What do you prefer? Long home campaigns or Adventure Paths with an end?

[MoogleEmpMog]

Anyone remember the days when it took almost 5 years of gaming to hit L20?

With much pent-up loathing, yes.

Actually, I don't care for high-level play in AD&D any more than, and perhaps less than, in 3e. The lack of mechanical investment for session after session after session, however, was even more annoying.

Give me 50 weeks of gaming and 50 levels, and make my 50th level character the equivalent of a 12th level D&D character, and I'd be a heck of a lot happier.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

Well, considering we've been using the same characters on and off for the past 20 years (and we're just not to 15th - 16th level in 3E!), I think I prefer the same characters.

Sure, we've died, but we've always managed to find a way to bring them back.

Of course, we have AP's built in...I think we're still trying to clear out the Temple of Thracia.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Give me 50 weeks of gaming and 50 levels, and make my 50th level character the equivalent of a 12th level D&D character, and I'd be a heck of a lot happier.

Check the sig, baby!

 

[jonathan swift]

Keep 'em short and sweet.

I've got far too much awesome in my brain to ever confine myself to one world, one party, one setting, for any significant length of time.

But things will vary depending on the party I've got. Some like the railroad tracks, where they can make a few key decisions. I haven't met many into the sandbox style, but I've tried it to rather lackluster effects before.

Quoted for truth man, quoted for truth.

 

[FireLance]

What I would really like to do is to run one PC from 1st level to 20th. In my experience, home campaigns tend to dry up at level 12 or earlier due to DM burnout, so at the present moment, I'm keen to try out an adventure path type campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Full 20 level Adventure Paths. Without a perceivable end-point, campaigns inevitably fizzle and die leaving all concerned without satisfaction. Campaigns must be just that, campaigns, with firm start and end points with clear, obvious goals dotting that path to act as both way-markers and motivational boosters that allow the psychological phenomenon present in leveling to work again to further continued gameplay.

QFT or Me too!

Anyone remember the days when it took almost 5 years of gaming to hit L20?

Nope. But then, we played with xp for gp.

 

[Agamon]

I like a metaplot to my games. I also like campaigns that tie closely to the PCs in one way or another. These work better in finite campaigns. Games that just go and go and go and go really don't really interest me (though I bet those worlds have incredible depth, I can see the allure...)

 

[Agamon]

Anyone remember the days when it took almost 5 years of gaming to hit L20?

24 years of gaming and I've yet to see a PC go from 1st to 20th. One consistant thing about D&D is that it never really did do high level well....

 

[Friadoc]

Personally, although I love playing certain characters, or even returning to them at a later date, I do prefer a contained arc/direction for the character's cycle and life.

I should note, though, that I've been playing the same character, a litorian runechild oathsworn named Rathe, since Arcana Unearthed released up to and through a conversion to Arcana Evolved.

Not only has it been an enjoyable experience, with the character being a lot different than any character I've played, but I can't wait to see how his story plays out.

But, I eventually had to add a second character to the game, not only due to our gaming group having shrunk due to life-change attrition (mostly work, including a player moving to become a professor at DePaul University), but also due to my need to have a change, of sorts.

Fortunately, though, I didn't kill Rathe off in order to play Zhod (Warforged nay-sprite nay-faen greenbond - Seriously long story) and I've enjoyed both characters.

That said, I really think, for me, either campaign breaks, or encapsulated adventure arcs, are a dang good idea when it comes to gaming.

However, it might just be a by product of my life, as I moved around a lot, thusly changing gaming groups a lot, with my current group being the longest gaming group I've ever had, at ~8 years. Before that it was ~6 years (twice), with no other group prior to that going more than ~3 or 4 years due to moving around a lot.

I enjoy the defined arc as it gives you a goal for the story (beginning, middle, and end), while also keeps you from wishing to play something else.

I enjoy fantasy, but I need breaks from it at times, which I use to get when I had two or three gaming groups, compared to my singular gaming group that I'm in now.

Fortunately, we've got a fine DM who keeps things feeling fresh, solid companions to game with, and the outlet of Play-by-Post games on here.

 

[Glyfair]

I prefer a campaign where the players create the story, rather than the more scripted approach of an adventure path. (Before anyone leaps on that, let me say that I'm not asserting that this is a black and white, clear-cut dichotomy.)

Indeed, I've considered before that someone ought to do a middle ground, more usable adventure path.

The product would have a basic layout of the plot. There would be certain key encounters/adventures that would be laid out in the product, probably being like an episode of an adventure path. However, they would be spread out in levels. One might happen at second level, the next at fifth, etc.

Each "episode" would have modular elements based on what has happened previously. The later ones would have the most options, perhaps being just an outline with a lot of modular elements (think of a miniature and more focused version of Secrets of Xen'drik.

This way it can fit into a standard game, without necessarily dominating the game. It would keep a running plot or theme, without having the whole campaign having to be about the plotline. Eden Studios did a few products something like this, that got too little attention, IMO.