Why tho?

Why tho?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UdAwX8JB66E
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Sure it is one and the same setting, but just how many different parties/campaigns does that consist? That's like saying a series of books is instead a story that is X pages long, all of the books combined. Wow, amazing.
Apart from nitpicking like this, he seems like pretty good DM, and damn dedicated.
>tfw you'll never be able to lead a life dedicated to traditional games

are they talking about D&D in general or just that one dude's campaign?

Narrative time is for pussies, real-time or go home.

Says it's all one campaign.

...

...

I respect him for using actual terrain. And here I am just doing theater of the mind for my dungeon crawls.

>That pleb tier terrain.
Proving eastern canadians are easy to please.

Is Oda Eichiro the GM?

>so it's been going on for 35 years because they probably only play once or twice a year. Wow, it's fucking nothing.

t. cheap imitation texas
ontario is central canada you dummy

It's pretty much the east. Central is corn land.

I'm actually canadian too, no one wants to be associated with cucktario.

east is quebec + the maritimes, manitoba and ontario are central, dumb prairienigger
>cucktario
your ancestors only came here because they got cucked by stalin

The amount of shenanigans

youtube.com/watch?v=UdAwX8JB66E

I heard an interview with him. He literally had a Bloodbowl season with the players on and off the field in the campaign. Dude is a cool guy.

I use a white board and draw my scenes...

Quebec and Ontario are central Canada. Geographically speaking however Ontario is eastern Canada. I live here and its what fuckin Google says.

I just want to know what level his players are at this point. Have they reached 20 in multiple classes? Does he keep killing them and making them start over at 1, even when everyone else is 6 or 7? Or do they do something like playing their characters' children when they get too old too keep adventuring?

And when he has guests, does he keep his core players around, or do they get cycled in and out after a few sessions? Because in that case, it hardly counts.

Because, not to discount his achievement, but any combination of these could make it functionally several different campaign rather than a single long running game.

CANADA FIGHT!

"central canada"

Eurofag here. Allow me to tell you how the rest of the world sees Canada, from East to West.

>Fake Scotland but with more unemployment
>Fake France but with more snow
>"If you kill your enemies, they win"
>Bunch of oil and fucking nothing
>Chinese Columbia

don't forget
>a fucking leaf

You forgot *Angry Native Noises*

He took the 'forever DM' thing literally.

That's implied with the Scotland reference

> "If you kill your enemies, they win"
It's kind of remarkable how widespread a fake quote can get.

I visited northern Canada recently and a bunch of locals invited me out clubbing. It was fucking gruesome.

>clubbing
I see what you did there.

It's more remarkable how many people actually believe that meme.

On top of the fact that Trudeau never actually said it, as much as people laugh at the idea it's really an important part of counter-insurgency doctrine. Of the four things that you can do to an enemy, killing him is the least useful when fighting against an insurgency.

>>Fake France but with more snow
I wish the french were as nice as the quebecois.
t. french.

> people actually defending "If you kill your enemies, they win"
Liberalism really is a mental disease.

Not the user you were talking to, and as much as I hate that meme he does have a point. These people want to be martyrs, they want to die for the glory of Allah. So, if we can capture them alive and stick them in a hole in the middle of nowhere and speak nothing of them, it should affect them more then just killing them. They're still going to die, but instead of dying in glory with their brothers for Alllah, they die alone and starving in a fucking hole with no one knowing or caring about them. Don't give them the attention they crave and it'll fluster the faggots, and they're going to make mistakes because of that. Keep flustering them, and you can finally chop off their head when they're not looking.

Kill an enemy and they are no longer acting against you right now.

However, that can make them a martyr, it can play into propaganda, and it can end up with you having more enemies than you started with.

If you can win hearts and minds, you don't get that issue.

In counter-insurgency there are four things that you can do to an enemy. They are, from most useful to least useful:
1. Turn him
2. Capture him
3. Demoralize him
4. Kill him

Killing an enemy removes him from play, but it also generates a martyr and ultimately replacements for the killed enemy through recruitment, dragging out the fight. Demoralizing him, breaking his will to fight, accomplishes the same, but does not generate a martyr, and is thus a better option. Capturing the enemy removes him from play without generating a martyr and might potentially get you intelligence from interrogation.

But the most useful thing you can do is turn your enemy, bringing all of his knowledge, experience, and connections over to your side.

Well, it's not really wrong though easy to read the wrong way.

>If you kill , wins.

It helps perpetuate the story that they are oppressed and dying for a glorious cause. Capturing alive/breaking the story is generally the more effective option.

They should write a novel series on the entire saga.

Most of them already are in a hole in the middle of nowhere. It's called the middle east. Problem is they are crawling out of the hole and we are not putting them back inside it.

> win hearts and minds
Which is impossible with muds. And none of that would even be necessary if you just flat out killed them. Creating martyrs is only a problem if there are some muds left to get motivated by that. Kill them and the problem is solved.

That guy could make millions off of a series based off his campaigns that he ran

TOLKIEN COULDN'T STAY OFF THE WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDUHHH

Tell me more about TGI Fridays.

I've been playing the same game of Diplomacy for 9 years play-by-email.

I can't explain it, but I will not lose.

>niggercuckcuckfaggot
Wanna know how we know you're a newfag?

I wonder what the plot is. Like even assuming a completely by the books level up rate and a revolving cast of players, several dozen of them should have ascended to godhood, stared families and had their children ascend to godhood several times over. You think he just adds old PC to a growing pantheon and has his players make new characters in an ever changing world? Cause even then the world must have reached the industrial revolution by that point from the time skips between generations

If it's going once or twice a year like suggests it's possible that they're high leveled, but no more than a weekly or long running monthly group that lasts for 70ish sessions, which is still at least double my longest running weekly campaign but I'm sure there are oldbeards out there with a higher session count.

I'd kill for that.

My group ran 2e twice a month for about 2 years, and we were only level 6. The XP needed to get to the next level is exponential in older D&D. In the amount of XP it takes one character goes from level 7 to level 8, another character could go from level 1 to level 7.

>eurofag

The fact that you think your perceptions are relevant is quaint and very19th century.

Been running the same 3.5 campaign for 8 years, but with lots of breaks and hiatuses. Characters are only level 11 but that's because I gave out fuck-all XP (like 100 to 500 per session) up until level 8 or so when I realized what I was doing. Still planning to finish that soon. Also ran a Savage Worlds campaign for 43 sessions, got legendary-tier, still not done with that one either. And I've been part of a fairly-regular 3.5 campaign that's gone for 8(?) years now, it's just a string of pre-gen adventures but it's fun. And a Pathfinder campaign I've been running for 1.5 years, for a group that was originally formed for a 4e D&D campaign that ran for 4 years. I'm also currently running a 5e campaign that's just over a year old, we're on session 30 or so though due to a long hiatus in the middle.

yes but as you get higher levels you fight tougher things, which also give exponentially more experience, so I doesn't take THAT long to level

Depends entirely on the things, and the size of the party. XP gains are not on a fixed scale, and sometimes a thing that could have wiped the party isn't even worth 4 digits worth of XP.

I don't understand why you guys are making such a big deal about it. I have been running the same campaign for 15 years now. My first dm had been running his since 1981. Most of the time when they refer to campaign they mean setting. The game "restarts" but the events don't.