D&D General How often do you complete a campaign as a player?

[Lanefan]

OTOH dms or players who almost always complete campaign would see no need to increase pacing.

Or those like me, for whom "completing" a campaign is neither a goal nor an issue.

As a player, I want to complete the individual adventures within a campaign and yet always feel I can assume there'll be another adventure afterwards; i.e. that the campaign will continue.

 

[Hussar]

And that’s fair @Lanefan. But there needs to be recognition in the conversation that differing tables have differing goals which is going to color responses.

 

[payn]

I think it’s more to do with people (and I’m certainly guilty here) look at the reported experience and just can’t get how this experience happened. It’s so far out there that the assumption becomes that the reported experience must be flawed.

I mean the original thread that spawned this on was because people couldn’t believe that not completing a campaign was a typical experience. That I only believe what I believe because I’ve had “bad luck”.

But when about half of players have “bad luck” suddenly my perspective becomes a lot more understandable. That I might push for dms to pull their thumb out and increase the pace of their games makes sense when I’m part of that 50%. OTOH dms or players who almost always complete campaign would see no need to increase pacing.

Well, take this as you will, but there are a few posters that truly speak their own language. I see them as the outliers though. YMMV.

 

[Hussar]

Well, take this as you will, but there are a few posters that truly speak their own language. I see them as the outliers though. YMMV.

lol.

Not touching this one.

Be that as it may though, if half of players are very rarely completing campaigns, advising DMs to get the lead out shouldn’t be too shocking.

 

[TwoSix]

lol.

Not touching this one.

Be that as it may though, if half of players are very rarely completing campaigns, advising DMs to get the lead out shouldn’t be too shocking.

Or possibly, as a community, stop valorizing the ideals from AD&D days of always playing from 1-20, of taking dozens of sessions to level once, and assuming our campaign is going to run for 5-10 years.

Let's normalize more games that are planned to only run about 6 months, that might take only a dozen sessions, and/or that might level from 5-10 in those 6 months.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or possibly, as a community, stop valorizing the ideals from AD&D days of always playing from 1-20, of taking dozens of sessions to level once, and assuming our campaign is going to run for 5-10 years.

Let's normalize more games that are planned to only run about 6 months, that might take only a dozen sessions, and/or that might level from 5-10 in those 6 months.

While I don't expect the former--even back in the day I didn't have those--my personal feeling is that if I've put any effort into setting it up, a dozen sessions is kind of a waste of my time. Other people are not required to share my views here, of course.

 

[Lanefan]

Or possibly, as a community, stop valorizing the ideals from AD&D days of always playing from 1-20, of taking dozens of sessions to level once, and assuming our campaign is going to run for 5-10 years.

"Always playing from 1-20" is a 3e thing. Prior to that, there wasn't really a defined capstone level despite the best attempts of 1e's "name level"; instead it was designed as - and seen as - open-ended.

Let's normalize more games that are planned to only run about 6 months, that might take only a dozen sessions, and/or that might level from 5-10 in those 6 months.

To echo @Thomas Shey , putting a year into designing a setting I'm only going to use for 12 sessions (i.e. 3 months, assuming weekly play) seems rather dumb; yet putting less time into the setting is almost certain to make those 12 sessions a poorer experience.

Hell, for us a single adventure can very often eat up 12 sessions. That said, we don't exactly use 5-room-adventure design; preferring instead the somewhat bigger complexes as typically found in the classic TSR modules.

 

[TwoSix]

To echo @Thomas Shey , putting a year into designing a setting I'm only going to use for 12 sessions (i.e. 3 months, assuming weekly play) seems rather dumb; yet putting less time into the setting is almost certain to make those 12 sessions a poorer experience.

Unless I'm planning on running a setting-focused, world exploration type of game, that amount of effort would be mostly wasted. And if one of my groups was really hankering for that type of game, I'd probably just use Dolmenwood or something similar.

But let's be perfectly clear; setting-focused games are no longer the preference of most players, and most players aren't agitating for their return. Most people prefer trad or neotrad leaning games, and for those types of gamers, I would lean towards the idea that shorter games are better.

Hell, for us a single adventure can very often eat up 12 sessions. That said, we don't exactly use 5-room-adventure design; preferring instead the somewhat bigger complexes as typically found in the classic TSR modules.

I wouldn't know, I find almost all modules to not be worth the effort of reading. "The classic TSR module" is kind of lost on me since I grew up playing 2e, and making up our own adventures.

 

[Lanefan]

Unless I'm planning on running a setting-focused, world exploration type of game, that amount of effort would be mostly wasted. And if one of my groups was really hankering for that type of game, I'd probably just use Dolmenwood or something similar.

But let's be perfectly clear; setting-focused games are no longer the preference of most players, and most players aren't agitating for their return. Most people prefer trad or neotrad leaning games, and for those types of gamers, I would lean towards the idea that shorter games are better.

Maybe I've lost track of the definitions of things but I'd have thought the two bolded pieces above would be at least vaguely synonymous: to me trad (being short for traditional) implies long-haul setting-exploration play a la 1e or BX.

I wouldn't know, I find almost all modules to not be worth the effort of reading. "The classic TSR module" is kind of lost on me since I grew up playing 2e, and making up our own adventures.

Can't help you there.

 

[Lanefan]

But when about half of players have “bad luck” suddenly my perspective becomes a lot more understandable. That I might push for dms to pull their thumb out and increase the pace of their games makes sense when I’m part of that 50%. OTOH dms or players who almost always complete campaign would see no need to increase pacing.

I haven't voted in the poll yet, because if I did my vote would be "neearly never" but for reasons completely opposite to the point you're trying to make.

It's possible some of those "never" or "nearly never" votes are coming from the same place as mine would: we don't and largely can't "complete" campaigns because our campaigns have, by intention and design, no fixed completion point. There's no 'finish line' at which we intend ahead of time to say "OK, that's done. Let's start over with a new setting, new characters, and maybe a new DM".

Instead what might kill these campaigns are unpredictable things like DM burnout, system overload (e.g. play has got to a higher level than the system or edition can handle), real-life concerns leaving the game without players or a DM, and so forth.