Intended Length of the Campaign at the Beginning

[TarionzCousin]

When you start a campaign, how closely do you plan for when it will end?

Do you expect the PC's will get to a certain level? Do you run for a set number of months?

Do you create at least one Uber-Plot and when that is complete the campaign is over?

 

[Alexander123]

I start at first level and go to 20.

I also may go for less. It depends on how long the players want to play with a certain character before retiring.

I might play more than one adventure/plot during a campaign.

 

[Gilladian]

Hmm... I never really plan it.

The last two campaigns I ran have ended at between 8-9th level (3.5) and about 1.5-2 years time each.

The next game I run will be an E6 rules game (3.5 based, but level advancement stops at 6th and characters gain feats from that time forward). I'm hoping that by adding a little more lethality to the campaign, we can have just enough character exchange to keep the game going at that level for a few years...I like long-lasting games, but high-level play overwhelms me.

 

[wedgeski]

Every campaign I ever create, I plan for it to go all the way. None have actually turned out that way, although my current homebrew might well get there in a couple of years as it seems to have got some real traction under it now.

For years my definition of campaign didn't really fit with conventional thinking. I always saw the campaign as a backdrop for different styles of adventure, whereas it turns out that many people around here and elsewhere saw the campaign itself as defining the style and flavour of the game, with the adventures the realisation of that style.

So whereas, if I wanted a nautical flavour, I might push the PC's out into the ocean for a level or two, then bring 'em back home, others would define a world existing in the falling teardrop of a dying god where the fish-men of the deep would be living embodiments of the panthoen, struggling for expression.

These days I'm starting to think the latter way sounds pretty cool.

 

[Nagol]

That's one of my first considerations when designing a campaign. Is it open-ended, a limited arc to deal with a particular situation, or a one-shot adventure?

If it's open-ended then I'll build sufficient framework to handle various levels of play at the beginning. There's never an expectation the PCs will reach a milestone of complete a task. There can be 0 to many timeline events that the PCs may want to alter should they discover them. There are bound to be events -- some caused by PC behaviour others not -- that will affect the world. My current campaign is in its 6th year and is likely to wind down this year (though I said the same thing last year).

If it is a limited arc then I'll construct a much smaller framework and provide the players with the base information prior to campaign launch. The only milestones I'll plan for are the ones that determine events in the arc. typically, I spend a bit more time fleshing out the area and NPCs since there is a greater likelihood the PCs will interact with them. A limited-arc is usually constructed for an estimated number of adventures and sessions. Actual play may alter that timetable.

A one-shot adventure requires the least wide prep, but the detail makes up for it. My last stint as a DM was running an All Flesh Must be Eaten adventure that the players were interested in turning into a longer campaign. I was done with the scenario though and we moved on once it was comeplete.

 

[The Shaman]

Well, lessee, in my game it's now 1625, and I can run this until at least 1715, and quite possibly well beyond that, as long as I have players.

I'd like to be the guy in the home teaching new players - or maybe pass the game on to my kids to run. Or both.

For years my definition of campaign didn't really fit with conventional thinking. I always saw the campaign as a backdrop for different styles of adventure, whereas it turns out that many people around here and elsewhere saw the campaign itself as defining the style and flavour of the game, with the adventures the realisation of that style.

So whereas, if I wanted a nautical flavour, I might push the PC's out into the ocean for a level or two, then bring 'em back home, others would define a world existing in the falling teardrop of a dying god where the fish-men of the deep would be living embodiments of the panthoen, struggling for expression.

For me 'campaign' is the on-going adventures of the players' characters; thus it's possible to have multiple campaigns going on in the same game-world.

I agree with the notion that a campaign may, and in my experience should, encompass a range of encounters and environments, from solving mysteries in a creepy castle to chasing pirates aboard a galley to intriguing against the prime minister to fighting back a tercio on the frontier.

I personally find settings and conceits like the "teardrop of a dying god" example to be much too limiting; I've played a few games with this sort of narrow focus, and while they can be fun with the right people and premise, generally I like a more wide-open setting and opportunities for adventure.

 

[Twichyboy]

Well i generally have an overarching story and generally i know how i want to end it,

but getting there is usually wildly variable, and changes with how fast my players get through the story

so usually i have no idea when it will end time wise

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I always plan on going all the way from the beginning levels to the end, but it doesn't always work out that way. There are reasons that characters don't make it to level 30, player attrition, interest in the campaign by everyone involved, TPKs are always possible, and DM burnout. Now that I think of it only one of my campaigns ever went to the very end before the characters retired as demi-gods in my world. It just depends on all the different factors involved.

 

[Umbran]

When you start a campaign, how closely do you plan for when it will end?

Depends. Some I set to run for a fixed number of sessions, or a fixed length of time.

Most often, I am a tad more vague, and aim for short, medium, or long. I don't aim for a certain level, if only because that cutoff only makes sense for D&D, not RPGs in general.

Do you create at least one Uber-Plot and when that is complete the campaign is over?

I don't usually use single uber-plots for long-running games. No plan survives contact with the real world, and the longer the plan, the less likely it is to survive. I tend to do it in chunks, at the end of any one chunk, the game could end, but they chunks feed into each other neatly. From outside it (hopefully) looks like an uber-plot, but it isn't designed that way.

For D&D, for example, I might set up a major plot for the heroic tier, and have some ideas for continuation into later tiers. When they're getting late in the heroic tier, I'd probably start laying groundwork for the next tier.

For my current Deadlands game, I am more thinking in terms of the hooks my players gave me in their backgrounds. I'm running a number of short and medium length plots. At any given time, I have woven at least one (and usually more) individual player hooks into what they're doing.

Eventually, all the hooks they gave me will have run their courses. At that point, the characters have played through the personal stories the players started with, and at that point it'll probably time to move things on to some interesting/climactic end.

 

[Janx]

I concur with umbran's approach.

In games I've played, the long running ones have been episodic in arcs.

the PCs deal with one set of problems, and over the course of games resolve it and "the end"

Then we meet back together, perhaps time has passed, and a new crisis emerges (or we pursuesome PC's new big goal).

With the conept of arcs, hopefully players are vested in them, to keep up attendance. At the end of the arc, it's easier to have players drop-out, or add new players, or even new PCs, as the new arc begins.

It also diminishes the impact of the campaign ending. Because odds are good, your PC has finished one or more arcs. And the only thing left dangling was the last arc.

Compare that to trying to run a mega 20 level single story arc that would take 5 years. Odds are good, things are going to peter out in a year. So your PC is left stuck in a campaign that's unfinished, unresolved.

I also see the arc system as not over-investing in the campaign. Write some stuff for a 1st level party. If they beat that, make up some new stuff for the party, and so on.

I don't know how long an arc should be, but WotC's pre-3e research showed that campaigns lasted about a year before ending due to various reasons.

It would seem then, as a GM, that it would be worth planning on that. Figure out how many sessions your going to have, and planning your arc for less than a year's worth of games. This way, you make sure you finish the story.

If you were doing a "sandbox", I'd take that to mean making sure each area has no more material than what you can fit in this arc time estimate.

To sum up, I don't recommend creating long term campaign plans. Odds are good, the campaign will end before you get to use them. Therefore, plan in chunks and make each chunk your best work as you can.