Loooong Campaigns...How Do You Do It?

[Odhanan]

My longest running campaign to this day lasted 8 years. It doesn't really qualify as far as XP is concerned (even though that seems fairly simple to manage in my opinion, with possible great variations of XP/session rate and reasons to gain XP), since we were playing Vampire The Masquerade. My longest running Third Edition campaign to this day lasted 2 years, from level 3 to level 12/14. This campaign is actually still running technically, since some characters are common and the consequences of the adventures of the last set of characters are carrying on to the next group, including a drastic change in terms of setting (from a homebrew world altered by the PCs which thus became "re-written" from its genesis and became Praemal/Ptolus).

How do you manage to get campaigns running for that long? Well, that's a question of involvement of the players on one hand, and how the DM is invested with the campaign and campaign setting on the other hand. As long as you have a feeling of continuity, you have some characters carrying on from one group to the next, or even some NPCs, and the DM keeps his/her inspiration, events can keep unfolding within the same frame, i.e. campaign.

Also, I consider all of my campaigns, from all games and systems I played, occured in the same Meta-universe. From this point of view, cross-overs are rare but may happen. The campaigns themselves occur, but there's always a trace of what happened during these campaigns in the "grand scheme of things".

 

[Arnwyn]

I just have to ask: How the heck do you do it??

I just finished running a year-long campaign that was co-DM'd by my best friend. I ran a little over half of it, but by the end of it I was glad for it to be over. I was ready for something different, not to mention a turn as a player again.

I enjoy running games, and I love the idea of running long-term, epic campaigns. DMs, how do you keep a game which spans years fresh and interesting to yourself, much less to your players?

Some quick points on how it works for our group:
- I just don't get bored that easily.
- Half XP.
- A big campaign world with a myriad of different cultures, as well as the Planes.
- Players who, overall, like the characters they create and don't think about 'the next big thing'.

Our group's preference is to "go until there's a TPK". The campaigns have (and still do) last for years.

 

[freebfrost]

To run a long game week in and week out, you need:

Slow advancement rate.

Not always so.

I ran a 10-year campaign in the Forgotten Realms, and about every 3 years the existing set of characters would retire at high levels and a new party would start - usually with the same core set of players, but with a few differences.

However, the timeframes overlapped, so there were times when players from a particular period would have an opportunity to run into their previous characters, whether as an NPC for a brief meeting at court or as a temporary party member for a particular quest.

It really helped to keep the campaign "memory" alive, while still allowing for differing characters and fairly quick advancement - for 2nd edition anyways.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Not too long ago, I wrapped up a campaign that ran for ten years. And by wrapped up, I mean I told the players, "look, after you guys finish off the evil interplanar drug cartel, I'm not going to run this campaign for a while." There are, of course, still plenty of things that those characters are involved in and things that they want to accomplish, and folks that want them murdered, but I wanted to give that game a rest for a while and do something else. Something with lasers, maybe.

A couple of things that I have done that I think allowed me to run that game for so long are...

Make the player characters the story. Even when I started the campaign, I knew that I wanted the story to be about the characters, for the characters, and by the characters. I didn't come up with any plots or meta-events or even bad guys until my players had made their characters and I knew a little bit about what they were shooting for.

Mix it up. Instead of having one huge, overarching plots, I used smaller, bite sized plots, so that I could mix it up to keep the game interesting. The characters would deal with some Illithid machinations for a while, and then maybe they'd bump into some beholders doing something completely unrelated. And then maybe one of the characters' homelands would get shunted off into the Plane of Shadow for some mysterious reason. Or they'd somehow manage to piss off the Merchants Arcane and have to find some way to appease them. And then back to some Illithid bashing, which they quite enjoyed (or were terrified of, whichever).

Take a break. I did feel the urge to call the campaign quits a few times (often right after some super-cool supplement or setting or system came out). But, since my players were enjoying themselves so much, I thought that'd be a little rude of me... So instead of quitting altogether, I'd put together the occasional one-shot of something else. One day, for instance, I showed up at gaming at the proscribed place and time and said, "we're playing Assassin X today. Get ready for some murder and mayhem."

Give them something great. And then make them give it up. One thing that players hate is when you take their stuff away from them. Over the course of ten years... those characters accumulated just a butt-load of stuff. I didn't want to take it away from them, because they'd worked hard to earn it, and it didn't seem fair to just arbitrarily take it away. If... On the other hand, I could come up with a scenario where they felt like they needed to give up some of that stuff... They couldn't really blame me for their loss. After the first couple of years, this became something of a recurring theme. I'd load them up on treasure, magic items, favors, and so on... And then I'd throw something at them that'd make them have to use up a good deal of that treasure for no appreciable gain (except for whatever victory they managed to snatch from the claws of defeat). Granted, every time I did this, the players complained about what they were losing... But they always had a smile on their face while they did it.

I did have something of an advantage in having this campaign run so long... The guys that I play with are the same half a dozen (give or take) that I've been gaming with for the last fifteen years. So I'd already had five years of experience with these same guys. I had a pretty good idea about their likes and dislikes, what sort of play style they preferred, and so on. I knew that they weren't likely to up and abandon the campaign on me in the middle of something big. Although we did have to plan the game around a couple of guys going out of state to college and the like, it was a pretty stable group.

Later
silver

 

[Aeric]

Thanks for all the responses, everyone. You've given me a lot to think about.

I think my biggest challenge in running longer games is maintaining personal enthusiasm about the setting/world/genre. Maybe I should try running a world-hopping/time travelling game...?

I look at my DMing history, though, and I see that each campaign is longer than the one before it. So I must be doing something right, I guess. Or maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[kigmatzomat]

My current campaign is 5 years and change old, I think. I started it about 3 months after 3e came out so you can do the math. I've run other moderately long running campaigns (~2-3 years long) but those had weekly game sessions (yay college) so there's probably the same amount of gaming hours. My previous games ran from 4th-ish to 18th-ish level (love the non-uniform XP charts of 2e) or were in other systems (Mage).

The game roughly keeps pace with the real world, with about 5 years of game time. We play every other weekend for ~6 hours or so and in that time they've gone from 1st level to 20th, which is admittedly a first for me.

How'd I do it? And how do I continue to do it? Well, I let the players set the pace. My original plan was a much faster campaign but the players were a bit more cautious, possibly due to the new edition. They wanted to be heroes but at 2nd level had no misconception that they should be charging into the Deep Dark Wood. They figured rogue bears and bandits were their speed so that's how we went for the first couple of levels. The only reason they were willing to follow a treasure map was that the "treasure" was for a lost dwarven citadel on a mountain that was otherwise surrounded by civilization.

Much of my plot design was learned from Michael Strazynski of B5 fame. He had these lovely, long plot arcs that were the result of many smaller plots, some of which had sub-plots of their own. (E.g. Series->Season->multi-episode plot->Episode) I went with a more hands-off approach where I tossed out plot hooks but didn't get upset if they didn't willingly impale themselves. I figured some plots would impale other wanna-be heroes or they'd roll onto their logical conclusion, which sometimes went from plot hook to plot harpoon.

I made lots of NPCs but didn't let myself have a favorite so I could kill them off if needed. The players picked their favorite NPCs (weird selections, really) and that had it's own impact on what advice the PCs could and did receive. I lucked out in that the players are willing to talk to NPCs as people rather than sources of jobs or potential victims but I think it helped that NPCs were rational; helping out the party when it was in their best interest or giving advice to their friends/heroes.

When they acted like heroes, they got treated as heroes. When they acted like greedy adventurers they were treated like mercenaries. And when they came back to those towns the locals acted like the times they did before, praising the heroes and buying drinks or watching the mercenaries hawkishly and magically running out of beer.

I strove to give them non-monetary treasures that were rational (rank in the militia was good as it let them ignore the gate-tax on armor, weapons, and mounts as well as gave them the option of requesting a military trial; access to libraries; finally lands and ranks in the military proper. They still have yet to be given Titles, though). This non-gold loot was something they had to think about, especially since I had the NPCs act like it was a good thing. They knew that "rank hath its privileges" but they had never really considered what those privileges were or how to leverage them.

I had to leave some plots in the dust and others took years (literally) before they bore fruit. I avoid having the larger plots hinge on any specific character as much as possible. Okay, some plots are character based but usually because they thrust themselves onto the plot harpoon up to the armpits and I think it's okay in those cases since the party can ignore the plot hook or tell the impaled player to wait until the party has no other demands on their time.

The other thing is the game evolved. It started out small, maybe a 50-mile radius. It has expanded but slowly. Over ~10 levels they explored about half the kingdom. At ~15 levels they became willing to cross the continent and at ~20 they were willing to cross oceans. (BTW: the transcontinental journey was at the behest of one PC and rather caught me by surprise. Nothing focuses the mind like having to familiarize myself with the rigors of long distance travel or the never-before-considered half-dozen different countries the party would be passing through)

The main thing is that the group has some semblance of control. Not total control, but the amount of control you would think a hero has when there's no horde at the gates or a dragon overhead. Their actions matter (sometimes far more than anyone would ever believe) and their decisions, good or ill, have consequences. I may have the most influence on the game but there's no debating the indelible marks they have left on my setting. Which means it is their setting too. That keeps their interest fresh and gives me the kinds of experiences that keep the game world from getting old and stale.

In truth, I've been close to boredom 2-3 times in this game and then the players shook everything up and made it alive again. So find good players, let their actions have an impact on the game, don't feel compelled to stick to your original plot, and have as much fun as possible.

 

[Nyeshet]

One thing to consider is that levelling is much much much faster in versions 3e and 3.5e. In the older systems it was not uncommon too need millions of xp to reach levels 15-20. So gaining 10-100k xp in a session would barely dent the vast amount need to rise to the next level in a high level game. And most sessions might be lucky to gain as much as 10k, even at higher levels, unless a major quest had just been completed. Thus, playing from first level and presuming a weekly session, it would often take years just to reach mid-high levels.

Now, if you are asking how the DM kept the interest (his own and that of the players) running that long, well, that just takes a special DM and special players. I know I haven't been in any that have run over a year - come close to a year a couple times but that is it. The DM would have to really love, understand, know their world, as well as being highly versatile in making sudden minor alterations or not-so-minor expansions as the quests took unexpected turns. The PCs would have to really love, understand, and know their characters - and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the world - to survive that long. One that loves their character will not rush in and take wild chances. Strategy and planning will likely have to take a front seat over blitzkreig'ing the BBEG's base.

Also, I imagine that role play will have to take a notable place in the game, as a completely crunch game focused on gaining xps will result in epic or even deific characters within a few years (if not a mere year or two) - especially due to the faster rate of leveling in the 3e and 3.5e versions of the game. I imagine that in such games entire quests might be based mostly on role play, with little xp award beyond whatever ad hoc the DM decides to grant at the end of the quest.

Finally, the group must really work well together. They are likely all friends - in character and out - to get along that well after such a long period of time (esp considering the role playing), although I admit a little tension and occational flare up is neither unusual nor to be unexpected in such a long game. Likely months at a time might pass with this character and that character being almost at each other's throats - either in character or out of character. But if they can get past the hurdles they'll likely be the better for it.

Lastly, it is possible that such games only meet, say, once a month. That would drag a game on fourfold in time over a group that met weekly.



If I had to make a guess, I would state that likely all of these contribute in games that run that long.

 

[Wik]

What's the world record? Any D&D entries in Guinness?

I enjoy slow advancement as a player. diaglo's OD&D campaign is starting on it's third year I believe and my fighting man, who's been around from the git-go, is 4th level. Loooooong way to go for 5th. May the game never end!

I think that would probably go to Dave Arneson, with his Blackmoor campaign. Or maybe the Tekumel campaign? Gygax is probably on the list, too.

But I read somewhere that it's Arneson who has the longest-running D&D campaign in the world.

 

[fusangite]

I find that 2-year campaigns are as long as I want to run. I had essentially the same gaming group from 1997 to 2004; I guess we could have run the same campaign the whole time but I think the way I construct worlds limits this. If I constructed a more traditional D&D world, I could see myself running an 8-year campaign but it just wouldn't be my cup of tea.

One campaign I ran for 2.5 years that the players wanted me to keep running was a pretty conventional kind of D&D campaign. I can offer some advice for long-term games on this basis:
1. I built a very durable city that could not be easily destroyed, buttressing it with both magical properties and structural social and economic forces that kept people moving there. I think it is probably crucial to make a big, durable, heavy piece of the setting that can anchor PCs and plots.
2. I structured the campaign like a TV show. I built 20-26 episode seasons in which the major story arc was introduced in episode 3-4 of the season and had a big end-of-season finale. I also tried to employ other good TV practices; I imagined NPCs as guest characters who might be featured in one episode or have a recurring role. I tried to maintain a thematic unity in terms of the party's purpose each season so that people got used to the kind of things the party was meant to do.
3. I planned for growth, creating space where characters might take control of a neighbourhood, organization or political faction, leaving unfilled niches they could occupy. I also made very different maps with lots of blank spaces and much bigger land masses than I am used to making.
4. I created lots of social organizations for people to join and interact with: cults, governmental organizations, secret societies, benevolent associations. And I didn't wait for the players to always decide what organizations they wanted to work with; various groups would approach them, as increasingly successful and high profile people.
5. I came up with lots of excuses for NPCs, long unseen, might reappear. That way, the characters could have a lot of different NPC interactions without actually having to keep track of too many people.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

My six-years-running Forgotten Realms Campaign started just after the release of Third Edition and has been going strong since.

I’ve seen comments about XP coming in too fast for 3E games....but I haven’t seen that happen in my campaign. In fact I see that as levels go higher (near-Epic and Epic level) in my game, the rate of advancement has decreased and the amount of roleplaying has increased.

So how/why has this campaign lasted this long? Well, I think it’s mostly because of the dedicated players I game with, who all previously knew each other and have stayed more or less in the same area all this time. That and they’re smart, fun and intelligent people who like to game and will stay with a game if it’s good.

A ‘good’ game in this sense means: a game that makes the players the center of the action; a game that is set in a living/breathing campaign world; a game where the players get to see how what they do affects the game world around them; a game where (sometimes) the players are shown that the game world can and will go on about its business regardless of what they do.

But mostly a good game means a fun game, which is most important of all.

J. Grenemyer