Tobold's Blog
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
 
D&D replayability

One of the reasons why I don't post all that frequently anymore is that the work load of my job has increased. That is not all bad news, as more responsibility came with a promotion. But obviously more time spent working means less time for hobbies. And that affects not just blogging, but also the time for games themselves.

In Dungeons & Dragons I have two groups I run as the DM. Having less time for preparation, I came up with a deceptively simple plan: Group A is now playing the campaign that group B played before, while group B is now playing the campaign that group A played before. Which means that a good part of the preparation is already done, battlemaps drawn, miniatures 3D-printed, etc. In terms of reducing my preparation work, the plan is a success.

However it turns out that the replayability of D&D campaigns isn't all that great. The players don't notice, because for them the campaigns are new. But for me as a DM, running the same campaign a second time turns out to be less fun. I had thought that the relatively open nature of pen & paper roleplaying would mean a very different experience when playing the same campaign again with a different group. But in fact it isn't all that different. There are a handful of occurrences where one group made a decision very different from the previous group. But more often than not the players just follow the story along predictable paths, and do more or less the same than the previous group. That is why for example I'm not blogging what happened in my D&D sessions anymore, as it isn't sufficiently different from what I blogged when I played the same campaign with the previous group.

Now one of these groups is meeting infrequently, and I'm okay running the old campaign with them. For the more active group in the Zeitgeist campaign, I will reach the end of the campaign in about 3 sessions. And then I'll try something new. Of which I'll blog more at a later date.

Labels:


Comments:
Technically what you speak of is not the replayability of D&D, it's replayability of certain scenarios that are made for D&D. You could theoretically use some kind of sandbox scenario with lots of moving parts, and get hure replayability out of it.

D&D is a roleplaying system, so its replayability only concerns mechanics: how mechanically different can be the situations players find themselves in, what tools they can use to solve them and how different is their mechanical progression.
 
Gratz on levelling up in "World of Real Life" Tobold.

Speaking of real life I had the pleasure of visiting Belgium a couple of weeks ago. Apologies to the Swiss and Germans but I am convinced that Belgium makes the best chocolate and beer in the world.
 
Analytically, the similarities of the playthroughs should be as interesting a topic as would be the differences, especially since, as you say, those similarities are counter-intuitive.
 
For the longest time I never had any chance of repeat DMing like this, I only DM'd for one group. Now I have a second group, but one player overlaps so repeating content in this way wouldn't work for me still. It's an interesting thought, preparation really does take up time - on a recent Twitter discussion I estimated I do about 80% vs 20% improv on average.

I imagine DMs who run Adventurer's League (or other game equivalents like Pathfinder Society) must repeat scenarios a lot. That'd be a shorter experience than rerunning a long adventure or campaign, but might happen even more frequently. I'd probably be tempted to rewrite sections, within the rules, just to keep it 'fresh' for me.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool