Slow Advancement Rocks

[Bullgrit]

But does the difference between definitions matter? From the point of view of the respondent, if they see the continuity necessary to call it a campaign, why quibble over whether it's the exact same definition you'd use. Ultimately, I don't see much of a point to it. I don't even see it as being all that important to a question of how long campaigns usually last. As long as the players are perceiving some form of continuity, why quibble about whether H and B would call it a campaign compared to RC or vice versa?

If campaign = setting, my longest lasted from the early 80s to the mid 90s -- about 15 years -- with about 20 Players, in two different cities, and probably 50 or more PCs. There was also a couple years gap when I moved.

By the more widely understood definition of campaign, my longest was about 2 years -- and there have been many campaigns in the above setting.

You can't understand why the different definitions makes a huge difference in understanding a conversation? I don't think the contrast can be explained any more clearly.

Bullgrit

 

[Lanefan]

The term 'adventure path' could have some use here.

An adventure path is a linked series of adventures played by (mostly) the same players and characters. It is never larger than a campaign but can be the same if the campaign consists of just that one path.

A campaign is a series of adventures and-or adventure paths linked together by world, DM, some players, some characters, but mostly by there being considerable continuity in players and-or characters between any one adventure (or path) and the next. Complete turnover of players or characters may occur in a campaign provided it is very gradual and certain levels of adventure-to-adventure continuity are maintained.

Just to muddy the waters even more, there are two types of campaigns:

Linear campaign, where one party just keeps on rolling. (adventure paths, whether embedded in a larger campaign or not, are almost always like this)

Multi-party campaign, where two or more somewhat-connected parties adventure concurrently in the same world and each may affect the other(s) in what they do. Characters and players may at times switch between parties.

Lanefan

 

[Reynard]

Just to muddy the waters even more, there are two types of campaigns:

Linear campaign, where one party just keeps on rolling. (adventure paths, whether embedded in a larger campaign or not, are almost always like this)

Multi-party campaign, where two or more somewhat-connected parties adventure concurrently in the same world and each may affect the other(s) in what they do. Characters and players may at times switch between parties.

Aaron Allston's famous StrikeForce is perhaps the best example of the latter.

 

[Aloïsius]

So why do you think those 13, 20, or 30 encounters have to be violent ones?

Because nearly everything in the rules point them to be violent, or at least very confrontational. And because that's how all official modules are done. Sure, sometimes, you have one encounter that may be resolved with diplomacy. But that's the exception.
Anyway, violent or non-violent, it's still "earn a power after x encounter", not "learn a spell when you have found it" : it's still rule driven, not story driven.

 

[billd91]

If campaign = setting, my longest lasted from the early 80s to the mid 90s -- about 15 years -- with about 20 Players, in two different cities, and probably 50 or more PCs. There was also a couple years gap when I moved.

By the more widely understood definition of campaign, my longest was about 2 years -- and there have been many campaigns in the above setting.

You can't understand why the different definitions makes a huge difference in understanding a conversation? I don't think the contrast can be explained any more clearly.

Bullgrit

Well, then let's put a twist on it. Suppose there are two groups reporting about how long their campaigns last. Group A says 18 months. Group B says 7 years. What have you learned?

It could be that group B sees their campaign more as a particular setting that characters adventure in for a while before the player brings in another character. It could aslo be that while group A games every weekend for 8 hours at a pop, group B plays the exact same campaign path but does so on alternate weeks for only 3 hours at a stretch. Again, what have you learned by asking the question how long a campaign lasts?

Fact is, you can't necessarily tell the difference between what sort of campaign a group plays based on how long they say they've played them. So what difference does it really make what kind of campaign they say they have? I've been running a 3e campaign since 2002 with the same group of players and characters (minus some replacements) and all along the same continuity thread, and the characters have just hit 13th level. We just don't get to play it that often. And I played in a somewhat more setting-based one with mulitple characters, intermixing parties, but a single timeline for over 12 years. I'd call that just as much a campaign as the other one I've been running. What does it matter what the difference is when both can go on so long?

 

[Reynard]

Anyway, violent or non-violent, it's still "earn a power after x encounter", not "learn a spell when you have found it" : it's still rule driven, not story driven.

Well, it *is* a game.

I know that probably comes off as flippant, but it is true. I am sure there are many, many people (some of them on this very board, in this very thread!) who want their D&D games to emulate various forms of narrative entertainment. While they are certainly welcome to their preferences, and I wish them the best of luck in achieving their desired goals, I fear they are to forever be disappointed.

See, stories are never random. Narratives are very rarely the result of multiple voices clamoring for control. But D&D, no matter the edition, is both of these things, in spades. There are RPGs and house-rules variants of D&D that are designed to mitigate this, to turn the game into a more traditional narrative, and in so doing they weaken the game aspect, undermining the very strength of the medium.

There is no medium like the table top role-playing game. It is wholly unique. The sole reason that it succeeded, growing out of a basement or two to be found in every corner of the earth, and the same reason that it is not mainstream but instead niche, is that is is unique, different, even weird. RPGs are best when they embrace that weirdness and realize the medium's strengths, and D&D has always done that (even if I don't like how, in all cases).

 

[coyote6]

I am sure there are many, many people (some of them on this very board, in this very thread!) who want their D&D games to emulate various forms of narrative entertainment. While they are certainly welcome to their preferences, and I wish them the best of luck in achieving their desired goals, I fear they are to forever be disappointed.

Not so much, really.

 

[Reynard]

Not so much, really.

So, when you are having a dramatic encounter that is the pinnacle of the "story" as one of the PCs is facing the villain who killed his wife, and the villain wins initiative, gets a crit against said PC and kills him outright -- that fits a traditional narrative?

 

[coyote6]

So, when you are having a dramatic encounter that is the pinnacle of the "story" as one of the PCs is facing the villain who killed his wife, and the villain wins initiative, gets a crit against said PC and kills him outright -- that fits a traditional narrative?

That hasn't happened IME, so I haven't been disappointed by that.

Besides, with my players, it's usually either they make the impossible saves, and/or miss horribly.

It would be very unlikely for such things to happen every time, too, but I assume "forever" was just hyperbole.

Anti-climaxes of one sort or other happen sometimes, but not every time. There are usually ways to ameliorate the anti-climax, anyways -- either rules ways (the cleric casts revivify, and dead guy lives again; the player spends a hero point to save the PC's life somehow), or story ways (instead of the traditional climax and ending, you get a subversion of same; or maybe the situation wasn't what it seemed).

Maybe I'm not "story" enough to fit your conceptions of how that works, I dunno. <shrug>

 

[Reynard]

Maybe I'm not "story" enough to fit your conceptions of how that works, I dunno. <shrug>

I think perhaps you aren't one of the dot I was talking about, for whom an experience akin to books, movies or tv is what they are looking for in D&D.