What is a D&D campaign to you?

[Li Shenron]

My friend views a campaign as a storyline. He usually comes up with a lot of campaign ideas, and is fine if it lasts a year or so (considering that a long campaign) or even shorter if it is intended to be a shorter campaign. Because he is always a few campaign ideas ahead of what we are currently playing, he supports characters with very unique concepts that might only work well in certain scenarios. The campaign covers a short time period in the game world also, anything from a few days to a couple of years, and follow-up campaigns with the same characters are completely possible. In short, a campaign for him is like a good long movie trilogy or series, say Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

I am with your DM, except for the fact that I would not call it a campaign unless it lasts long enough also in fantasy world time.

But the definition is blurred for me too, because I don't know how to call a game where the campaign strictly speaking (i.e. the main story arc) is over, but the players decide to continue playing the same PCs for more adventures. Is it still the same campaign? If you start a new story arc it's maybe a follow-up campaign, but if there is no additional story arc but only small adventures?

Anyway overall I used to think the term is derived from the military language, which strongly suggests that a campaign ends with reaching (or failing) an objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_campaign

 

[Libramarian]

My view is closer to your friend's in terms of time. For me a good campaign is 6mos-1 year in length, at 1 or 2 sessions of 3 hours per week, 100-200 hours of total play time. I think 20 year campaigns are very rare, yes. I enjoy making new characters and starting new campaigns too much to spend 20 years on one thing.

 

[S'mon]

I think of 'campaign' as like your definition, though really it's more a 'campaign world' - it bears little resemblance to the military or wargaming definition of 'campaign', but it is how the D&D pioneers Gygax and Arneson used the word, so it stuck.

Your friend's definition is much closer to the military definition, and seems to be about equally common in usage I think. Published 'Adventure Paths' follow this model. The 'campaigns' described in the 4e DMG & DMG2 (or HPE modules) seem much closer to this idea even though they were supposed to go for an incredible 30 levels, a vast amount of play time in 4e that is much better suited to the Gygaxian approach IMO.

For that reason 'Loudwater', the 4e campaign I am aiming to take from 1st to 30th level (Feb 2011 to ca end 2016!) is designed much closer to the Gygaxian or 'Open' approach, a 6*-season TV series not a movie trilogy.

*6 not 7 because I tend to break it down into 6 demi-Tiers.

Edit: But most of my recent campaigns have been ca 8 level, 20-35 session, affairs played over 1-2 years, more open than your friend's storyboarded approach, but not the big Gygaxian decades-long affairs.

 

[sheadunne]

I tend to think of the military definition, in that it's a war against something. Pathfinder APs are a good example of what I think of as a campaign. They usually run from level 1-17 or so and there's usually one primary end game, although there are a lot of battles and plots along the way. My old group did one AP every 1 1/2 - 2 years.

I think the glue of a campaign is the characters not necessarily the plot or story. I think it's rare to have the same characters engage in multiple campaigns. At least in my experience. Others may define it differently.

My longest running game was 3 or 4 years and the original characters retired and their children took over. Although that game didn't have the traditional end game. It was more intrigue and politics. I still think of it as two "campaigns"

I guess what I'm trying to say is, call it what you like, as long as you're having fun, does it matter?

 

[howandwhy99]

Campaigns are basically a continuity of one playing of the game. Different players who may have multiple different characters may all be in the same campaign. However, if a TPK happens, then a new campaign begins. The game could be restarted, everyone with new characters and zero experience, but the other is done. Other than a TPK there is no way to end the game other than all the players reach so high a level with their PCs they choose to retire. Or, of course, they all die from natural character death, but that's kind of like a TPK.

Elements of the previous generated campaign setting and adventure modules might be in a new campaign, but it's a wholly different game and players shouldn't mistake it for otherwise by carrying over their conclusions from the previous. That's just like we wouldn't expect continuities when going to another DM's game.

 

[am181d]

A campaign is a series of adventures that exist within an ongoing continuity. So neither of you is wrong. It sounds like you're arguing over what makes a good campaign rather than what a campaign is.

 

[Umbran]

I think of 'campaign' as like your definition, though really it's more a 'campaign world' - it bears little resemblance to the military or wargaming definition of 'campaign', but it is how the D&D pioneers Gygax and Arneson used the word, so it stuck.

Yes. They really did follow the, "series of sessions, with continuity" definition, but the thing that was continuous was the game world, not the party or characters.

 

[S'mon]

I am with your DM, except for the fact that I would not call it a campaign unless it lasts long enough also in fantasy world time.

But the definition is blurred for me too, because I don't know how to call a game where the campaign strictly speaking (i.e. the main story arc) is over, but the players decide to continue playing the same PCs for more adventures. Is it still the same campaign? If you start a new story arc it's maybe a follow-up campaign, but if there is no additional story arc but only small adventures?

Was 5th season Babylon 5 still Babylon 5?
Yeah, it's still the same campaign. The Scouring of the Shire is still Lord of the Rings, the campaign didn't end at Mount Doom, whatever Peter Jackson says.
If my 4e Loudwater campaign runs to 30th as I hope, I think I'd probably like to continue it on awhile after whatever the big climax is, to get a sense of the PCs' end stories. I think the Immortality part of the Epic Destinies demands a dignified treatment. Although I saw the suggestion of just giving each PC an 'onscreen text' send-off like at the end of Animal House. I guess that could work but I'm a bit nervous about the GM writing it, rather than the player playing it.

 

[DnD_Dad]

My group refers to any continual game with the same characters and a story to be a campaign. We usually break it into chapters, which evolves around a particular area or story hook.

 

[Sunseeker]

I do not like sandbox games, at least sandbox games with no actors, or inactive actors.

I prefer open, but narrowing worlds. I figure, at any given level, there is a finite number of things within the world for those players to do. The higher the level they are, the more limited that list becomes. At lower levels, the players are mostly RE-acting to world events. Stopping bandits, slaying kobolds, finding lost treasure, etc... As the players increase in level, they are more and more the actors that others are reacting to. They are slaying great beasts that have terrorized kingdoms for centuries, they're building armies and kingdoms or working as the right hand of some god.

I like to create whole worlds that live and breathe so that if the players want to explore all it's nooks and crannies, it's there for them, but understandably the "Dread Marshes" may not contain much at any given time, while the "Lost Kingdom of Antioch" is likely to contain much more interesting stuff. The world is not created equal, and some parts are simple and boring while others are developed and interesting. I don't think I, as the DM, should be under the pressure to make every location the players want to visit equal.

As far as length, I personally could never play the same character for 20+ years. I'd be surprised if I could play the same character for more than two years. And even if I did, I'd worry that I'd be dreadfully attached to them and couldn't stand if they died. I also LOVE creating characters...but don't play in enough games to satisfy that creative drive, so having an assortment of characters and games is something I really enjoy. I don't think I'd want to play in, or run a game that goes beyond a few years in length, at least not with the same character. I've only ever created two characters I really love, and one of them is retired because the game died and my town is filled with jerks who won't run 4e, and the other died at like, 2nd level!

I prefer shorter, more focused games, both to play in and run. My character concepts come out much better in those situations, and I like that.