Perennial campaign worlds vs. one-shot campaign worlds

[Doug McCrae]

One shot so PCs can break the world.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

One-shot.

The only "world" I've ever wanted to play multiple campaigns in is Spelljammer, and, well, there's plenty of room to get away from continuity there.

 

[Davelozzi]

I like the idea of a perennial campaign worlds for my standard D&D fantasy, long term campaigns, but like using other worlds for games that have a different focus, like a pulpy Eberron adventure or a gritty Dark Sun mini-series.

 

[RFisher]

I voted "continual", because I've really loved the one's I've experienced, but they've been too rare. So, I have a slight preference for that. Overall, though, I'd still want one-offs for variety.

 

[Kaladhan]

I prefer one-shot, simply because the flavor changes a lot from game to game. Changing world allows me to change the flavor with each new campaigns. It also keeps things fresh, new and exciting.

 

[The_Gneech]

I prefer a perennial world -- as long as it's a good one! However, I also want to play in more than one game at a time, so if one of those games is a one-shot in a one-shot world, I'm perfectly happy.

Variety is the spice of life!

-The Gneech

 

[Gwaihir]

I've always been jealous of DMs who could run multiple campaigns in a single homebrew world, but as for me, I'm a one-shot guy. I tailor the world specifically to a campaign. Usually the campaign evolves into a save the world campiagn and it feels used up after that.

As an example, my current homebrew was designed specifically to support Gestalt Characters as well as non gestalt (so I didn't need to hand create every NPC/Monster) The theme of the campaign has been the characters in the wrong time. They have moved through various distant past and distant future scenes. I've been tempted to run further adventures in this world, but Once they've saved this world, they could move on, but since they are heavily armed with WWII era weapons, it wouldn't be two much fun. My cosmology aslo limits future adventures.

A new party would be a possibility but since the players know many of the secrets of the world, It wouldn't be as much fun.

 

[sniffles]

I prefer a perennial campaign setting. But I have played in a couple of single-use settings (I prefer that definition because "one-shot" implies a single game session to my mind). I enjoyed them quite a lot, but I wish the GMs who ran them would run something else in those settings so I could see more of their worlds.

 

[Quasqueton]

The results of the poll are interesting. I didn't expect a nearly 3 to 1 ratio for either option.

Quasqueton

 

[Evilhalfling]

I have been running games in my current world since starting 3.0.
My Current group has not played two campaigns in the same area.
One long running campaign took place on the western continent, the next two shorter games ran in the N and S of the Eastern continent. The fourth campaign took place on the Isle of dread(ish) and borrowed from the savage tide path. I jumped the world 700 years forward in time, and the current game is taking place in the west again. The many cities are the same, but no country lasted 700 years, several have changed name/form of government more than twice in that time.
There are still rements of the previous characters actions, a song called the red wedding, and Quaals Tokens are called Shelvra's Tokens. There are several swords of power created by the 17th level swordsmith. There is also a organization called the Heralds that the players have not connected with the shadowdancer/bards international spy organization.

I also killed off three of the gods and redistributed the powers of others.