (like a castle razed, or a castle raised). If you went into the city of Augusta (home of the August Knights), my notes on the city were stuff created over the past years and campaigns and previous PC visits. You might even bump into old PCs (played as NPCs, now) in one of the major towns (if they had retired in the area).

The World of Greyhawk was the epitomy of this concept -- so much of that world was created or influenced by actual play in the world. I loved reading about WoG, seeing names I knew were real PCs in EGG's game.

This was important and impressive and fun for me, as a DM, but I never really asked any of my Players whether this concept was of any interest to them. I've played a PC in only a couple such campaigns, and I loved the idea. But most campaigns I've played in (few compared to how many I've run) were of the "one-shot" variety -- the world was created or chosen just for that campaign run (one adventure or a whole bunch of levels). And, honestly, I can't say that the games in one-shot campaign worlds were any less enjoyable for being one-shot worlds.

So what's your thoughts on this concept?

Quasqueton

 

[Lanefan]

I prefer what amounts to a combination of both: one-shot worlds that have enough to them to allow for a long (10 years?) and rich campaign, sometimes involving several different adventuring parties that may or may not interact, swap characters, etc. over time.

The two I've run, for example, went for 10.5 and almost 12 years respectively, and I've played in others similar, but by your definitions these would all count as one-shots...I guess I fall somewhere in the middle, between your options.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

What I thought might be interesting is perennial campaign elements in one-shot worlds. Consider the Final Fantasy series of games: they are all set in different worlds, but common setting elements include moogles, chocobos, airships, and a scientist or engineer named Cid.

I guess the core races and classes do help maintain some form of continuity between campaigns, but it might be interesting to add perennial NPCs in every campaign. Then, even if the (new) PCs are meeting the NPC for the first time in the (new) campaign, the players feel like they are meeting an old friend.

 

[S'mon]

My general preference is continuous, but a world crafted to tell a particular story (as with Dragonlance) can be great, but is best discarded after that story is told.

 

[questing gm]

I find that the Forgotten Realms has allowed me to take middle path in this. There are so many regions in that setting with so many drastically different flavors from each other.

Since my campaigns in FR are specified to one or only the surrounding regions, it is as though i could start a new campaign set in FR and just pick another region so far apart from the previous one which still makes it feel as if the players are playing in an entirely new setting (pun intended).

It let's me keep the universal element of the world (The Chosens, how magic works through the Weave and Portals)that are inconsequential while at the same time i can have a different playing style on the table.

I'm not sure about letting my player's new PCs bump into their old characters as NPCs, it gives me this paradoxical effect and i would prefer to isolate their previous character's achievements as far away as possible (whether in terms of geographical distance or sense of proximity). I might let a few rumors of what is happening on 'the other side' of world reach the new PCs but they will not get any form of benefit from that knowledge.

 

[Hussar]

I'm more of a one shot kind of guy.

I like to start each new campaign in a totally new setting, whether it's a bare bones setting or a deeper one, doesn't really matter, but, honestly, I can only think of two campaigns I did, both set in Scarred Lands, where I reused the same world.

Next campaign was World's Largest Dungeon and the next will be Savage Tides. Currently playing in an Eberron game.

I like to explore the options available.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

One-Shot.

It gives the campaign a beginning, a middle, and an end.

 

[robberbaron]

In the old days we tended to have a series of adventures in which we'd kind of mix-n-match characters - I'd run a game for the party, then one of them would run something for the party now including my character, etc. The problem came with one particular player who, when he DM'd, would go hell for leather trying to wipe out the other characters so that 'his' character would be the most powerful.

Nowadays, we each have our own worlds in which we run games.

 

[questing gm]

If i played in a one-shot campaign in one campaign world, it would have an epic quest to save the world.

 

[DragonLancer]

I prefer having a continous world that grows and is shaped by the players and my own actions.