The long-term campaign and the myth of d20

[ethan_greer]

So, I have this friend.  Let's call him Herb.

Herb wants to run a long-term fantasy campaign.  How long-term?  We're talking years, as in ten or more.  Which sounds like it could be quite a bit of fun; I'm pretty enthusiastic about it.

There's just one problem, which may or may not actually be a problem, and that's what I want to talk about.  He wants to use D&D 3.5.  I've brought up the fact that the system itself is not particularly well-equipped to support the type of long-term campaign he's going for, and as a result there's been some talk of modifying the experience point system to slow the power escalation down.  There's also been discussion about changing the hit points system since three of the other players have a big problem with HP in general and with D&D's damage handling in particular.  Okay, fine.  Throw whatever optional rules you want on top of d20.  To my way of thinking, the bottom line is, d20 is not well-suited to support long-term play from the get-go.

Another interesting little wrinkle in all this is Herb's purported reasons for wanting to run d20.

First, he talks about the flexibility of the system.  Roughly paraphrasing, "If I want to switch to running a sci-fi game, all I have to do is buy one book and we have all the system info we need."

That's as may be, but I thought we were going to be running a long-long-term fantasy campaign so I'm a bit confused as to why that's even an issue.  I do allow that there are a decent number of genre-specific d20 products out there.  I question the validity of the claim that buying a single book would be the only requirement for switching to a new genre using "the same system" when the feats, skills, and various other bits will undoubtedly be different, in some cases radically so.  And if we're using alternate house rules for things like HP and XP, won't those changes also have to be applied to whatever systemic alterations have been made in the alternate genre book?  In my opinion, the idea of "buy one book and presto-genre-change-o" is the major myth of d20.  There has never, nor will there ever, be One Game to Rule Them All, and d20 doesn't come close to that goal anyway.

Second, and to me a bit more encourageingly, Herb is cognizant of the fact that d20 handles tactical abstract combat well, and little else.  His thinking is that he'll be running fast and loose on the non-combat stuff, and using d20 as a detail-oriented fall-back for when we get into combat (which if I'm remembering correctly averages out to maybe once or twice every three sessions with this group, based on my experience playing with these players under this GM with AD&D2 + Player's Options). Fair enough, I can buy that.  The limitations of d20 can be circumnavigated in non-combat situations when Herb is running it.

However, I think the real reasons Herb so adamantly insists on d20 are a little murkier and problematic.  These are not reasons he has volunteered, but I suspect that if and when I bring these up to him he might agree.  For one thing, I think there's a bias based on nostalgia and comfort level.  He's run D&D most often, and like many of us cut his roleplaying teeth on D&D.  He's hesitant to explore other systems because he feels he already knows this one well enough to do whatever he wants.  For another thing, he's into the D&D minatures line, and has spent bunches of money on it, and really wants to use them in the game.

All of which, in my opinion, is bunk.  First, learning a new system is not difficult, and with all the free or nearly free games out there, it's very cheap as well.  Second, "I've spent X dollars on the line" is possibly the absolute worst reason to choose a particular system I can think of.

Even with all that being said, I'd be willing to roll with d20 and see what happens were it not for one unavoidable truth: We're not a combat-oriented group, and when we do get into combat, I believe that D&D's highly structured and abstracted system with grids and figures will frustrate the majority of the players.

Quite frankly, I'm worried. I'd like to be involved in a long-term fantasy campaign, and I'd like for Herb to be running that game since he's a lot of fun to play under.  In support of those goals, I want to do everything I can to ensure the success of Herb's game.  Perhaps most of all, though, I'm concerned with the fact that Herb has actualy gotten visibly angry with one or more of us when we sat down and talked about using something other than d20.  Basically, all of these players want to play in Herb's game.  None of the players want to use d20.  Herb is the only person who does want to use d20, and further, he adamantly insists upon it.

What does all of this have to do with you?  Well, since you've read this far, here are my questions:

Does anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?  If so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Does anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

[Mark Johnson]

My only advice is this, ditch the experience system completely.  If you want to go from first to twentieth level in ten years just allow leveling up every six months or so.  Move to a reward point system that rewards the type of behaviors that you want to see whether it be diplomacy, overcoming non-combat challenges, or "role playing" and let these reward points be used for free rerolls or narrative authority.

It isn't pretty, but it does shift the feel of the game quite a bit.  If your GM wants something a bit closer to the feel of AD&D check out http://www.castlesandcrusades.com/; it is still OGL and I really don't know that much about it, but I am sure it slows down the tremendous advancement pace of D&D 3.

My feeling is that this game won't last a year, nevermind ten.

Later,
Mark

[karolusb]

We are probably incompatible thinkers, but the more I think about it the more I think Hero is probably the closest thing to the ultimate system out there.  It has problems, rate of progression, and unsupervised character generation being big among them, with the amount of work the GM has to do being the largest problem.  

Regardless, the D20 combat system is functionally identical to every other game, simply because a book includes a miniatures based representation of combat doesn't mean you have to use it.  For people who like that every game could benefit from miniatures based combat, and for those who don't mind a little more abstraction nearly any game can run without it.  Can I reach him if I charge, (yes/no), can I work my way around to flank him without exposing myself, (yes/no), simple as that, all the minis do is remove the arbitrariness of the GM from the equation.  

The XP rates obviously wont work for your long term plan, but frankly I can't think of any game where you would see any character growth over a few games sessions that wouldn't involve being godlike after 500 sessions, so if you want a game to run 500 sessions you are going to need to slow down the xp gain in any game.  

As to quickly incoporating a new game, many gaming elitists hate the concept of multiple genres under one roof.  And I will agree it has it's flaws especially if that roof is D20 (without magic items most high end d20 characters see no relevant growth, what does a 20th level soldier in Star Wars do he couldn't do 15th, or even 5th for that matter).  But exactly why adding space to your fantasy game would take some herculean effort is beyond me.  If your characters were say picked up on a space ship, would you suddenly know how to use a Gun?  No, in fact everyone would be exactly who they were before, maybe with your next level you would pick up a level in space pirate, but at the time of genre change nothing would be different.  The compatibility of the systems would make that transition pretty seamless in terms of rules.  If you had a house rule on XP it would stay in effect in space, no real headache there, and changing the HP on a space orc (or whatever) would be no different than changing it on a fantasy orc.  

So is it the system I would use were I your friend, nah I would go Hero.  He sounds like the kinda guy who is willing to do his work as a GM, you guys don't sound like munchkin gamers, so char gen shouldn't result in any monstrosities.  But it also doesn't sound like the worst system he could have chosen either.

[Storn]

I've converted my long running campaign recently to Savage Worlds.  It is not perfect.

But it works well enuff for me.  And it is fast compared to d20 or Hero or Gurps.  Magic is a bit skimpy.... but I'm a tinkerer and I've added plenty already.

However, my second choice would be  Arrowflight, that is a pretty interesting system to me.  Maybe a bit complicated in its structure of combat... great for one on one combats... but maybe a handful for lots of combatents.  There are few good reviews on RPGnet, giving you both good and bad points for you to weigh.

My third choice, sorry, is Hero.

My 4th choice would be Basic Role Playing... actually my fav variant of BRP is the out of print SwordBearer... a great little game with wonderful Denis Loubet art... that is my nostalgia factor kicking in.

WEG is coming out with a generic d6 system that ran their Star Wars engine for many years.  I always thought that would make for decent fantasy system.

As for advice:  Bring this thread up to the GM.  State your desire for a long term game is really sparking you... but d20 is not.  See if there is some room to negotiate.  Try to get him interested in the process of EXPLORATION of other game systems.   I have a blast looking at other systems.  But I'm a systems tinkerer... I like that stuff.

[Ole]

First, he talks about the flexibility of the system.  Roughly paraphrasing, "If I want to switch to running a sci-fi game, all I have to do is buy one book and we have all the system info we need."

The same can be said for any number of generic systems, or one-book systems, and most likely they will be better suited than d20.

Does anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.

I`ve GMed several (two) long term fantasy campaigns using Ars-Magica. Ars Magica is particularly suited for long term campaigns, but it has a strong focus on magic. There are actually some fan-written rules for adapting AD&D to Ars-Magica, could perhaps be interesting.

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

Do try to enlighten him first...if he closes his eyes to the light, its your call really, but I know what I would do.

[Jason Lee]

Mark said what I was going to about advancement (personal experience supports his position), and Ole mentioned Ars Magica.

I'm simply an echo.

[John Kim]

Does anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?  If so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Does anyone have experience with running a long-term fantasy campaign (more than a year) where combat was not the focus of play with a system that worked particularly well for it?  What system did you use?  I should point out that GURPS and HERO are not options.  

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.  

Can't really say about D&D3.  I played in a campaign for a few months, but it was basically combat-oriented and I dropped out after that time.  I'd tend to concur about long-term potential.  From people I know, I think D&D3 requires a reset fairly regularly because power rises quickly and higher level action is rather unstable.  

Historically, nearly all of my campaigns have been a year or (more likely) less.  However, I've been running my Vinland game for two and a half years.  Combat happens maybe every 3 or 4 sessions on average.  It's using a simple variant of RuneQuest (basically BRP plus criticals and hit location).  A little while in, I introduced Whimsy Cards as an added rule which have worked pretty well.  Experience is a flat 5 skill points per session rather than checks -- which is an important change, I think, for long term development.  

I would say you want a system that your group enjoys not as a novelty but as a basic engine for a variety of play.  So I would avoid more narrowly focussed systems.  The other worry is escalation.  Some escalation is generally necessary to avoid stagnation, but you want to keep a strict limit on it.  I guess your group doesn't like GURPS or HERO -- or was there another reason you rejected them?  While they're not for everyone, I think they're good models for experience.  Characters can noticeably develop in small steps.  

Basically, my point is having basic types of drama and action that you enjoy, and a setting and system which supports small incremental changes to that.  My impression of both D&D3 and, say, Exalted is that the system changes a little too drastically as you go up in scale.  I'd also recommend Ars Magica, but I don't think its "fantasy" in the sense you were looking for and I can't vouch for the D&D adaptation of its system.

[madelf]

I'm a member in an AD&D campaign that's been running for over ten years.
It is not what I'd call a heavily combat oriented game, but there's certainly combat involved. There's also a lot of character interaction, social/political stuff, etc that I would say take up much more game time than actual combat.

Would the game have been better (from my point of view) with a different system?
Absolutely. But that's just from my view. The GM likes AD&D, knows it like the back of his hand and can run the game off the cuff with no wondering. He's also creative enough to know that the game can support more than just a dungeon delve (even if that's what it is geared toward).

It sounds like you may be getting into a similar situation. It sounds like Herb is comfortable with what he knows and really doesn't want to learn a new system. He obviously thinks he can work with D&D's shortcomings to still create a fun campaign, (and it actually sounds like you do too).

So I'd say, try asking yourself (and the other party members)... Is coercing your GM into using a system he really doesn't want to use, better than just letting the guy run what he wants to? Is D&D so hated by the players that the campaign will be doomed by using that system?
Or will the game be pretty good regardless of the system because the GM will be able to overcome any deficiency of the system simply because he's a good GM? And maybe even... will the game be better because the GM will have no confidence issues holding him back by using a less familiar system?

It seems to me like those might be the important questions.

[Bankuei]

Hi Ethan,

I've ran 3.0 in the past, for about a year, and recently tried to start a hardcore gamist campaign that fell apart.  Funny enough, between these two experiences, it really pointed out "how" D&D works.

First of all, no one is ever going completely by the rules.  In my attempt at gamism, most of the players were completely turned off by actually having to follow the rules written in the book.  Many folks didn't even know the rules, despite having played 3.0 for some time.  D&D is really a loose collection of suggestions that no one is playing standardised in any sense, and each new group, or even campaign, may require a complete re-negotiation of System in Play vs. System as Written.

In that regards, its going to be vital for Herb to lay out "How" he intends to run the game.  Are social interactions simply run by consensus, or are you going to have to roll Persuade?  If you roll Persuade, do you get a bonus for roleplaying, or are you going to have to roleplay the results?  Are you guys going "by the book" with combat, mini's and everything?  Or are you guys playing it loose?

Unfortunately, these kinds of answers most people have to discover in play, and everyone at the table is usually coming with different assumptions.  This is where D&D usually gets sticky for most groups.

Second, how XP is earned is a big deal.  If the game isn't about combat, then what sorts of things earn XP?  SA style rewards, like Riddle of Steel?  Completing goals?  Who defines the goals?  Are they player defined like Kickers, or GM provided.  Does the GM ever TELL the players what those goals are, or are the players supposed to infer and guess them?

If combat isn't a major portion of the game, what difference does it make if the characters "advance" fairly quickly?  

As far as alternatives, I've played in a year long fantasy game using Story Engine, which was not very combat oriented(maybe two fights between 3 sessions or so).  I found it to be a rather effective, simple and solid set of rules in play, that people can usually pick up very fast, often in play itself.  Character growth was gradual, and "organic", as we'd incorporate many changes into our characters as a direct result of events in play.

As far as your group goes, although Herb may be jazzed, it doesn't sound like too many other people are, and all I can see coming from the game is disappointment all around.  It might be best to see if anyone else would rather play something else, with or without Herb, and also offer to join in "his next game" if it doesn't happen to be D&D.

Chris

[ethan_greer]

Calvin, it seems like my situation is very similar to yours, and you make some good points. You make me feel better about the option of just rolling with things and seeing how it goes with Herb running D&D...

As an aside, I never meant to suggest that d20 is incapable of supporting non-combat situations; just that it's less suited than some other systems.  My primary concern with the system choice is the longevity thing and the power ramp-up inherent in D&D3 less so than in AD&D.  A question for you: Same characters for ten+ years, or different characters? What level are the party members?

For the curious, GURPS and HERO aren't options because Herb hates GURPS and I suspect would dislike HERO.

Arrowflight is frickin' cool. I may just bring that up.  Ars Magica I would have to look at; I know very little about it.  Thanks to all the folks who recommend it.

And I will definitely be pitching Mark's experience "system" idea to Herb and the group.

John, I like what you're saying about having a basic style and changing it incrementally over time - gives me some ideas and food for thought.

[ethan_greer]

Hey Chris,
interestingly enough, we're all pretty jazzed about it, near as I can tell.  I've just got some concerns about the system choice for what we're trying to create.

I really appreciate your suggestions - sounds like another group meeting is in order to really establish answers to some of those "how" questions prior to the beginning of play.

If combat isn't a major portion of the game, what difference does it make if the characters "advance" fairly quickly?

In my experience, D&D power levels effect three things: Combat, the Skill/Difficulty Class, and Weird Stuff.  (Weird Stuff includes funky core and prestige class interactions, magic items, and all those funky spells that come into play at the higher levels.) And in a less combat-oriented game, the skill and weird stuff issues are going to come to the fore as the power levels go up. That's my concern, anyway.

Knowing Herb, and knowing the group, I can also be nearly certain that Story Engine is not going to work.  Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[M. J. Young]

I ran two OAD&D campaigns that lasted several years each (the first started in 1980 and sort of faded in 1985 or 6, the latter started around 86 or 7 and ran into 92). Experience points were generous, and advancement through the lower levels fairly rapid, but no one ever surpassed level 11 and levels 6 through 8 were more common. Part of this was that the door was always open for new players, who came and went, left characters behind to be run as NPC party members, and soaked up some of the experience--the first group reached 22 characters (including PCs, associated NPCs, and henchmen) and the second topped forty (all of the above plus cavalier retainers, more players were active over longer periods in that game). Still, both groups had core players whose original characters were still in the game at the end. Dungeon adventures were the most common activity, but between the groups there was an overland trip through a blizzard, a massive war in which they were part of the defense of a fort, several other outdoor adventures, and a murder mystery. I never had trouble with any of it, and I played pretty close to the books most of the time.

I don't really see D&D3 as at all similar to earlier versions of the game. The engine was ripped out and replaced with something completely different that has only superficial similarities (you roll the same dice against a completely different chance of success). Overall, I don't see that familiarity with D&D in previous versions lends to understanding the current game, and I don't particularly care for it.

As for shifting between D20 games, I don't see this as one of its strengths--at least, not until someone creates a D20 game that bridges D20 games. Even with GURPS, moving from one genre to another requires a fair amount of rewrite; D20 would seem to involve massive changes between worlds. (Multiverser is one of the few games of which I'm aware that really attempts to make such transitions smoothly; I think CORPS attempted to do so, but I have not yet seen it. Multiverser would not be the game of choice for your situation, I think, due to its de-emphasis of the party concept and pressure toward shifting genres.) It sounds to me a lot like saying we're going to play Monopoly, because if we want we can use the same board and dice and playing pieces to play Parchessi, with just a few tweaks. It doesn't work that way.

But I'm no expert on D20; I very quickly decided that I was underwhelmed by 3E, and never finished reading the core books. I might be mistaken on this. Also, as has been at least implied already, the question seems to be whether to play in the game the referee is offering to run, and if he likes D20 that much, it might be that he can make it work.

--M. J. Young

[madelf]

Calvin, it seems like my situation is very similar to yours, and you make some good points. You make me feel better about the option of just rolling with things and seeing how it goes with Herb running D&D...

As an aside, I never meant to suggest that d20 is incapable of supporting non-combat situations; just that it's less suited than some other systems.  My primary concern with the system choice is the longevity thing and the power ramp-up inherent in D&D3 less so than in AD&D.  A question for you: Same characters for ten+ years, or different characters? What level are the party members?

For the curious, GURPS and HERO aren't options because Herb hates GURPS and I suspect would dislike HERO.

Arrowflight is frickin' cool. I may just bring that up.  Ars Magica I would have to look at; I know very little about it.  Thanks to all the folks who recommend it.

And I will definitely be pitching Mark's experience "system" idea to Herb and the group.

John, I like what you're saying about having a basic style and changing it incrementally over time - gives me some ideas and food for thought.

I was hoping I might provide a little reassurance.
I truly believe that gaming is all about the people you are gaming with. Anything else is mostly a bunch of hot air. Sure, a cool system or a fascinating setting is a plus. But the most important thing (especially for a long-term game) is really, really liking the people you are gaming with. There isn't a game on the planet that will overcome a group of people not getting along. But, if just getting together with a bunch of friends on an ongoing basis is the primary goal, and the gaming is a secondary goal for enchancing the fun of getting together, then it really matters a lot less what the actual game is.
In my example...I don't much like AD&D. I certainly wouldn't want to run it as GM, but the guy that's hosting the game feels differently. It's his system of choice. So I let him run his game his way, and just play along. It's still a lot of fun.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes "System Does Matter", but not as much as people might think it does, and there isn't a "Social Contract" in the world that will help me put up with people I don't like for 10 years.

I completely agree with you regarding the shortcomings of D&D (any version). It isn't my ideal system for anything. But with a good GM, it's not so bad.
The experience point system is a problem if used as written, but to be honest I've never seen it used as written. In my example campaign, experience is just handed out in chunks (divided evenly among the players) at the end of story arcs.
After all the time we've been playing, with the same characters, their levels are all in the high teens. They're pretty powerful. They have the feel of characters in the Forgotten Realms novels. The whole world knows the Company of Twisted Fates by reputation, and we've taken down governments. We're an economic force in trading circles and we've done things with (sometimes literally) earthshaking consequences. Once we even went to Hell in a VW Microbus (long story). We've so far surpassed the dungeon delve that it's almost hard to remember what one is. And it's all the result of the GM (or GMs, we've traded off a few times to give the main guy a break) and the players.  

I maintain that if you can trust in the GM, and in the other players, then you can play anything and have a good time.

And if you get into it, and the system isn't working as written... if everybody gets along well enough you can tweak it as you go. You'll probably end up with a home-brew D&D variant, but as Bankuei pointed out...that's pretty much they way everyone else does it.

[greyorm]

Does anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play?

I've been playing D&D for years, and there was a 2nd Edition game I was involved in for a good chunk of a decade which concentrated on mystery and social interactions more than dungeon-combat.

If so, did it work, or tank horribly?  If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

From my POV, it tanked. The game stopped and restarted every six months, because it was never quite going where the GM envisioned. There was a high degree of player frustration. We recieved little-to-no experience points or magic, and given that we were playing D&D, that made me (and my wife) just incredibly frustrated and upset.

Why? Part of it was the disconnect between rules and desires.

Level wasn't supposed to be a big deal, it was a social/mystery game focused heavily on character-acting...but you couldn't just play the character sort you wanted. Instead, you had to abide by wholly gamist level-based markers to determine the character's abilities and progression/path, even though "level wasn't important."

Example: Given the play contract, I should have been able to play an individual with the magical powers equivalent to a high-level mage without worry (ie: level and mechanics, etc, aren't important). Choose whatever career-path I wanted to travel and take it (ie: "I want to play a holy knight with a lot of stealth training...like a spy"), but the rules of the game wouldn't allow me to do so because they were all level-and-class based standard D&D (ie: "The only way to do that is to multi-class, but it will be a couple levels before you're any good at it.").

So, there I was, restricted in skill-set and ability by my level...both of which could only be increased by gaining XP, which was precisely the thing we were not recieving because XP was rare and levelling wasn't important...the game is screaming "level is important, level is important!" and the game group was trying to act as though it wasn't.

Frankly, it was frustrating and dissatisfying, and I doubt any iteration of a D&D-like game would have been able to handle the task. The mechanical priorities are just not there for this type of game and push focus elsewhere.

And finally, given my misgivings, do you think I should just throw up my hands and walk away? Your harsh judgement is requested.

Yes. GM has fit whenever anyone broaches subject of playing "something else" -- holy crap, man! You're staring down the barrel of a huge warning sign!

I, for one, would be seriously worried...because anytime something comes up in play which he prefers and you as a player don't, what's he going to do? He's going to do it his way, and he's never going to do it your way because he won't do it your way now. In addition to its own problems, that doesn't exactly scream "trustworthy" to me -- you know he isn't looking out for your or the player's interests ("no one but him wants to play d20" I quote).

You're making the excuse for him, "But he's fun to play with," but that's really all it sounds like..."I like this guy as a person, so I don't want to insult him, here, let me say this about him so he doesn't sound like such a jerk." I don't see this turning out particularly well in the long run.

Harsh enough?

[Jack Aidley]

Does anyone have experience with running D&D 3 or 3.5 on a long-term basis when combat and dungeon-delves were not the focus of play? If so, did it work, or tank horribly? If it worked, what advice can you offer for my group?

Yes. One of my most enjoyable ever games was low-combat 3rd Ed. We ran for about 15 months with the players ending up about 11th to 13th level before they all died foolishly in a TPW.

The game worked because of the inter-player interactions we had going - a Paladin of St. Cuthbert (the Lawful neutral god of justice), a complete womanising elven Sorcerer with a cat familiar (who could talk to him telepathically in a slight deviation from the rules), a dwarven monk and a prankster of an illusionist.

D&D helped provide stereotypes and roles for the characters.

The big problem with D&D is that commoners with crossbows are not scary, hell, Hobgoblin armies aren't scary to characters of any significant level. You are basically forced to role out heavy monsters for them to fight.

So, IMO D&D can work, but only to the extent that System Doesn't Matter.