Perennial campaign worlds vs. one-shot campaign worlds

[Aramax]

Lets see,Ive been running the same game since 1981 w/several very long term players so guess how I voted.I play in a game where it changes and the players come and go like a revolving door.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would say that, given the way I prefer to play, my preference is for one-shot campaign worlds.

First of all, I like variety. I'm running an Eberron version of the Savage Tide adventure path now, but when that's finished I'm very likely to move on to, say, the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path in Paizo Publishing's own setting, or convert it to a setting of my own design, or do a shorter series of adventures (either published or of my own design) - and that's if the next game I run is even Dungeons & Dragons. It's more likely to be something from the World of Darkness.

Second, my taste for variety extends to the people I play with. I wouldn't like to play multiple games with the exact same group of players - I like to bring different people into the mix. Now, my wife is likely to be involved in most, if not all, of the games which I run, but that's a special case. Other people, though? I just don't necessarily want the same blend of personalities around my table all the time . . .

. . . and the relevance here is that I'm not sure it's valuable to have an ongoing world in which all my campaigns are run, if part of each successive group isn't able to appreciate the continuity between campaigns. Doubly so if part of the group is, and exclaim in delight whenever they encounter something familiar, because I can't see where explaining exactly why it's so cool to run into X or Y again would add to the new players' enjoyment of the game. Some people may enjoy it, in the new player's place, but I'm not one of those people and so I'm not likely to make it a feature of my GMing.

Third, as far as I'm concerned part of the point of using a published setting is to allow those who are familiar with it to get "into" the setting using their knowledge. I'd rather play an Eberron game than a Forgotten Realms game not just because I prefer Eberron's approach to fantasy, but also because, as a fan of Eberron, I know so much about the setting that any PC I create is going to be truly rooted in the world.

This is important because I would never want to run a game where the PCs were unable to affect the status quo. If they want to, say, expose Queen Aurala of Aundair as secretly planning to resume the Last War, and cause her to lose the throne, then I want to run a game where that is possible - rather than a game where I have to keep her in place by fiat so that the setting isn't "disrupted".

The tension between the familiarity of a published setting and the need for PC freedom is something which I resolve by not carrying over consequences of that magnitude - so even if I ran another game in Eberron, Aurala would still be on the throne of Aundair, because the disruption her replacement would cause to the setting - while cool as the consequences of PC actions within the boundaries of a single campaign - damages the familiarity new players have with the setting, and mitigates one of the benefits of using a published setting at all.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I haven't played a one shot since the mid 80s, thankfully.

I've had characters I've run for over a decade.
I still play (sporadically) the first two characters I played when D&D3.0 first came out (and yes they are seriously Epic). I still, sporadically, GM 2 1st ed characters that my wife started playing in 1986 (and yes they are seriously high powered).

I play to worm my way inside my character's head, to understand their personality, and motivation. So I like long games - and you can't have long games without the world for them to adventure it.

 

[Lanefan]

If I thought it was realistic to keep a gaming group together for more than a year or so, I'd perhaps say "living campaign world". But in the past few years the make-up of our gaming group has changed almost completely. People get jobs, move away, get married, divorced, whatever.

Frankly, I'm surprised that *anyone* these days (and in our age range--i.e., not teenagers or university students) has a sustained, multi-year campaign going on.

Why? Just because there's some player turnover is not reason enough to ditch a campaign and start again.

I think of a campaign as analagous to a sports franchise. The Montreal Canadiens are the same franchise now as they were in the 1970's, but nobody who played for them then does so now. Same thing goes for a long campaign, both in terms of players and the characters they run.

Lanefan

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Frankly, I'm surprised that *anyone* these days (and in our age range--i.e., not teenagers or university students) has a sustained, multi-year campaign going on.

Well, you'd hate me then.

Current make up (with an added player just a few months ago) has been the same for 7 years, and the core of the group has been together for 15 years.

 

[an_idol_mind]

For D&D, I prefer ongoing campaign settings. For other games, I tend to do one-shots, but with a bit of ongoing mixed in. After a one-shot is over, I save the character sheets and relevant notes about the adventure. At some point down the line, I sometimes run other one-shots in the same setting, using the results of previous adventures as backstory.

 

[RFisher]

. . . and the relevance here is that I'm not sure it's valuable to have an ongoing world in which all my campaigns are run, if part of each successive group isn't able to appreciate the continuity between campaigns.

One of the things that makes me want to have an ongoing campaign world is those that I've experienced as part of a later group. I guess there's something I find appealing about a world with a history that--in part--happened rather than just being written. Somehow it has always seemed to show through without having any of the older players in the group to recognize & explain things.

 

[Guldensupp]

I prefer playing and running in an on-going campaign world. I like the knowledge that my character's actions will have ramifications down the ages. I like the feel of history. I like the texture of on-going campaigns. Single setting campaigns may have lots of information and background, but they seldom feel like they have any depth.

I started gaming 1979 and there were no world setting products when I started. I had to create my own world. As the various settings came about, I happily lifted whole sections from them and placed them in my own world and ran games in those locales. Because they were all linked in the same world, I have had the joy of characters traveling from their home setting and experiencing culture shock in another setting. I've had players play the great-grandchildren of their previous characters. Simple magic items and treasures have slowly slipped from their original locations and gained "mythic" proportions in new lands. I'll always go for on-going campaigns over single setting campaigns.

 

[Desdichado]

Other. No preference whatsoever.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Why? Just because there's some player turnover is not reason enough to ditch a campaign and start again.

I think of a campaign as analagous to a sports franchise. The Montreal Canadiens are the same franchise now as they were in the 1970's, but nobody who played for them then does so now. Same thing goes for a long campaign, both in terms of players and the characters they run.

Lanefan

I see what you mean, but it's hard to think of it as the same campaign if the players are all different. At best, it's a meaningless label.

DM: Do you realize you guys are playing in the SAME CAMPAIGN as my last group of players?

Players: Uh, okay.