Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
Right, but I still don't understand what definition AlexanderHowl is using.
|
I've encountered at least three different concepts:
*I come up with a theme and premise and a problem, or a series of problems, that the PCs struggle with. That's a campaign. When the struggle is resolved, or the theme is fully explored, the campaign ends. The world was created for that campaign, and when the campaign ends, I put the world away.
*When the campaign ends, I keep the world, and later I'll come up with another campaign that the same PCs can participate it.
*I, or I and other GMs, come up with multiple campaigns set in a variety of worlds. The same PCs can be migrated freely between worlds, either at the end of a campaign, or perhaps during a campaign, though that's less usual. The existence of the PCs is independent of the existence of particular world.
The way I do things is generally the first. That is, a campaign for me is usually linked to a specific world and to a specific set of PCs. I've never had the urge to do the second, and I wouldn't tolerate the third.
However, that's not because I DEFINE a campaign as "a series of adventures that take place in a particular world," as Stormcrow seems to think. I define a campaign as a series of adventures with a common theme, premise, and/or central conflict, and normally with a single set of protagonists. The fact that for me, each world goes with a single campaign, more or less, isn't a matter of how I define "campaign"; it's a matter of my choosing to make up a new world for a new campaign. For someone who reused worlds more often than I do, I would consider "campaign" to be a smaller unit than "world."