The world outside the dungeon

[Hussar]

Let's be honest here. A 1 year campaign is probably the standard for several reasons. One, a large number of players are students, particularly uni or college students. You go to school for the year, then go home. Next year, you quite possibly have an entirely different group, possibly even a new GM.

And, a year of play is a LONG time. Figure 50x4 hour sessions, that's 200 HOURS of play in a single setting. That's more than enough time to squeeze most of the juice out of a setting, and, if it's not, it probably is enough for most people's attention span.

I mean, if I got 200 hours of play out of ANY hobby, video games, books, whatever, I'd be ecstatic. Why should gaming be particularly different?

Most people's lives are not stable enough, particularly in our teens and early 20's, to really support five, ten year campaigns. I stand in absolute awe of people who do it, but, I don't think most people can really fit this into their schedule.

 

[Lanefan]

Given all of this... why still 1 year campaigns?

Main mechanical reason is level advancement rate. If the game breaks down at 'x' level - and let's face it, each edition has its own approximate level range beyond which it just doesn't play very well - and the game is designed such that characters will probably reach 'x' level in a year or two of play, there's yer time limit.

Slow down the advancement rate, and the mechanical problem is largely solved. (this is easier in 0-1e than 3-4e, while 2e does it for you)

And then, what of the exceptions - what makes them special? (And could they be possibly called a sequence of shorter campaigns in the same world?)

Possibly. For my three campaigns, all 1e-based: the first certainly became two different campaigns in the same world; the party split quite early on, never reunited, and there was very little subsequent interplay between the two. There was also very little overlap of players, and some players in one group didn't get along well with some in the other.

The second had lots more interplay between parties, both in membership and story effects; it really was one great big campaign and this was cemented by the overall adventuring company (from which all the parties were derived) gaining a castle as a home base relatively early on. There was again little overlap between players, but this time players occasionally switched up which party they were playing in. That said, there were a few clearly-defined story arcs embedded within it, and those could perhaps be called mini-campaigns.

The third one is going the same way, only (thus far) more so; and with more player overlap.

In all three the game has started out with one party being run once a week; at some point it splits, after which my general standard has been to run two sessions a week, one for each currently-active party.

I didn't count sessions for my first game - I'd guess around 5-600 in 10 years.
My second one got to 783 sessions over almost 12 years.
The third one played its 159th on Sunday; it'll be two years in, next month.

The logs of all three can be found via the link in my sig.

And maybe it's something in the water here, but a friend of mine has been running a single-party linear campaign once a week since 2001 using 3e until an on-the-fly change to 3.5 a few years ago. He's up to around session 370.

Lan-"and here I thought we were normal"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, it's quite interesting to see how 2E did "follow" the advice: certainly you have a variety of different settings, several of which can be reached by characters in a standard Greyhawk campaign.

But, as you note, that is secondary to the advice given -- to ensure that characters can make meaningful choices in ways that change the campaign milieu. And that advice, AFAICT, is exactly the opposite of what official 2e products delivered. 2e, after all, was the era of "look at our cool NPCs do stuff" adventures.

Given all of this... why still 1 year campaigns?

Lack of meaningful choices that can change the campaign milieu.

And then, what of the exceptions - what makes them special?

A plethora of meaningful choices that can change the campaign milieu.



RC

 

[Rel]

Slow down the advancement rate, and the mechanical problem is largely solved. (this is easier in 0-1e than 3-4e, while 2e does it for you)

Could you elaborate on this? I mean I get how adjusting the rate of advancement can give you a campaign of the desired length. I'm just unclear as to how you feel this is easier in one edition or another.

 

[MerricB]

But, as you note, that is secondary to the advice given -- to ensure that characters can make meaningful choices in ways that change the campaign milieu. And that advice, AFAICT, is exactly the opposite of what official 2e products delivered. 2e, after all, was the era of "look at our cool NPCs do stuff" adventures.



Lack of meaningful choices that can change the campaign milieu.



A plethora of meaningful choices that can change the campaign milieu.

RC, could you actually read what I wrote and then what you wrote? You're ascribing short campaigns entirely to not being able to change the campaign world.

Which then presumes that all these 2e games were using official campaign settings and hewing closely to the "don't change anything" model. Hmm.

While you're at that, could you also list the times in 2e modules when the NPCs take over? To my mind, the most egregious example was the Avatar series of modules, but it wasn't standard for all (or even most) of the modules. Far more common was linear/railroading, but even then there are notable exceptions. (If you've got it, pull out Feast of Goblyns; for an adventure that would really like certain events to happen, it allows great freedom for the DM and players).

 

[MerricB]

Main mechanical reason is level advancement rate. If the game breaks down at 'x' level - and let's face it, each edition has its own approximate level range beyond which it just doesn't play very well - and the game is designed such that characters will probably reach 'x' level in a year or two of play, there's yer time limit.

Slow down the advancement rate, and the mechanical problem is largely solved. (this is easier in 0-1e than 3-4e, while 2e does it for you)
Possibly.

Love that possibly. I'm sorry, go on...

For my three campaigns, all 1e-based: the first certainly became two different campaigns in the same world; the party split quite early on, never reunited, and there was very little subsequent interplay between the two. There was also very little overlap of players, and some players in one group didn't get along well with some in the other.

The second had lots more interplay between parties, both in membership and story effects; it really was one great big campaign and this was cemented by the overall adventuring company (from which all the parties were derived) gaining a castle as a home base relatively early on. There was again little overlap between players, but this time players occasionally switched up which party they were playing in. That said, there were a few clearly-defined story arcs embedded within it, and those could perhaps be called mini-campaigns.

...

And maybe it's something in the water here, but a friend of mine has been running a single-party linear campaign once a week since 2001 using 3e until an on-the-fly change to 3.5 a few years ago. He's up to around session 370.

Lan-"and here I thought we were normal"-efan

Those are incredible achievements... and quite different to my experiences. Of course, a major difference between my campaigns and yours relates to the stability of my groups: it has been very hard to play with the majority of the group together for more than a couple of years. Especially as many of my players have been of University ages - and thus, upon the completion of their courses they leave Ballarat for the Big City, jobs and the rest of their lives... yes, difficult. (Then are those who don't leave but get jobs that require them to work at odd times... including when we play. That's more frustrating).

So, a standard campaign for me has become about 2-3 years (or somewhere between 50-80 sessions, as we play on a fortnightly basis - actually, I tend to play 3-4 times/fortnight, just in different games). This has led - in my more successful games - to a more arc-based format. Of course, my players may follow it or not as they see fit. My "Great Kingdom" campaign was meant to be a look at the politics of the realm - perhaps with an overthrowing of the king - but the players happily subverted that, with one eventually becoming a noble of the realm and the rest of them repudiating her and wandering off to new lands and adventures!

That the length of campaign I get to run matches so nicely with 3e's/4e's advancement paradigm is fortunate; your point about the 1e advancement tables is well made: certainly it is harder to maintain the same character for a long period if they hit the top of the playable range too soon!

Cheers!

 

[KidSnide]

If you've got it, pull out Feast of Goblyns; for an adventure that would really like certain events to happen, it allows great freedom for the DM and players).

To be fair, Feast of Goblyns might be the best module ever written for 2e.

-KS

 

[MerricB]

To be fair, Feast of Goblyns might be the best module ever written for 2e.

Must be why it came to mind. I wasn't that impressed when I first read it, but I was quite young then. Once I actually ran it a few years back (as part of the aforementioned 3E Great Kingdom campaign), I was in awe of what it accomplished. (The other players were in awe of one player who, by not paying attention, gave victory to the bad guys. Did I say awe? Perhaps not accurate...).

Still, considering the continuum of adventures from the Avatar series through to Feast of Goblyns, I'd be quite surprised if many 2e adventures really were "NPCs get the glory, PCs get to tag along".

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're ascribing short campaigns entirely to not being able to change the campaign world.

Say, instead, the leading factor.

Look at the 1e vs. the 2e campaign worlds:

1e: Greyhawk. Do it yourself, and shake things up!

1e: DragonLance. Biggest Railroad Ever, but at least your characters define the future of Ansalon.

1e: Forgotten Realms boxed set: We promise to leave huge chunks of the world undefined, so that you can change the world without having to worry about messing up official updates.

2e: Forgotten Realms. Uh, those huge chunks? We defined them. And we have added more and more continuity, moving into the future of the Realms!

2e: Ravenloft. Not only can you not really change things (after all, the Mists won't let you), but if there is a big bad on your homeworld, just wait awhile and Ravenloft will suck him up!

Meanwhile, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms were more and more dominated by TSR's pet NPCs.

Spelljammer, DarkSun, and Planescape were all moves back toward 1e in this respect, and should have gotten more support IMHO.

YMMV.


RC

 

[KidSnide]

1e: Forgotten Realms boxed set: We promise to leave huge chunks of the world undefined, so that you can change the world without having to worry about messing up official updates.

2e: Forgotten Realms. Uh, those huge chunks? We defined them. And we have added more and more continuity, moving into the future of the Realms!

2e: Ravenloft. Not only can you not really change things (after all, the Mists won't let you), but if there is a big bad on your homeworld, just wait awhile and Ravenloft will suck him up!

I agree with you with the decline of 2e FR, but I disagree with your read of Ravenloft.

In its original form where PCs are sucked out of their world into the mists, the fact that they have a limited ability to affect the world isn't relevant. The stakes are survival and escape. Who cares what happens to the domain? It's not like the PCs are invested in it. So long as they are invested in wherever they're from, getting back there alive (and the frightening possibility that they will fail at that endeavor) is more than enough to capture a player's full attention.

Evil mists and un-killable lords are ways of changing the nature of the game. By making "fixing the domain" essentially impossible, survival itself becomes a satisfying victory.

I wouldn't recommend "survival" as a campaign goal, but - as a change of pace - it's fantastic.

-KS