Short campaigns: breaking out of the Farmboy to Demigod model

[On Puget Sound]

Lately I've been thinking about the virtues of shorter, more focused campaigns.

The basic assumption of the standard D&D campaign (some other systems may be more narrowly focused) is that 4 to 6 fairly low-powered adventurers of completely unrelated species, class, ethics and goals somehow find themselves pitted against a common foe. They grow to trust each other and spend the next several years fighting together, increasing in power as their foes progress from kobold bandits to werewolves to demons to the Eater of Worlds. This structure makes it difficult for a GM to provide an overarching goal or theme that will mean as much at level 30 as it does at level 1. If each character has her own personal goal, then they either all have to find it at the same time, or the first one who does must decide "oh, what the heck, I didn't really want to rule that kingdom anyway, I'd rather hang around with you guys".

I'm thinking of trying a series of small campaigns, set at different levels and with defined ending points. Each one would have its own set of characters, and they might affect each other or be related. Characters could be narrowly focused on a theme, geography or culture because they would never have to leave it behind.

For example:
Story 1: The Last Days of Cragholm
Starting level: 4th Characters: must be dwarves.
A dwarven hold that has been in decline for decades is facing its biggest challenges. The ore has run out, enemies are encroaching, and a strange curse or disease is killing newborn dwarves. Ends when the hold falls, successfully relocates, or regains strength. Probably by level 7. A successful conclusion grants dwarven allies in Story 4.

Story 2: Three Levels Before the Mast
Starting level: 1st Characters: must have a background or theme compatible with shipboard life.
The players begin as rowing slaves on a merchant galley. A storm or pirate attack gives them the opportunity to mutiny and take the ship. From there, it's a nautical sandbox with plot hooks featuring smuggling, piracy, mysterious islands, trading and exploration. Depending on story 1, relocating a few dozen dwarves from a lost hold might be one adventure.

At around level 4, they are hired to transport a team of spies to the coast of an evil kingdom run by a vampire. When they arrive and successfully offload those spies, Story 3 begins.

Story 3: Behind Enemy Lines
Starting level: 11th Characters: are a team of undercover agents who have been working together for a while. Must therefore have the ability to blend in (no minotaurs) and get along (no secretly evil or serious incompatibilities).
The players must infiltrate an evil and highly stratified society to track down rumors of an impending invasion. There is, of course, a secret magical weapon or spell or something that must be broken or stolen.

Story 4: Knee Deep in the (un)Dead
Starting level: 12-13 Characters: same group as story 3
The vampire's army invades! Depending on story 3, the invasion may be overwhelming or merely bad.

and so on...

has anyone tried this before, telling a story from several points of view and shifting PCs to play out the details at various levels?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I have done stuff like this before, and it's worked out pretty good, as long as the players know this beforehand. But, when I did do it, the one thing that was noticable was how "normal" it was to begin with. It sounds all different on paper, but for me (I'm an old grognard...some 30+ years of RP'ing), it wasn't much different than 'normal' campaigns I ran. On average, my campaigns (AD&D, BECMI, Powers & Perils and Star Frontiers) tended to last between 2 and 6 years of actual playing time (not game time). During those years, characters came and went...death, retiering, etc., and NPC's were taken over by players to become full PC's, or relatives of the defunct PC would be brought in. The story as a whole continued...with previous successes and failures having an expected effect on the campaign world.

Maybe it's "old school" thinking, but campaigns are not supposed to really have a "beginning" or "end". Just go and ask other olde tymers like myself who have had ongoing campaigns lasting years and years (or decades!). A "campaign" is a setting world that evolves through play...not some 12-issue "adventure path" that goes from level 1 - 20. Hell, in my longest AD&D campaign (about 7 years), most PC's were around levels 12 to 15, with only 3 hitting 18th, 20th, and 21st.

But, as a general concept...yup. Go for it!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Viking Bastard]

Most games I've run followed this pattern, though none of them were D&D.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

This is more or less my preferred way to do it nowadays, though not necessarily laid out so formally or explicitly.

Imho, it's just easier to 'justify' a series of shorter term campaigns in groups that are more casual or less stable. I think this improves the odds of resolving a game in a satisfying way for those sorts of players before real life interferes. And if casual players see a satisfying resolution now and then, that probably improves the odds they'll be a little less casual next time around.

 

[Haltherrion]

Haven't quite done it from the short story point of view (that is, an intentially short campaign) but my group frequently starts at higher level and almost always with a more themed mixed of PCs (i.e., you might be starting in a place where there's mostly elves and humans so that's what more or all the PCs are).

Starting at the "interesting level" isn't so different from the ancient narrative technique of starting in the middle of things. Take the Illiad. Rather than start with Achilles setting out on his first adventure, we start with him already a respected hero.

There's nothing wrong with first level starts but all things being equal, I prefer starting higher level. For one thing it avoids the all too common rush to level 10 in one year of game time (not that that can't be avoided at a level 1 start, but how often is it really avoided? )

Focusing on short stories is a nice concept and one that would allow for more restrictions (like your all dwarf party) than players might tolerate in a standard campaign. Less commitment of time, more freedom to try out different things.

Your proposal is definitely intriguing and one that would catch my fancy although if I had to be a dwarf, I'd want some idea of how many sessions you had in mind for that particular story.

On a somewhat related topic, one thing my group is doing in the current campaign is out-of-game level advancement. We started level 1 partly because we hadn't done that in quite a few years and partly because we were new to 4E. At level 5 we took a game break due to real-world stuff but had always thought we'd try an out of game advance and used the opportunity to pick up again at level 12. We will probably do the same thing and skip to epic levels at some point. That way we can sample the different tiers of play without necessarily having to play a huge number of sessions or run an awkward leveling rate. It is similar to your linked short stories.

I don't think there is anything magic about starting at level one. It is certainly a valid style of play and starting from a mostly blank slate can have wide appeal but crafting a more developed background has its own rewards and appeal as well.

I just got back into Traveller after many years and that's a system where the entire premise is built on the fact that nearly all of your character's developmental stuff happened before the game even starts and you are expected to craft some story to explain how you got to the starting point. Characters are typically in their 30s and 40s at start. Works just fine and can work well in fantasy RPGs and D&D as well.

 

[Haltherrion]

Maybe it's "old school" thinking, but campaigns are not supposed to really have a "beginning" or "end". Just go and ask other olde tymers like myself who have had ongoing campaigns lasting years and years (or decades!). A "campaign" is a setting world that evolves through play...not some 12-issue "adventure path" that goes from level 1 - 20. Hell, in my longest AD&D campaign (about 7 years), most PC's were around levels 12 to 15, with only 3 hitting 18th, 20th, and 21st.

As an oldtimer, I object to being told my campaigns can't have ends I'm not opposed to the open ended game but by dictionary definition a campaign implies a series of events meant to accomplish a purpose or a goal. So I think a game with a finite duration and a goal is more true to the term.

My game group and I long ago moved to this meaning of campaign. It suits our temperament and style quite nicelessly. Sometimes the campaign goal is established by the reference early on or before the game even starts, sometimes the players establish it in game but we play until it feels the game has reached some sort of conclusion then start over again, usually on a 18 to 30 month cycle for us.

More open ended is fine with the right players. I kind of wish sometimes I had such players. But I went away from that as a ref when my players game commitment dropped a level or two due to real world factors. I found it hard to sustain interest in the game without clear objectives that were significant enough that when these objectives were achieved it felt best to leave the game where it was and start a new one.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a huge fan of this sort of gaming. Short, sweet and to the point.

Then again, I'm a much larger fan of short fiction than I am of novels anymore.

It's just so satisfying to have actual conclusions in campaigns. And, I've found that when you set this sort of thing out, the players will focus a lot more and really dive down into the role. I've found that more organic campaigns, which tend to lack cohesiveness, grow a lot like organic vegetables - sure they're better for you and they might even taste better, but, they're ugly as sin and die all the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've been thinking this way myself lately. The past three campaigns I've played/run have all started at 1st level and gone to near 20th, and while each has had a definite conclusion, sometimes getting there hasn't been all it's cracked up to be. I've been having more fun with the occasional one-shots we've been doing, which leads me to believe a short, focused campaign is what I'm after right now.

 

[Hussar]

The nice thing about these mini campaigns is they're really great way to test drive systems. One shots are often too short to really give a good feel for a new system, and, to be honest, learning a whole new system for something you only play for four hours is often too much. But, if you're going to play it for the next three or six months, it makes it a bit easier to take a game out for a spin.

 

[Fifth Element]

The nice thing about these mini campaigns is they're really great way to test drive systems. One shots are often too short to really give a good feel for a new system, and, to be honest, learning a whole new system for something you only play for four hours is often too much. But, if you're going to play it for the next three or six months, it makes it a bit easier to take a game out for a spin.

They're also a good way to experiment with a system you already know. Want to try a party made up entirely of defenders in 4E? Try a short campaign, in case there are issues.