Poor DM/ Game Advice

[Blue]

I disagree a bit with your definition of a campaign.

For me, if it's the same characters (or same party) under the same DM in the same consistent setting, it's a campaign; and I'm not even completely married to the "same characters" part of that and could maybe be talked out of it. Doesn't matter if what they do adventure-wise is completely episodic or disconnected in the fiction.

From the DMG (pg 25)

CREATING A CAMPAIGN
The world you create is the stage for the adventures you set in it. You don't have to give more thought to it than that. You can run adventures in an episodic format, with the characters as the only common element, and also weave themes throughout those adventures to build a greater saga of the characters' achievements in the world.

This looks like you need a setting, common characters, and recurring themes even if episodic.

But later it contradicts itself, under Continuing or Episodic Campaigns (pg 36), where each adventure can be completely self-contained without any reference back or forward, fitting your definition well.

I see where you are coming from, and the DMG does back you up. To me it doesn't feel like a campaign if there isn't something tying it together, but that may just be me. Your definition is good.

 

[Shiroiken]

Out of curiosity (and this is not a criticism), what happens when the campaign isn't designed?

If it's just, you know, a series of events that the adventurers do, with no particular connected plot, no BBEG. The story just being whatever the party ends up doing?

Nothing wrong with this at all. As you probably know, most early D&D and AD&D games were done this way (I ran quite a few that way myself). However, the OP was referring to the advice of ending a campaign after finishing its story, implying that there is one to begin with. If there isn't a planned story, then the campaign just continues until life gets in the way or the players/DM decide they want to do something else.

 

[Mistwell]

What is causing groups to retire at 12th? etc

Oh I was expecting this to be a thread of "What is intentionally bad DM advice". That would have been entertaining!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

I don't think that's a campaign. Not in an elitist point of view, but there's a continuity to a campaign that purely episodic adventures don't seem to give.

So... Original Star Trek and ST: TNG would not be campaigns, in your mind?

 

[Blue]

So... Original Star Trek and ST: TNG would not be campaigns, in your mind?

So hard to make the analogy work because there are many differences between a season of a show and an RPG, even when they are both episodic or serial/continuing. I'm picturing if what we watched was the results of an RPG to try to bridge that.

ST:TNG has recurring themes and villains over time, such as Q. A history that informs future episodes. If that had come out of an RPG I'd call it a campaign, even if there are a good number of episodic sessions.

The original series wouldn't be a campaign. It doesn't even matter what order the episodes are being aired in, it's pretty much convention slots with the same pre-gens. That's not to say it wouldn't be a lot of fun - it would be a blast - but there's no progression, and with very few exceptions no history that builds on itself. Now, the original series movies would be a different deal - that could definitely be a campaign.

 

[jasper]

A campaign begins when the DM starts designing his world. A campaign ends with the death of the DM. A DM may have many story lines and players during the life time of the campaign. Understand what I am saying?

 

[billd91]

This looks like you need a setting, common characters, and recurring themes even if episodic.

But later it contradicts itself, under Continuing or Episodic Campaigns (pg 36), where each adventure can be completely self-contained without any reference back or forward, fitting your definition well.

I see where you are coming from, and the DMG does back you up. To me it doesn't feel like a campaign if there isn't something tying it together, but that may just be me. Your definition is good.

Need is really not necessary, as far as recurring themes. It says can. Ultimately, any form of continuity should be fine - continuity of setting/history seems most paramount to me and that wouldn't necessarily mean same world if the campaign involves dimension-hopping. You wouldn't need the same GM, same players, same characters - just a sense that everything is happening within the same narrative continuity and that events of previous parties, run by previous players, and run by previous GMs are part of that setting/campaign's history.

Other people, of course, may define a campaign as an encapsulated story line or theme, with the same players/PCs (with some allowance for attrition/replacement), same GM, etc.

"Campaign" really is a very flexible term.

 

[merwins]

A campaign begins when the DM starts designing his world. A campaign ends with the death of the DM. A DM may have many story lines and players during the life time of the campaign. Understand what I am saying?

I have a nebulous idea of what you're trying to say, because you've used the word you're trying to define as a part of it's definition.

Or maybe this is just a way to justify proactively beating your DM to death for creating a horrible campaign in which multiple stories and players are brutalized.

If I switch game systems, am I still running the same campaign? I'm not talking 1E>5E, but even 3E>TWERPS or anything in between.

If I run a series of connected worlds or adventures and don't tell my players they're connected, can I reasonably say that I'm running a campaign, but my players aren't playing in a campaign?

As far as ST: TNG and ST: TOS go... as a GM, I'd consider them both to be part of the same campaign. Same shared world, just different time periods. World has a life of it's own. The overriding philosophy, social structures and moral guidance (prime directive) would be recurring themes that connected everything together. Yeah, go ahead and toss in Enterprise and DS9 while you're at it. Each character's/player's perspective of the campaign will be different, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all one campaign. Why else would be people care about "continuity"?

 

[Blue]

Ultimately, any form of continuity should be fine - continuity of setting/history seems most paramount to me and that wouldn't necessarily mean same world if the campaign involves dimension-hopping. You wouldn't need the same GM, same players, same characters - just a sense that everything is happening within the same narrative continuity and that events of previous parties, run by previous players, and run by previous GMs are part of that setting/campaign's history.

1. I ran two separate campaigns in the same world, with the second one taking place 80 years after the first one ended. They had very different feels, characters, goals, NPCs, and for the most part geographic area. Just because there was a continuity of history from the first campaign, you cannot convince me, the DM, it was only a single campaign. It wasn't.

2. I am in a game where the DM was previously a player in a homebrew world, and adopted it as his own. As a player in that game, there is no difference if something done in history was written by the DM or done by a PC. We are not playing the same campaign even though we share the same setting.

3. When I was in my teens, our DM ran like 6 days a week, some D&D and some Champions. In both cases it was the same world but multiple groups. We never considered ourselves part of the other campaign. In the superhero there would even be a big yearly crossover event - but it was so special because it was a cross-over and we got to meet all these heroes from other campaigns.

To me "different players, different DM, different characters but a shared continuity" does not make automatically it the same campaign. It could, but does not have to.