Slow Advancement Rocks

[Minicol]

I agree with the OP, but that's because I remember my old campaigns of 1e/2e in high school, when after 4 years of weekly play, we ended at lvl 13 or so.

While that may have been slow, I have always found 3.5 waaaaay too fast compared to this.

The real problem came when we played a living campaign, and a player joined our group part ways in the game. Due to RL issues, he always missed the beginnings of our games. So he was eternally late in levels to the rest of the group, despite being one of our best guys. That was right unfair.

Now, I use the level as needed and have ditched xps entirely.

But honestly, it depends on your style and conditions for the campaign.

 

[S'mon]

So, I guess setting wank isn't really the key to longer campaigns is it?

Stop saying 'wank'.

 

[S'mon]

This kind of thing reminds me of a time our college English class was having a discussion about domeciles. One girl kept confusing the discussion, and then we finally got to the heart of the confusion:

"I live in an apartment, but I call it 'my house.'"


Generally, I'd say, if you use the word in its own definition -- "campaign = campaign world" -- then it isn't the best term for that use. You [general "you"] say "campaign world" to mean the fictional world (setting) where campaigns take place. That suggests that "campaign" doesn't mean "world".

Just like, in the military sense, we don't say "campaign" to mean "Earth". When a campaign ends, the Earth doesn't end.

I would love a perenial world wherein we'd play many campaigns over several years.

Using "campaign" to mean "world" just doesn't make sense.
"I would love a campaign wherein we'd play many campaigns over several years."

Bullgrit

But this was always the RPG use of 'campaign' - Gygax's Greyhawk campaign. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. So you're fighting against huge precedent if you wish to restrict it to something like a single Adventure Path.

 

[DragonLancer]

As I have always understood it, campaign refers to the linked (or not linked) scenarios that make up the adventures that the players take their characters on. The campaign setting is just the setting or world.

 

[radmod]

I agree with DragonLancer. A world is the setting for a campaign. A campaign is a series of adventures often with an ending of sorts (thus you can have multiple campaigns within a world).
However, I, too, fall prey to saying 'campaign' when I should say 'world'. From what I've seen, alot of people do too.

 

[billd91]

As I have always understood it, campaign refers to the linked (or not linked) scenarios that make up the adventures that the players take their characters on. The campaign setting is just the setting or world.

It could be. But it has also been used more broadly as S'mon says. So it's not without ambiguity. I think one of the main defining features is how do the DM and Players see their game? If they look at specific plotlines or story arcs in the same world, even if the same players are involved, as the organizing focus of their game, then I would say that the plotlines are campaigns. New plot = new campaign. But if the DM and players have characters rotating in and out, some players rotating in and out, with various threads of continuity woven throughout to link PCs together, then that whole thing would be a single campaign too. There's no "end" to the campaign, it just keeps on keeping on.

 

[Tortoise]

Regardless of the edition or system, I have always preferred the slower advancement. I feel that it gives everyone a chance to get a feel for the game, the world, the characters, and is just a more comfortable pace.

It also, to me, makes the level gained feel more like a reward than something to be taken for granted. It avoids cheapening the play experience.

Way back in the 1e days for me it was fun to try out all the different things a level had to offer and players had to use their brains more.

You could get more use out of a ten foot pole and 50 feet of rope in them days! Now get off my lawn.

 

[Bullgrit]

But this was always the RPG use of 'campaign' - Gygax's Greyhawk campaign. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. So you're fighting against huge precedent if you wish to restrict it to something like a single Adventure Path.

I'm not looking to restrict the term at all. I'm just thinking of the best functional use of the term.

Does "Gygax's Greyhawk campaign" and "Arneson's Blackmoor campaign" mean "the World of Greyhawk" and "the Land of Blackmoor"? Or does "GGc" and "ABc" refer to the series of adventures Players/characters had in those settings? I always read "Gygax's Greyhawk campaign" to mean the series of adventures Gygax ran the PCs through in his world.

All through my D&D career (30 years), I've read and used "campaign" to mean the series of adventures with a set of PCs. The series of adventures does not necessarily have to be any kind of adventure path. Hell, it doesn't even have to have an end.

I've run campaigns in my own homebrew world and in the World of Greyhawk. I've had campaigns last dozens of game sessions. I've had campaigns last one game session (not by choice). I've had the list of PCs in a campaign change over the course of the campaign. The direction/flow/plot/story can even change over the course of a campaign. But all of this could take place in one setting/world. I've just never called the setting/world itself a "campaign."

Heck, until having these kinds of discussions on ENWorld, I'd never met anyone who insisted that "campaign" meant "world." It just surprises me that someone refuses to use "world" or "setting" when they mean "world" or "setting."

I'm willing to accept and use "campaign" for "world" or "setting," (even though I keep thinking, why not just say "world" or "setting"). But what to call the series of adventures with a group of PCs within the "campaign"?

If this is not your definition of "campaign," what do you call a series of adventures with a set of PCs? For instance, if you played through the Temple of Elemental Evil, then the Giants, then the Drow with a set of PCs (give or take as death and such happen), and then the PCs retired, what would you call this? I call it a campaign set in the World of Greyhawk. You'd call it a [what] set in the Greyhawk campaign?

Bullgrit

 

[Piratecat]

A data point: using slow advancement (a level every 12 sessions), our last campaign went for 16 years. It spanned 2e, 3e and 3.5e. We had continuity of players, characters and plot lines. Similarly, Sagiro's game is at about 14 years as well -- we just hit 20th level.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I always read "Gygax's Greyhawk campaign" to mean the series of adventures Gygax ran the PCs through in his world.

I think when Gygax wrote about his "campaign," he was talking about his setting. That seemed to often -- but not always -- be a dungeon in perpetual development. Many, many characters and groups shared the campaign, and (aside from the setting, obviously) their adventures were not "linked" in a meaningful way. From what I remember.

Nowadays when someone says "campaign," I assume them to mean "a story arc featuring continuity of characters, plot, and setting" (even if "plot" and "story arc" are only discernable in hindsight). It's more useful to have the word "setting" be distinct from "campaign," which is why it evolved that way. But I don't think that's how Gygax used "campaign."