The Campaign Builder's Guild

What's your favourite length for a campaign? Discuss the whys and wherefores here.  What specific format or model of campaign do you enjoy?  Hexcrawls?  Investigation?  Cloak & dagger intrigue?  Domain management?  Something else entirely?

Mine is probably sandbox games, with episodic games a close second.  I find the story-based arc a bit rigid for a long game and one-shots often too short to be really satisfying, but my experience as a player in one-shots has been limited to a few instances (a session of Paranoia, another based on Grimm's Fairy Tales).  I generally prefer running urban games with very richly detailed cities but there have been some enjoyable exceptions.

I voted episodic/mini-campaigns. I like a mix of sandbox and story. Story works best in short duration, while an over-arcing goal can still exist that covers the entire campaign, trying too hard to stick to story creates a 'railroad' situation, that I prefer to avoid as GM and hate as a player. While some people love complete freestyle, sandbox settings, my players need some direction (I as a player don't really need direction, but I'm alone in this aspect of being a creative player at my table) so the pure sandbox just doesn't work with my players. For a longer campaign experience, we generally connect a mini-campaign in series with other mini-campaigns.

I have to clarify that my mini-campaigns are a bit longer than 3 - 6 sesssion however. For me a mini-campaign is 3 experience levels of play, so more than likely 6 - 18 sessions of play, but usually under 6 months of play.

I voted for "long story-based campaign arcs" but I think I am somewhere in between that and "mini-campaigns," really. I like it when a game has a definite story arc-- a beginning, a middle, and an end. I also like it when the game can end on a high note (somewhat bittersweet, usually!) rather than fizzle out when players lose interest, so I feel like not trying to go too long and having a defined end point in mind is important. I tend to stick a bit closer to a story than some people, probably, but I try to avoid railroading by giving players a lot of input, both in-character and meta, as to where that story goes.

I can also see the appeal of a longer-term episodic game, where characters keep encountering new "monsters of the week," but, I question how much this is really a long term campaign as such and not just a bunch of episodic games that you decide to run in succession-- at any point, you can "end on a high note" by deciding it's the final episode, and going out with a bang-- or just put it on ice for a while and then play another episode a month or a year or whatever down the line, like the way Sixguns works.

Quote from: sparkletwistI can also see the appeal of a longer-term episodic game, where characters keep encountering new "monsters of the week," but, I question how much this is really a long term campaign as such and not just a bunch of episodic games that you decide to run in succession-- at any point, you can "end on a high note" by deciding it's the final episode, and going out with a bang-- or just put it on ice for a while and then play another episode a month or a year or whatever down the line, like the way Sixguns works.

I'm seeing as more a mini-campaign than being truly episodic. My published Kaidan - Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy of modules fits what I'm referring to here. It isn't 'monster of the week', its a contiguous story/plot that is carried over 3 full adventure modules - like a full campaign, but one that only lasts for 3 modules/experience levels of play. I guess its to support my desire to run campaigns, but ones that don't last for years and years, nor requires characters to attain epic levels (20+) by end game - I hate epic play, as much as I hate GMing epic play. I also like many stories, not one that never seems to end.

Quote from: Gamer Printshopsupport my desire to run campaigns, but ones that don't last for years and years

This is basically what I like, too.

The "monster of the week" thing was in reply to something Steerpike said that, upon rereading, I realized he didn't actually say in this thread, so it's probably a little out of the blue and confusing.
[note]Steerpike, I hope you don't mind me quoting you here.[/note]

Quote from: SteerpikeI tend to think of the long-term campaign as being kin to something like Buffy or similar "monster of the week" shows - there may be Big Bads and arcs here and there but there's always another monster, another adventure round the corner

No worries on quoting me, sparkletwist.

I guess what I mean by "monster of a week" is that in a sandbox style game the way I play it there's a never-ending supply of adventure to be had; the world, in a sense, is "inexhaustible," infinitely productive of new adventures.  In a sense this is similar to a very long episodic game, but it tends to be freer (players can choose where to go and what to do much more than in a brief game), and shorter and longer stories tend to overlap and intertwine to a larger extent than in a more purely episodic game.  This does have the disadvantage that the campaign's end probably won't be a climactic moment of sublime perfection, although I think ideally at some point the adventurers will decide that their achievements are significant enough (or perhaps their wealth great enough) that they can retire; or, alternatively, some or most of them might be dead.  At the end of the day they can simply decide to walk off "into the sunset" at some point: perhaps not the most satisfying ending from a closure point of view, but an ending nonetheless.

That makes sense.

I've also noticed that in practice my games tend to combine several of these play styles, for example, playing a medium-to-long campaign that had a definite start and end and then mostly retiring the characters, but occasionally bringing them back for episodic adventures later on (the TV analogy would be Star Trek TNG where there was a series then they made some movies after that) which could, on some level, mean their whole chronicle was a bigger sandbox-feeling sort of adventure.

Interesting replies.  I feel like I should have added an option for the 10-20 session medium-length campaign, perhaps.

I chose sprawling, open ended sandbox campaigns, but I'm really somewhere between those and long story based campaign arcs.

I like the closure a storyline can bring and enjoy playing within those "confines" but I also enjoy the openness of a world and the feeling that I can turn and do something else if I want to. I like the idea that things are always happening around me when I'm playing, even ones I can't, as a player, actively control or even effect at times; everything feels real and alive. If I'm in a game with a long, over-arching plot I'll stick to the given storyline, but I prefer as much freedom as possible to achieve the ends the GM and I settle upon, which is where I think the open sandbox comes into play. Plus I just like to build sandboxy worlds.

We don't describe minutiae at the table (nor roll many dice), so a concentrated six hour session can seriously cover as much territory as the Hobbit. Playing all of that within one cosmos produced wizard and The Book of Images and Green World Stories and ARRUNTULLA, but that's a whole cosmos, and ultimately not a very cohesive (or coherent) setting. I say stuff like: "so, a million years ago you slaughtered the Vibrant Sunmen, and now in the blackness of reality the shadowgods guide humanity's cold kingdoms". The history of our universe in play spans billions, maybe some trillions of years.

So... is that a concatenation of one-shots, bookended mini-campaigns or a sprawling, open-ended sandbox?

If it all takes place in a single session, I'd call that an unorthodox one-shot but a one-shot nonetheless.  My question refers to the time it took to act out the events of the game, not the internal chronology of the game itself.  Although it is intriguing to think about how even a one-shot can be sprawling and open-ended!

EDIT: A concatenation of one-shots, though, I'd be inclined to call a mini-campaign.  To be a real one-shot, I think, the same characters shouldn't reappear in subsequent sessions.

I like mini-campaigns the most. Really though I'm happy playing in any type of game as long as the story is interesting and everyone is having fun.

Yeah, I picked, "mini-campaigns" too.  While I like the option of things being allowed to go on for as long as people want, a more episodic format, where the players can finish at least one "arc" of the quest in a session of two is my favorite kind of game to play in.  It's also what I've been trying to run lately for my girlfriend, who is new to RPGs.

I enjoy unleashing the players on the world and seeing what evolves.  That's why I voted "sprawling sandbox".

I prefer a game to focus on a story (or the makings of a story) and I also like that focus to be maintained - which can become more difficult the longer the game lasts. Therefore I believe shorter games are generally better than longer ones, although one-shots can be too short to reach a satisfying conclusion.

I am all over the board, really.

I find a one-shot is often too short for my tastes, no matter how nice it may have been. And I have a lot of ideas for characters I'd like to play and games I'd like to run, so shorter campaigns appeal to me because they allow for that variety-- a game with a fairly clear endpoint means you'll soon have the opportunity to try out the next neat idea.

Long campaigns are, I think, a bit of a gamble. I find them really rewarding when they pay off, but also a potential to be long-term tedium when things aren't clicking along, and it's tough to bring them to a place of resolution easily. I think long campaigns are most likely to feel like they've died off, been rushed or aborted, or fizzled out.

I think with long campaigns, the nature of the beast ensures that problems are more likely to arise just by virtue of the fact that they have more opportunity to.  That said, I've seen flagging games that have eventually revived, and I think most problems can get worked through.  I'd agree with those that commented that endings are probably the most problematic part of long-term games, though.

No surprise, but I tend to build and run for the long haul.  Live games are known to go on for years if not a decade+, online games also go on for a long time.  It is how I am wired.

I would like to do episodic, but the nature of roleplaying to me has always been such that one must often spend more than a handful of sessions to really cover an episode, at least online. I'm toying with the idea of making a computer-assisted system for roleplaying to ,aybe change this.

Quote from: Lmns Crn
I am all over the board, really.

I find a one-shot is often too short for my tastes, no matter how nice it may have been. And I have a lot of ideas for characters I'd like to play and games I'd like to run, so shorter campaigns appeal to me because they allow for that variety-- a game with a fairly clear endpoint means you'll soon have the opportunity to try out the next neat idea.

Long campaigns are, I think, a bit of a gamble. I find them really rewarding when they pay off, but also a potential to be long-term tedium when things aren't clicking along, and it's tough to bring them to a place of resolution easily. I think long campaigns are most likely to feel like they've died off, been rushed or aborted, or fizzled out.

This. I love the idea of a long campaign but it is very difficult to pull off because peoples' schedules frequently change. They require a lot of investment to really get going, whereas around here it seems it is best to run campaigns that are easier to get and out of, with shorter story arcs so that completion is more realistic for more players.

One way to run a long campaign that's flexible around scheduling is to attempt a West Marches (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/) exploration format, where a large pool of players (10+) form parties and go exploring/dungeoneering in a sandbox environment.  The byword there was "no overarching plot, just an overarching environment."  This is the antithesis of a narrative, story-based campaign arc.  There's no beginning, middle, or end, at least not in terms of an ongoing story, nor even a consistent group of characters; the point isn't to tell an intriguing, collaborative story from start to finish but to explore an intriguing world with maximum player control (this style, in fact, is my favourite form of "player empowerment," to use an oft-invoked and perhaps contentious term).

That's an interesting concept. One I think would work well for a Slaughter-lands game (or similarly uninhabited region like the Aurelian Tundra or Firesong Marches).

Quote from: Lmns Crn
I am all over the board, really.

I find a one-shot is often too short for my tastes, no matter how nice it may have been. And I have a lot of ideas for characters I'd like to play and games I'd like to run, so shorter campaigns appeal to me because they allow for that variety-- a game with a fairly clear endpoint means you'll soon have the opportunity to try out the next neat idea.

Long campaigns are, I think, a bit of a gamble. I find them really rewarding when they pay off, but also a potential to be long-term tedium when things aren't clicking along, and it's tough to bring them to a place of resolution easily. I think long campaigns are most likely to feel like they've died off, been rushed or aborted, or fizzled out.

"Place of Resolution"
HAH!
I get amazed and teary and need to celebrate when the PCs solve something that is a few years old....Really resolve?  hahahahahahaha.
If there is anything that I am NOT built to do, this is it. 

Let's make sure you aren't misunderstanding what I mean, Vreeg.

You've been fortunate to have a really stable group of players for a long time. Your players have found what they want, long-term, and have built it into their schedules. You know your game's going to last as long as you want it to.

Not everybody (and I would venture to guess, most groups) aren't like that. People have schedule changes at work and can't make the group's time work anymore, they get tired of one game and want to try a new system or a new setting, or they just prefer something on a smaller scale. I've seen games die off because the players argued with each other too much, I've seen them fizzle over November and December because people missed sessions for Thanksgiving (traveling to meet family), final exams, Christmas, New Year's... and by the time it was over the group had met once in six weeks and the momentum was gone.

When I say "bring [campaigns] to a place of resolution" I mean to end them, on purpose, on something that feels like an ending. Rather than letting them end due to circumstance on something that doesn't make sense as a last session.

What I do not necessarily mean is that players have figured everything out, resolved events to their satisfaction, etc.

Quote from: Lmns Crn
Let's make sure you aren't misunderstanding what I mean, Vreeg.

You've been fortunate to have a really stable group of players for a long time. Your players have found what they want, long-term, and have built it into their schedules. You know your game's going to last as long as you want it to.

Not everybody (and I would venture to guess, most groups) aren't like that. People have schedule changes at work and can't make the group's time work anymore, they get tired of one game and want to try a new system or a new setting, or they just prefer something on a smaller scale. I've seen games die off because the players argued with each other too much, I've seen them fizzle over November and December because people missed sessions for Thanksgiving (traveling to meet family), final exams, Christmas, New Year's... and by the time it was over the group had met once in six weeks and the momentum was gone.

When I say "bring [campaigns] to a place of resolution" I mean to end them, on purpose, on something that feels like an ending. Rather than letting them end due to circumstance on something that doesn't make sense as a last session.

What I do not necessarily mean is that players have figured everything out, resolved events to their satisfaction, etc.

Well, there are now more clarifications that need to be made.

First off, my point that I am not built to bring the campaign to a place of resolution, I was, more than anything, admitting a weakness.  I expand and continue like gangbusters.  I contract poorly.  I am myopic about building the World in Motion, to the point that I set myself up to be unable to tie off enough loose ends.  I understand better what you are saying now about the different levels of ending; and I appreciate the communication.

I am fortunate to be in the situation I am with my groups, live and online.  But much like many things in the world, it takes luck and the ability to take advantage of that fortune, as well as corroborative secondary attributes.  We can go into the specifics of it, if need be, but the characteristics of the live game that make it successful for the long term also have allowed the Steel Isle game here to go over a hundred and fifty sessions and are allowing the new Collegium Game to continue gaining steam 30+ weeks into the game.  For whatever reason, and I look at this a lot, many of my games and groups in many formats are so blessed by Lucky Ishma (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955667/Index#IshmaPlanarofFortuneDeity).

That's cool, I just want to be really clear that I don't want "resolution" to be mistaken for simplicity. Which is in some ways an aesthetic goal I pursue, and in some ways an aesthetic pitfall I loathe, but I guess that's another thread.

Quote from: Lmns Crnbut I guess that's another thread

:-/

I have almost always played and DMed in the episodic zone although I have always yearned to both play & DM in the long story based zone.

The issue I have always had is that people are never stable enough for a long term game. Life changes constantly and throws curve balls all the time. If it isn't exams, its vacations; if it isn't work, its family; if it isn't boredom it is a yearning to play something else. Everything seems to work against long running campaigns. No matter how much I have fiddled with the format (more/fewer games per month, longer/shorter sessions, being open to character replacements, etc.) long term campaigns just seem to fizzle long before they come to a resolution.

Recently, my second RPG group reformed itself from the fiery pits of oblivion. Originally, one of my friends was tasked with DMing but, as so often happens, life threw him a curve ball. So, I stepped up to the plate and opted to DM. They players wanted (sigh) to play in Golorion, which is Pathfinder's base setting. Now I have nothing against Golorion but I do find kitchen sink settings a bit passe, especially the newly minted, mass market variety. Regardless, I opted to DM in the setting. Given that the setting is a kitchen sink, I asked the players what kind of campaign they would want. They stated that they wanted Pirates, High Fantasy, Saving the World and Fighting Devils.

The campaign practically wrote itself.  :wink:

However, knowing that I do not want to DM this campaign for any more than a year (an ambitious goal admittedly) and my players wanted to use the fast level up chart, I knew I did not have time to piddle and putz around fighting goblins for some obscure and out-of-the-way Baron (or the equivalent there of). I desired to make a campaign that would have a definitive end point in mind yet have a diversity of quests that enriched the narrative. If I were to pick an example from pop culture, I suppose I desired to make a campaign not too dissimilar to a Mass Effect game. There is an over-arching threat with a host of quests that funnel into completing that over-arching plot. Around that adventure are smaller quests that feed into the first and make for a more enjoyable experience (than a linear narrative of A->B-C-D->End). However, I mus admit that such concepts are wholly unfamiliar to me in the realm of DMing, since I am at my heart a lover of sandboxes (which are, in all honesty, anathema to this form of campaign design).

I chanced upon a blog that discussed the 5x5 method of adventure design (http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2009/06/02/the-5x5-method/). Essentially you have an over arching plot idea, then five quests allow you to accomplish that task. The example the author gave was:

 

QuoteDefeat Sauron's Army at Minas Tirith

       1. Find Minas Tirith, meet the King. (Minas Tirith)
       2. Save Faramir.  (Osgiliath)
       3. Meet Elrond and retrieve Narsil.  (Dunharrow)
      4. Brave the Paths of the Dead and convince the Army of the Dead to join up. (Paths of the Dead)
       5. Use the Army of the Dead to defeat Sauron's Army.  (Minas Tirith)

This would be one of the 5 quest-lines in the 5x5 design. Ideally, each quest-line would intersect that the same location at different points along the quest chain. To move away from LotR (as it has been a while since I read the books), let us say that the PCs started their adventure by saving a village from a goblin warband then fought several other hunting parties in the Woodlands. Having proven themselves worthy, the local Baron tasks the PCs with infiltrating the goblin horde's mountain Fortress (whom they stole from the Dwarves) and slay the Goblin Chief. After the audience, the PCs are greeted by an old Dwarven Warrior, now in service to the Baron. He asks the PCs to search the Fortress for the Axe of Durgath Battlegrinder, the lost King of the Dwarves. With such a potent symbol of the Dwarven golden age, the Warrior hopes to gather his kin together and retake the Fortress.

The questline to defeat the goblins would be on chain link 2 or 3 at the point when the PCs met the Baron. The quest-line for the reunification of the Dwarven People would be on chain link 1.

By interlacing the different quest lines, you create a more dynamic play area and avoids some of the pitfalls of more linear story telling (i.e. boredom (as you can say you may not like fighting goblins but you do like dwarven politicking)). Variety is the spice of life after all. it also keeps me, as a DM, honed in one the end goals, rather then allowing such things to languish out in the aether of "someday this will all pay off."

Following the discovery of the 5x5 article, I found another that used the method in terms of actual adventure design. That author's focus was on using the 5x5 method to detail the nitty gritty of five different quests, i.e. map out five individual plot point to accomplish a single quest. The interlacing (from above) does not occur using this method. The five plot points could be as simple as five different dungeon rooms or talk to V, go to W, slay X, Y & Z.

What I decided to do was co-opt both of these systems and merge them. So now I have 5 Over Arching Stories, 5 Quests for each Story and 5 Plot Points for each Quest. Hopefully it works out. If not, oh well, it is not like I didn't try to make a long term campaign work.  :)

While I like the idea of the 5x5 and I'm sure it can certainly function as a powerful design tool, I doubt that a long-term campaign is going to cleave neatly to a 5x5 framework.  Given a long enough campaign, characters inevitably are going to start skipping steps, adding steps in for their own reasons, coming up with alternate ways of completing quests, forming their own goals, and otherwise messing with that formula.

That's not to say, though, that starting with a 5x5 framework is a bad idea.