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

[Maxperson]

Which points out one huge difference between us - a year-and-a-half for us counts as just nicely getting started. Since 1984 I've run three campaigns, and the current in-progress one is (for now) the shortest at a bit under 9 years.

But note that I'm perhaps also using the word "campaign" to mean a bit more than some: in my case the "campaign" includes all the adventures played in that particular world/setting provided that said adventures/parties can somehow interact with each other. Charting the characters/parties moves in my current campaign results in something resembling a plate of spaghetti as parties merge, split, stop, start and individual characters move from one to another. In play, what it often means is one party gets put on hold while we play out the other, then we switch back. Same campaign, though.

Lanefan

Heh. I've been on one very long term campaign like that. It spanned 2e and 3e and still isn't done. It may pick up again some day. Another friend of mine charts his groups like that. He has a map of the realms with push pins in it representing various groups.

 

[Mercule]

But note that I'm perhaps also using the word "campaign" to mean a bit more than some: in my case the "campaign" includes all the adventures played in that particular world/setting provided that said adventures/parties can somehow interact with each other. Charting the characters/parties moves in my current campaign results in something resembling a plate of spaghetti as parties merge, split, stop, start and individual characters move from one to another. In play, what it often means is one party gets put on hold while we play out the other, then we switch back. Same campaign, though.

I would definitely say that we're using the word differently. I've only run one home brew setting, with a short run through both Greyhawk and Eberron in 3.xE. That setting was first named and codified as a whole after several years of play and two rather unrelated parties -- each ended up featuring a PC who ended up ruling some sort of holding, so I tend to think of them in terms of which nation was founded.

Regardless, they were run completely independently and the first was "completed" (i.e. everyone wanted to make up new characters) before I was even thinking in terms of a formal campaign world. The second involved a bit more intentional world-building and, when I drew up a larger map, I went ahead and put the first campaign area in context of the new setting, just several hundred years removed in time. The two PC groups never interacted. It was only later, after I went off to college and started a whole new group, that I drew from both as historic material and unified them in any real way beyond a couple of place names and deities. Over the years, I've probably run five different, identifiable groups in that world. Because I'm not a fan of GMs trying to capture the personality of former PCs, the most anyone has interacted with another group has been in the form of an intelligent weapon that appeared in two games, some scions of one of the original PCs, a shared evil empire, and some coherent lore.

Not sure whether that qualifies as one or five campaigns by either your or [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]'s definitions.

For me, I'd say 5 campaigns. I'd further entertain the idea that the clean breaks I made between years at university were separate campaigns. They were mostly the same characters, but the action was totally different. I wouldn't push that distinction too hard, but each is separate, in my head.

 

[billd91]

There are a number of different definitions floating about and, for the most part, they're all right. What makes a campaign varies from group to group. I generally favor a definition reasonably close to Lanefan's - adventures played in a particular world/setting in which there may be different players/characters at various times but all operating along a single timeline or in which they could potentially interact. But extended adventuring and plots within that broader campaign and focusing on just a single set of players and PCs could also be considered a campaign. The term can exist at different levels like sets and subsets.

 

[Lanefan]

Regardless, they were run completely independently and the first was "completed" (i.e. everyone wanted to make up new characters) before I was even thinking in terms of a formal campaign world. The second involved a bit more intentional world-building and, when I drew up a larger map, I went ahead and put the first campaign area in context of the new setting, just several hundred years removed in time. The two PC groups never interacted.

I'd have said these two were one campaign until I noticed the huge time difference. Two campaigns, same setting.

It was only later, after I went off to college and started a whole new group, that I drew from both as historic material and unified them in any real way beyond a couple of place names and deities. Over the years, I've probably run five different, identifiable groups in that world. Because I'm not a fan of GMs trying to capture the personality of former PCs, the most anyone has interacted with another group has been in the form of an intelligent weapon that appeared in two games, some scions of one of the original PCs, a shared evil empire, and some coherent lore.

Not sure whether that qualifies as one or five campaigns by either your or [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]'s definitions.

Sounds like 5 to me, only using the same setting. Same as using a canned setting e.g. FR for a bunch of separate campaigns.

I'd further entertain the idea that the clean breaks I made between years at university were separate campaigns. They were mostly the same characters, but the action was totally different. I wouldn't push that distinction too hard, but each is separate, in my head.

If (most of) the characters and (most of) the players were the same, then one campaign.

I had a similar thing in my first big campaign - there was just one party for the first ten adventures or so, then (due to conflicts between players) it split into two. Shortly after the split the two parties started getting more and more separated in game-world time and before long never interacted with each other at all. However, the two groups shared a common root, and there was one player who was in both games; so it still counted as a single campaign to me.

Lanefan

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I haven't followed the thread, but my idea of a campaign is pretty much the same as the OP's. The only thing I would add is that a certain amount of length is required before it counts as a campaign to me.

For instance, when I ran a scenario that lasted 15 sessions (I was aiming for 10-12, but overshot), that wasn't a campaign to me, it was a theme adventure.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Campaign to me means same band of PCs doing various adventures. Same PCs (plus those replacing the dead) is mandatory. A series of one-shot adventures with different PCs is not a campaign, it's a series of one shots with different PCs

What if it's a series of linked adventures with different PCs? The adventures are not one-shots because they take place in the same world, are part of an overarching story and events in one adventure and how the players resolve them feed in to the further adventures, it's just that the DM hands out new characters to the players at the start of every session.

 

[Sammael]

What if it's a series of linked adventures with different PCs? The adventures are not one-shots because they take place in the same world, are part of an overarching story and events in one adventure and how the players resolve them feed in to the further adventures, it's just that the DM hands out new characters to the players at the start of every session.

Shared world but not a campaign, in my book.

 

[Psikerlord#]

What if it's a series of linked adventures with different PCs? The adventures are not one-shots because they take place in the same world, are part of an overarching story and events in one adventure and how the players resolve them feed in to the further adventures, it's just that the DM hands out new characters to the players at the start of every session.

For me personally, it needs to be the same band of PCs

 

[happyhermit]

Not much to add, but I thought the way "campaign" was used in the 5e PHB intro was pretty much the typical definition. After explaining about the PCs and that they form a party it goes on to;

The game has no real end; when one story or quest wraps up, another one can begin, creating an ongoing story called a campaign. Many people who play the game keep their campaigns going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week or so to pick up where the story left off. The adventurers grow in might as the campaign continues.
...
Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on.

There are also things like this in the DMG;

A campaign is much more than a series of adventures. It also includes the moments between them-the various distractions and side pursuits that engage the characters when they are not exploring in the wilderness, plundering dungeons, and gallivanting around the multiverse on some epic quest.

Overall it certainly seems like the default assumption in the books (for what it's worth) is that a campaign is a series of adventures in a persistent setting, engaged in by an ordinarily stable party of PCs. That is pretty much my definition as well.

 

[Lanefan]

What if it's a series of linked adventures with different PCs? The adventures are not one-shots because they take place in the same world, are part of an overarching story and events in one adventure and how the players resolve them feed in to the further adventures, it's just that the DM hands out new characters to the players at the start of every session.

Need more information in order to properly answer.

- is it the same players each time, running different PCs (if yes, carry on to next questions); or different players each time as well (if yes, stop here: it's not a campaign)?
- is there a long-term plan to do any of the following:
- - - have characters from any of the parties interact with any or all other parties, and-or have parties merge (if yes, at that point it becomes a campaign)
- - - have the overall party level slowly get higher on average (if yes, carry on to further questions; if no stop here as it's not a campaign)
- - - reuse any of the parties in future adventures (if yes, campaign status remains unclear; if no, not a campaign at all)

Lan-"but my first question is what's the rationale for using an entirely new party each time rather than continuing on with the existing PCs"-efan