Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3562073" data-attributes="member: 22779">Honestly, other than scale, this is pretty much the standard way of designing campaigns.&nbsp; Work out the setting first and then move on to designing adventures.&nbsp; Now, if you happen to be in a stable enough place that you can reasonably expect to be playing in the same campaign for the next decade, that's great.&nbsp; Me, I don't.&nbsp; I've never had a group last more than a couple of years, even in high school, let alone a campaign.&nbsp; Yup, thinking RAW advancement.&nbsp; By RAW, I generally find that my groups level up about every 4-6 sessions or so.&nbsp; I find it a nice pace.&nbsp; Again, you're coming from a position completely foreign to me, so, I don't think this idea is going to help you too much.I'd hardly call 1-20th level campaigns short.&nbsp; For me, that's about an 18 month to two year campaign.&nbsp; Compared to you, though, I suppose it is very short.&nbsp; I'm more aiming this at those who are playing close to RAW.Now, if the PC's decide to drop the path half way through, then the campaign is a failure.&nbsp; You scrap it and try again honestly.&nbsp; Or, if you are fast enough, you crank out a different path dependent on what interests the players.&nbsp; Hopefully the side treks can spark interest again, but, if not, you throw in the towel.This will take some cooperation on the part of the players.&nbsp; They actually have to buy into the campaign.&nbsp; OTOH, I've seen far too many campaigns stutter and fall because of a lack of focus as well.&nbsp; This has the advantage of having focus.&nbsp; The players have goals.&nbsp; Many of the adventures I've outlined above can be almost completely non-linear, so, railroading within each adventure hopefully won't be an issue.&nbsp; Because of a unifying theme, the players are somewhat expected to follow that theme.On a completely side note, do your players just randomly strike off in various directions without any goals?&nbsp; They look at the world map and say, &quot;Hey, let's go to this town.&quot;?&nbsp; I've found that the people I've played with over the years appreciate having some sort of goal to work towards.&nbsp; Granted, no one likes to be pushed through the steps of achieving that goal, but, given that the goal is known, anticipating steps isn't usually too difficult.But, honestly Lanefan, you're coming from an experience with the game that I've never had.&nbsp; The idea of a campaign lasting that long is something I've never come anywhere near.&nbsp; And, to be honest, doesn't appeal to me all that much either.&nbsp; I don't want to play the same character for ten years.&nbsp; I certainly wouldn't want to DM the same PC's for that long.&nbsp; I'm just not creative enough to come up with unique experiences for that long.&nbsp; Obviously YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3562073, member: 22779"] Honestly, other than scale, this is pretty much the standard way of designing campaigns. Work out the setting first and then move on to designing adventures. Now, if you happen to be in a stable enough place that you can reasonably expect to be playing in the same campaign for the next decade, that's great. Me, I don't. I've never had a group last more than a couple of years, even in high school, let alone a campaign. Yup, thinking RAW advancement. By RAW, I generally find that my groups level up about every 4-6 sessions or so. I find it a nice pace. Again, you're coming from a position completely foreign to me, so, I don't think this idea is going to help you too much. I'd hardly call 1-20th level campaigns short. For me, that's about an 18 month to two year campaign. Compared to you, though, I suppose it is very short. I'm more aiming this at those who are playing close to RAW. Now, if the PC's decide to drop the path half way through, then the campaign is a failure. You scrap it and try again honestly. Or, if you are fast enough, you crank out a different path dependent on what interests the players. Hopefully the side treks can spark interest again, but, if not, you throw in the towel. This will take some cooperation on the part of the players. They actually have to buy into the campaign. OTOH, I've seen far too many campaigns stutter and fall because of a lack of focus as well. This has the advantage of having focus. The players have goals. Many of the adventures I've outlined above can be almost completely non-linear, so, railroading within each adventure hopefully won't be an issue. Because of a unifying theme, the players are somewhat expected to follow that theme. On a completely side note, do your players just randomly strike off in various directions without any goals? They look at the world map and say, "Hey, let's go to this town."? I've found that the people I've played with over the years appreciate having some sort of goal to work towards. Granted, no one likes to be pushed through the steps of achieving that goal, but, given that the goal is known, anticipating steps isn't usually too difficult. But, honestly Lanefan, you're coming from an experience with the game that I've never had. The idea of a campaign lasting that long is something I've never come anywhere near. And, to be honest, doesn't appeal to me all that much either. I don't want to play the same character for ten years. I certainly wouldn't want to DM the same PC's for that long. I'm just not creative enough to come up with unique experiences for that long. Obviously YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification