Living campaigns...

[Akisa]

So why do people like living campaigns? If other people in the group have level 3 characters and you're new you're force to bring a level 1. They tend to have strict access *cough when PFS was using 3.5 cough*, and force to change rules system when new rule system is release (I'm looking at you pathfinder and 4e).

The the advantage I mostly hear that you could bring one character from various group to group. But to me I can create a character I want to play level her up or down as needed following the GM creation rules. I guess the only rule I can see are the consistency of certain rulings but even then rule 0 still applies, like someone not dieing when they were suppose.

[Thajocoth]

So why do people like living campaigns? If other people in the group have level 3 characters and you're new you're force to bring a level 1. They tend to have strict access *cough when PFS was using 3.5 cough*, and force to change rules system when new rule system is release (I'm looking at you pathfinder and 4e).

The the advantage I mostly hear that you could bring one character from various group to group. But to me I can create a character I want to play level her up or down as needed following the GM creation rules. I guess the only rule I can see are the consistency of certain rulings but even then rule 0 still applies, like someone not dieing when they were suppose.

Now that you've explained what it is, I can see the appeal... A quick game can be started in 5 minutes. "Starting a session of this living campaign, who's in?". And afterward, there's no problem when half the people don't show up next session, which is the norm on the internet.

It's not for me... But I can see the appeal.

[Kol Korran]

excuse me, but i'm unfamiliar with the term "living campaign". can you elaborate? maybe it's just called something else where i'm at...

[Fiery Diamond]

=non-customized, essentially, based on what I can tell from the OP. Beats me why someone would want to do that. Sounds horrible to me. I would hate to be in a campaign so thoroughly generalized that I could port in whatever character I wanted.

[Tyndmyr]

I like the appeal of having a consistant character between sessions...so a campaign dies out half way through...no matter, the time wasn't wasted, you still did stuff, just move on to a new one.

Are there any widely used living campaigns for 3.5 anymore?

[Ecalsneerg]

Arcanis is still running, although I hear they want to move away from 3.5.

[Zeta Kai]

I prefer my campaigns to be undead, thank you very much. :smallwink:

[Tyndmyr]

Arcanis is still running, although I hear they want to move away from 3.5.

Hmmm, that's a shame. I think it's a fine idea, and I also don't see why a living campaign has to be entirely vanilla in flavoring. While limiting options might reduce players, surely the concept of a living campaign is compatible with a certain theme.

[Tiktakkat]

Living Campaigns have their good points and bad points.

On the good side are:
1. Having someone else, usually a dozen or more someone else's, constantly writing new adventures.
2. Having a larger pool of players available for each session. Large venues can easily have 20-30 regulars and another 10-20 occasional players.
3. Having corporate support for background materials. WotC put out a considerable bit of material on their website for their campaigns.

On the bad side are:
1. Corporate rules. Having to wait for R&D to fix rules issues can be a pain, even moreso when they punt to customer service.
2. Random party composition and pre-made adventures can lead to disasters.
3. A larger pool of players means a bigger chance of getting stuck with a jerk player. That applies even more when you go to conventions. It also means a chance of getting stuck with a jerk DM.
4. Pre-made adventures also mean a lack of customization of the gaming experience, particularly with rewards.
5. Obnoxious organized play organization members with overdeveloped senses of entitlement.
6. Obnoxious organized play volunteers with overdeveloped senses of power, and destructive indulgence in favoritism.

A lot of the appeal of organized play, which includes living campaigns, depends on your local access to a regular tabletop group. If you have a group going, organized play is not that relevant. If you do not, organized play is pretty good.

Disclosure: I am a former WotC organized play volunteer. I have seen a considerable amount of the dark side of it from within. I still had a great time doing it, and think people who are looking for a regular game should seriously consider giving it a try.

[valadil]

I play in Living Forgotten Realms and I played some Living Greyhawk back in the day.

Playing with a standard rules set is convenient. I like having a portable character who can meet other characters, instead of the usual adventuring party. I also really like having variable parties. This week we had 3leaders. I've also had games with 4 defenders and other ones with 5 strikers. It's fun to see how this kind of party dynamic works out. It's also pretty cool to be able to recount your adventures to other players and compare notes. I like seeing how different people handled the same problem. Oh yeah, the other big advantage of living campaigns is that they're free and nobody has to write the adventure. This is a huge plus when you want to play but don't have time to write a session.

That said, I prefer standard games. I like stories that are written around your character instead of generic stories that are robust enough that they play out the same for most characters.