What's the secret behind D&D's ability to sustain long term play?

[Crothian]

And D&D supports DMs better than any other game out there, where it seems like it's pulling teeth to get anything published adventures for any other games (since they don't sell, apparently), while for D&D we get a Dungeon subscription (enough adventuring to get your group from 1st to 20th) for the cost of a source book.

A series of random adventures does not a campaign make. D&D supports adventures better then any other game, it does not support Campaigns better then any other game. DMs actually get very little material, most of the material is made for the players. And While I do run many successfule D&D campaigns I have never had a subsciption to Dungeon.

 

[Monte At Home]

I also believe it's due to the group. The best game in the world isn't going to go on for very long without the right DM and players.

All other things being equal, though, there are two things (I believe) that makes D&D well-suited for long-term play.

1. Levels. This is ironic, of course, because it's one of two things (classes are the other one)that D&D haters look down on D&D for--but it's actually one of the game's greatest strengths. Levels are literally the carrot on the string. Not only is every level gain at least somewhat significant, but players can look ahead and see what they'll get next level, and 5 levels from now, and so on. There are few games out there where people routinely talk about what their concrete plans are for their character 6 months or sometimes a year or more in advance (when I get to 10th level I'm going to...)

2. Robustness. This is a word that we used to describe what some might call the "complexity" of the game (or, if they were feeling more generous, the "intricacy" of the game), but what it really means is how much there is to do with the rules, an dhow many bits and pieces there are to the rules that can all interact in interesting and meaningful ways. For example, because there are both levels and feats, there are things you can do with either mechanic but not with the other, or you can have them modify or manipulate each other. Then, when you can add in spells, skills, magic items, races, prestige classes, templates, and more, it gives a real robustness. The advantage that robustness gives to the long-term play experience is that it keeps things from feeling the same. If you had a game that had only feats--no levels, no skills, etc. you'd run that risk must sooner. (And this is a gross simplification of D&D's robustness. Many other things play into it. Far too many to list.)

While I'll grant that some things in D&D are too complex, and that there's still plenty of room to improve D&D, I cringe when I see people talking about simplifying the game. Simplification of D&D could very well be a bullet in its head.

 

[Wombat]

The two longest running campaigns I had were RuneQuest (3 years) and Ars Magica (4 years); my D&D campaigns are far behind in that regard, the longest campaign lasting about a year.

Does that mean D&D is bad at sustained campaigns? No, though it might be for certain sepcific players and GMs.

I gotta go with Crothian on this one -- it's not so much the rules as the work the GM puts into the campaign. I would couple this, however, with the chemistry between the GM and the players. The better the feedback the GM gets from the players, the more likely he is to continue the campaign and develop more areas and options for play. I have heard of long-runnign campaigns using Tunnels & Trolls; that is hardly a complex set of rules.

D&D is can be great. So can Vampire. So can GURPS. So can Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, Castle Falkenstein, Blue Planet, Star Trek (of the various incarnations), and almost anything else. It's all a matter of what seems to work well with the group you have.

 

[Rykion]

I think D&D's simplicity of storyline is its greatest strength. Other games' settings often shoehorn players into playing a metaplot that not everyone is interested in. You also have games that try to make character goals the main focus. This can bring the group together with a great experience, but often players choose goals that leave others out or divide the group. In D&D the DM can choose to run a metaplot, a character based game, a dungeon crawl, or any variation the DM wishes. Being heroes on a quest to kill evil things and take their stuff can be enough motivation to keep a D&D game going indefinitely.

 

[Mallus]

Gundark, you're right... for you.

Dead wrong for me (and my experiences with the game).

I've found the most important components of a satisfying long-term game are an interesting setting to explore (and change), and storylines in which the players matter.

In other words, things that are independant of the rules.

And for me, no amount of abilities/PrC/feats/classes/kits/etc. can really flesh out a character. That's all still "2-D". I'm after characters with good characterization...

 

[Shemeska]

Rules and crunch are wholly a secondary reason for any ability to sustain long term play.

Good DMs sustain long term play, as do good players in their group.

A good DM could sustain a long term game using Shadowrun rules, using a deck of tarot cards, or going completely without rules. And yes, I've played a Ravenloft game where the DM used a deck of cards. Yes it was 5am in the morning but he made it work, one of the best DMs I've played under.

 

[Shemeska]

Here's the big question: Why did you, and so many of us, keep going back to D&D? If you can have the same thing (Interesting plot lines and good GM'ing) with Shadowrun, or Savage Worlds, or Vampire, why does D&D never fall by the wayside for good?

Beyond that it's a pretty good, streamlined system without a giant learning curve... it's because it's the grandpa of Sword and Sorcery themed games. If I wanted to play a cyberpunk game I'd play Shadowrun, not D20 Modern. If I wanted to play a game of lovecraftian cosmic horror I'd use Call of Cthulhu, not DnD. Etc.

The more I want to diverge from the traditional theme of DnD the more likely I am to just use a different system (ie Shadowrun, CoC, etc).

 

[Psion]

I said it there, I'll say it here: the Jungian appeal of levelling.

All the answers about DMs and whatnot are good, but really don't say anything comparatively about the game itself.

I think Monte's got a good point on Robustness too, though there are some other games that are robust as well. Few games actively try to follow in the footsteps of levelling, though; most try to avoid it. That's why I think levelling is the characteristic that is most uniquely associated with D&D that carries this attribute.

This brings on an interesting sub-discussion, though. Palladium has a level model, but IME Palladium games dissolve much faster than D&D games. I think this is due to the much derided "B" word. Palladium throws balance to the wind, and as such, the game tends to create more untenable situations as PCs advance that erode attention in the game. In other words, Palladium seems much more likely to self-destruct from balance issues.

 

[Crothian]

This brings on an interesting sub-discussion, though. Palladium has a level model, but IME Palladium games dissolve much faster than D&D games. I think this is due to the much derided "B" word. Palladium throws balance to the wind, and as such, the game tends to create more untenable situations as PCs advance that erode attention in the game. In other words, Palladium seems much more likely to self-destruct from balance issues.

The longest campaign I have ever run or been a part of was Rifts. I ran that for about 10 years straight.

 

[Psion]

The longest campaign I have ever run or been a part of was Rifts. I ran that for about 10 years straight.

Here's where Xombie Master's point comes in.

But I'm impressed. I know that I didn't have the fortitude to take the system that long. But while I guess your example runs counter to my explanation of why I see Palladium as an exception, it sort of demonstrates rule 1.