Campaign Model vs. Mini-Game - What's the difference?

[HalWhitewyrm]

The subject says it all: what do you feel is the difference between a campaign model and a mini-game? Is a campaign model not supposed to introduce new mechanics, just use the core rules? Is the inclusion of new rules mechanics what makes a mini-game? What made Polyhedron's 'V for Victory' or 'Mecha Crusade' mini-games vis-a-vis, say, Ronin Arts' 'Fourth Millennium,' which describes itself as a campaign model?

Your thoughts will be very helpful, I just can't tell you for what yet.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Really, I think it's a matter of size.

A campaign setting/model is big enough to warrant an entire new sourcebook, with chapters on rules, geography, history, etc.

A mini-game is basically the same thing, but a more condensed version. It's more of a "bare bones" approach, and can fit into the space of a magazine.

For all intents and purposes, they are the same. It's just a matter of size.

 

[Roudi]

Mecha Crusade has been published in both formats... as a minigame in Polyhedron, and as a campaign model in d20 Future. Comparing both versions could help to shed some light on to the differences between both formats.

Now for my two cents:

A campaign model is a brief outline of a campaign setting or type of setting. It outlines the major points of the setting, gives some suggestions as to where the PCs might fit into that setting, and provides pointers for the kinds of mechanics such a setting would utilize. d20 Future provides many great examples of this.

A minigame is somewhat larger. A minigame ought to be significantly longer, detailing the game in greater detail and providing more mechanics. These could be as simple as providing NPC statblocks and equipment writeups, to entirely new system mechanics. Unlike the current EN Publishing definition, a minigame need not be built over an existing system - minigames can be their own, completely new game systems. While minigames contain more content, they are usually smaller in scope; minigames are definitely not an entire campaign setting, and usually focus on a small niche of a setting or one specific type of play.

Hope this helps.

 

[barsoomcore]

As the line manager of ENPublishing's brand-new line of Mini-Games, I'm glad you asked!

I LOVE mini-games. To me, a mini-game possesses three salient qualities:

1. Actual rules "funk". A mini-game needs to include rules that aren't found in the parent system. New classes, new feats, different combat system, whatever, but unless there's actual rules content required to play the game, it's not a mini-game.
2. Some degree of setting-independence. You ought to be able to play a mini-game in a multitude of settings. If there's just one world where you can play it, it's not a mini-game. So you can run Pulp Heroes d20 in Shanghai, Berlin or Northport, you could play Mecha Crusade in a post-apocalyptic Earth or on some distant planet, you could even play Teenage Hot-Rod Werewolves From Mars! (ahem) in California or Hong Kong. There can be some setting stuff (like say, Iron Lords of Jupiter, which provides a setting (and sorta defines what a different but still appropriate setting would be like), but you ought to be able to run the game in a setting other than the one offered. Oathbound, for example, has numerous rules changes, but they're all very dependent on the whole Oathbound setting.
3. They aren't too long. A mini-game is something that is less than, say, 40 pages. You can read the whole thing in an afternoon. One of my goals with EN Mini-Games is "Read it Saturday morning, run it Saturday evening."

That's how I distinguish them from campaign models (which generally fail on counts 1 and 2), full campaign settings (which will fail on counts 2 and 3 at least) and full-blown games (which fail on count 3).

That's my thinking. And as far as I know, I'm the expert around here.

What? Are YOU publishing any mini-games right now? No, didn't think so. Stand aside for the EXPERT.

 

[Ranger REG]

The subject says it all: what do you feel is the difference between a campaign model and a mini-game? Is a campaign model not supposed to introduce new mechanics, just use the core rules? Is the inclusion of new rules mechanics what makes a mini-game? What made Polyhedron's 'V for Victory' or 'Mecha Crusade' mini-games vis-a-vis, say, Ronin Arts' 'Fourth Millennium,' which describes itself as a campaign model?

Your thoughts will be very helpful, I just can't tell you for what yet.

Based on my observations, it seems that some mini-games have more information than the one in their counterpart campaign models. For example, Mecha Crusade mini-game have 5 Advanced Classes compared to 1 generic Mecha Jockey AdC found in the campaign model of the same name. It also have additional material, such as combining mechas and transformation capabilities, which appears to be absent in the campaign model.

Mini-game can go into further detail about the [fictional] setting. In Pulp Heroes for d20 Modern, it offers a city setting, Northport, and offer details of the city's points of interest.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Thanks everyone for their thoughts and keep em coming.

I think it's interesting how everyone has their own (similar yet unique) definition. Personally, my own definitions are pretty much switched with the general consensus.

For me, a mini-game fits most of the criteria that most associate with a campaign model: it needs to be pretty close to the standard rules, perhaps offer some small chunks of easily-digestible rules (like classes, or a special new mechanic that's not too complicated) and must be short so that I can get it read and ready to play in no time.
A campaign model, on the other hand, is a more sweeping project. It presents a whole new way of playing the game, and introduces new variations in the way the standard rules work. Perhaps it comes with an obvious setting, though at least there is an implied setting in the rules. It requires some careful reading in order to really get the way new rules integrate with the model being presented, and while it doesn't have to be long, it is meaty, since it must present new rules, changes to the standard rules, and setting information (whether an actual setting or suggestions to fit it into ongoing campaigns/genres).

I think it's the inclusion of the word "campaign" that makes me feel it must be a larger work than a "mini" game.

And, actually, Barsoomscore, it was because I saw the Open Call for EN Mini-Games that I got to think of this.

Like I said, your thoughts are very much appreciated and I hope to read more.

 

[whydirt]

On the other hand, the term "game" implies a certain completeness that "model" doesn't.

 

[scourger]

For me, the difference usually boils down to the fact that a mini-game (or mini-campaign as I call them) has a fixed end point usually a few short adventures away whereas a campaign model (a campaing in my parlance) has an indefinite duration that usually only lasts for a few adventures before it dies anyway. I ran Omega World as a mini-campaign using the 3 Alternity Gamma World adventures. I ran Spellslinger as a mini-campaign with a few (about 4) short Dungeon adventures adapted. I ran a Greyhawk campaign from the core rules that lasted for 3-4 Dungeon adventures and went on "hiatus" about 3 years ago. I ran a campaign of Judge Dredd d20 that has been on break for over 2 years after the first 2 adventures. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

The main difference is the buy-in effort. A mini-game is short. A campaign model is long. Since I now realize that I'm going to run it for the same length of time anyway, I would rather master fewer new rules and less setting material. A little of each goes along way, especially the rules. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, but it is fun to roll it in different ways.

 

[Committed Hero]

And, actually, Barsoomscore, it was because I saw the Open Call for EN Mini-Games that I got to think of this.

Where's that?!?

 

[scourger]

Where's that?!?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=124280