D&D 5E What does "Campaign" mean to you?

[guachi]

If you are a DM or player and you hear someone say: "Let's play a campaign!", what does that mean to you?

The local FLGS had a message on its Facebook page saying they wanted a DM to run a "campaign" on Thursday nights. I volunteered. It turns out the owner's idea of a "campaign" and mine were different.

If I had to define "campaign" in a gaming sense I'd do it thus: A series of adventures undertaken by a substantially similar group of players and characters over time in a persistent game world.

Unpacking: A one-shot with never-to-be-used-again characters isn't a campaign. One of the old 32-page adventures would be considered a "one-shot" even if it took multiple sessions. Doing one part of the new APs isn't a campaign. Stringing 32-page adventures together would be a campaign as well as completing an AP from start to finish (assuming the other parts of my definition hold)

The "series of adventures" don't have to be connected in any way. We enter a dungeon, kill the monsters, and take their stuff. We enter another, completely unrelated dungeon, kill the monsters, and take their stuff, etc. would be a campaign.

The "substantially similar" players and characters is, to me, a requirement for a campaign. Players in the campaign would be added or removed rarely. Characters might change, but that would usually be upon death of the PC. Players don't come and go as they please with different characters every session (like you can do in AL)

"Persistent game world", while perhaps not the best term, basically means the players aren't in the Star Wars universe with one set of characters one week and the next week in the Hyborian Age in Conan's universe. The players and DM may be the same, but the setting and characters are different. This is not a campaign.

 

[Demorgus]

For me, a campaign is the continuing story of a group of adventurers. Now whether that is by stringing together a series of not related adventures or if it involves a world or even multiverse spanning plot arc, that's all window dressing. I think the key is continuity. Having a core of characters that are available each session and that the players are filling in what happens to the characters between adventures, like down time activities.

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, your definition fits mine.

I wouldn't be surprised though if someone used "campaign" to mean "A regularly scheduled (weekly, monthly, whatever) series of one-shots since in the context you provided above they'd be advertising a search for players looking to attend regularly.

If it was a one-off one-shot, well, "campaign" would be a terrible description of that.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, your definition is correct. A one-shot is an adventure. A campaign is multiple adventures.

I'm not sure the word is used much any more.

 

[Mercule]

At a gut level, I agree with your definition. Then, I look at my group playing through Princes of the Apocalypse, which is only a single adventure, but I'd still say we're playing a "campaign". So, I have to look deeper.

A campaign has duration. It's not a single session. It's really not even a handful of sessions (unless you apply an adjective like "aborted" campaign). Where is that line? Dunno. Probably at the point where the group becomes a team -- or gets really comfortable not being a team, though those sorts of games rarely last long enough to become campaigns, IME. Which brings us to:

Continuity. A campaign has some sort of continuity to it. Most of the time, this means the same setting, same players, and same characters. Sure, you may have someone drop or add. You may also have a character or two die. Still, there's something recognizable in the make-up, though.

Many years ago, when we had trouble with getting a long-term group together, one of my buddies came up with a rather interesting idea for tying together one-shots. We never did make use of it, but it still comes up from time to time. There's a mysterious order that, in a nutshell, acts as an interdimensional mercenaries guild and/or fixer. The details are largely left behind the curtain, but all adventuring members of the organization have a magic ring. When they're up for an adventure, they put the ring on and, assuming one is available, they're plane-shifted/teleported to a job. Some effort is made to ensure a fully capable group is available, so it's not completely random. There is no guarantee the paladin won't have to work with a dark cultist, but everyone involved at least knows the score and has a reason to start up a conversation about adventuring beyond "Hey, you were pretty good in the bar fight. Want to be munderhobos, together?" All members of the group generally get some info on the job, which could either be fully shared or parcelled out. Anyone who wants out of a group/job can pull the ring off and be sent home, but it doesn't always work immediately (i.e. it's assumed to happen when a player can't make the next session). Only the wearer may remove the ring, shy of a wish. We've come up with more details, like ways to add other folks to your "friends" list, etc. But, those are the high points. This set up also allows for GM rotation, such that I can run Eberron, my buddy can run Greyhawk, and someone else could run their home brew -- all non-exclusive. The only real agreement is that my buddy is the only one permitted to delve into the mystery of the organization, which he doesn't intend to do.

Hypothetically speaking, a group of 20 players used the above for three years, with players largely centered around three cities, but with enough travel that they all intermingle quite a bit, and some of the characters make it to 15th level. Does that qualify as a campaign? Honestly, I don't know. Mostly, I want to punt and say, "It depends on other factors." If one city generally has the same GM and 90% of the players, I'd say so. The guild thing just acts as a way to fit in messed up schedules and work in the occasional guest or troupe-style play. If the GMs rotate a lot and each GM uses a different world and the players jump in and out, with lots of different characters, then it probably isn't. It's just a meta-layer on top of the other settings or a shared table rule for allowing people to just show up with whatever character they want.

There are other variations, like playing the children of previous characters or advancing existing characters several years/levels to take on a new sort of challenge. The Rings game was the most wild example that came to mind, though.

Short form, I think continuity is the key word for a campaign. A random assortment of players, especially when they may or may not show up all the time, does not make a campaign. I'd also say that rotating GMs generally doesn't lend itself well to a campaign, either, even if each GM sees through a whole adventure at a time. No continuity == no campaign. And a game doesn't become a campaign until it has momentum that continuity is even relevant.

So, after all that, I'm going back to agreeing with your assessment that the makeup of the real-world and game-world principals (i.e. GM, players, PCs) is the best way to add continuity.

 

[Greg Benage]

How old was the owner? An old-school campaign might have had the "persistent game world" (though it might have looked a lot like the Upper Midwest with a big dungeon under a castle) but with many different players and characters coming in and out over time.

I didn't start playing until 1980 and ironically never played in a campaign like that (and haven't since) until I joined one in college, and sure enough it was run by an OG who had been a wargamer in the 60s and then started playing D&D in the mid-70s. Point being, I don't know how common it was first hand, but it seems to fit my limited anecdotal experience and what I've read about the First Campaigns (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.).

 

[Maxperson]

For me, a campaign is the continuing story of a group of adventurers. Now whether that is by stringing together a series of not related adventures or if it involves a world or even multiverse spanning plot arc, that's all window dressing. I think the key is continuity. Having a core of characters that are available each session and that the players are filling in what happens to the characters between adventures, like down time activities.

This. I try to theme a campaign so that it feels more like a large story arc spanning levels 1-16+, but sometimes it's just having fun doing whatever the PCs want for those levels. The primary factor in my opinion is the duration over several levels.

 

[Ed Laprade]

So what was the game store owner's definition?

 

[Shiroiken]

How old was the owner? An old-school campaign might have had the "persistent game world" (though it might have looked a lot like the Upper Midwest with a big dungeon under a castle) but with many different players and characters coming in and out over time.

I didn't start playing until 1980 and ironically never played in a campaign like that (and haven't since) until I joined one in college, and sure enough it was run by an OG who had been a wargamer in the 60s and then started playing D&D in the mid-70s. Point being, I don't know how common it was first hand, but it seems to fit my limited anecdotal experience and what I've read about the First Campaigns (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.).

My first campaign was like this, for the most part. I took over the DM duties after the DM moved, but eventually the group settled down to 4 semi-regulars and 1-2 irregulars because the semi-regulars only wanted to play their best (i.e. highest level) characters which had quickly overshadowed everyone else. I was too new a DM (as well as an immature teenager), so I didn't handle this as well as I should have.

Anyway, this usage became pretty much obsolete by the time I switched to 2E (I took a few more years because I already owned all the 1E books and didn't want to buy new stuff). After that one, every game I've played in has had pretty much regular players with a single character each. While I'm a huge fan of regular players (especially when they're a good group), I'm going to try to convince my group to switch to an old school style campaign next time (where everyone has multiple PCs).

 

[Ancalagon]

I agree with your definition. Now there is nothing "wrong" with what these people are doing, but it's not a campaign.