D&D General How long do you like your campaigns?

[Haffrung]

Ideally or what actually happens?

Normally they finish around level 8-12. Last one died at level 9 due to lockdown.

That's the question, isn't it? When you get to my age, you realize the two things - what you'd ideally wish for an RPG campaign, and what's likely to actually happen - are entirely different. And you learn to prepare for the latter rather than the former.

I would ideally like D&D campaigns to last two years, or from level 1 to 14. In practice, they tend to last about 8 months, or until level 7 or so at the rate we play.

 

[Haldrik]

When it comes to a D&D campaign -- a series of connected adventures with a consistent cast of player characters -- how long do you prefer it go on for?

A note before the discussion really starts: it doesn't matter to me for the context of this discussion whether you ar eplaying an AP, pre written adventures, totally homebrew content, Westmarches style, an absolute railroad or any of those other details. they may matter to you, of course, so please include them if you desire. I am more interested what folks feel is a good length for a campaign to go on for before moving on to something new.

I have two answers and they are pretty close in my preferences: forever, and brief. To expound:

I have an ongoing campaign that started in AD&D 2E and moved through 3.x, then Mutants and Masterminds and now switching to the Hero System (although we have been stalled out at that last one for a few reasons, not lease coronavirus). Now this campaigns is actually 3 from the perspective of talking about player characters, my my players and I agree that because things are so intimately connected by both PCs (many are descendants of the original PCs) and setting (their actions build the next version of the setting, generationally speaking) it is one long campaign.

Aside from that game, though, I prefer shorter campaigns, ranging from a few months to maybe a year and a half. This is primarily as a GM. I like trying new things and I get GM ADD, etc... If I am running a prewritten adventure (I am currently running Avernus) I definitely want it to be complete in under a year. If I am running a homebrew game or one using smaller prewritten adventures, I have more patience since it is easier to change things up with a singular adventures.

What I don't particularly like is the 5 year campaign that just sort of drags on.

So, what length campaign do you prefer?

Ideally eternal and evolving.

I like new characters being the kids of previous characters, and so on, who can continue the legacies of previous characters. Over days and years, players weave complex relationships and worlds, organically, as a kind of collaborative artwork.

 

[robus]

Trying to finish my inaugural campaign that’s lasted 4 years. We’ve got 1 session left but scheduling it has been a pain. This week, fingers crossed.

Finished up a different 1 year long campaign, but with scheduling issues and shortish sessions it never felt like there was enough time to get stuck in.

So 1 year is too short, 4 years too long. I’m guessing 2 years of weekly 4 hour sessions would suit me.

 

[werecorpse]

I think about 5 years. I’ve run a couple of 15 year games which were the open ended campaigns but the story element of those games was often weak. I’ve run multiple single theme (paizo adventure path style) games which lasted about 2 years but you ended up with a character who was 15th+ level but had just had one long adventure so felt shallow by the time they retired. I think my best have been 3-6 years long with a strong main theme but also with Some multi session side quests (maybe character background ones).

 

[dave2008]

So, what length campaign do you prefer?

We do 2 things:

1. Long campaigns. We are 6 years into our first 5e campaign and we are at lvl 15. Before the current campaign the average was 2-3 years and lvl 10 or so. We had one 4e campaign for basically the whole run of 4e and that only reached level 10.
2. We run small one or 2 session adventures completely separate from our main campaign. We also do at least one at max / epic level and usually a couple to try our some house rules or different style of play.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

In my mind, one to a few sessions is a short campaign. Somewhere between that and a dozen sessions is something average and over that turns into longer campaigns.

I've always been a fan of longer campaigns. But lately I've been appreciating a shorter campaign. It always me to explore newer ideas more often, it allows us to appreciate a story's ending more often and, most importantly, it allows me to try new systems.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I prefer unending campaigns with rotating casts of characters can vary by week.

 

[Flamestrike]

Open ended, never ending.

They're hard to find.

 

[GrahamWills]

I do not mean to quibble here, but how do you feel if a GM doesn't pitch a campaign length?

No, good question. I was a bit short on time when I posted, so now have the time to answer it here. Our group has several GMs and we like playing in multiple campaigns at the same time, so if someone pitches a game, we usually ask them how long they expect to run for. For the current campaigns here were the examples:

(I am running)
Flash Gordon (Savage Worlds): Pitched time -- every Friday night on Discord until we can play F2F, then I'll finish in 2-3 sessions
Jack! (Fate): Pitched time: ~ 12 sessions (currently suspended as I want to play it only F2F)

(I am playing in)
A Time to Harvest (Call of Cthulhu): Pitched time: published campaign I think taking 4-6 sessions
Shards of the Broken Sky (13A): Pitched time: It's a 1-7ish module, so about 20-24 sessions
Icons: No pitched time

So one of the campaigns has just started and we don't have an expected length for that. I'm not sure why -- I think we were just trying out the system and it became a regular thing.

In general, it does make me less excited about the campaign not to have a campaign length. It often means that the GM hasn't got a plan in mind for how things might go, and so the campaign will feel more disconnected. I'd expect the play to be more episodic and less cohesive. In general it makes me less excited to start a campaign.

Now I'm OK with "we'll start with a an arc of about 12 sessions, and then see where we go from there" -- that's a good answer. Maybe we'll feel we have told the stories of our characters and want to tell other stories. Maybe we'll be hitting our stride and want to go longer. But having an indication of length is a good thing.

 

[prabe]

No, good question. I was a bit short on time when I posted, so now have the time to answer it here. Our group has several GMs and we like playing in multiple campaigns at the same time, so if someone pitches a game, we usually ask them how long they expect to run for.

[snip]

Now I'm OK with "we'll start with a an arc of about 12 sessions, and then see where we go from there" -- that's a good answer. Maybe we'll feel we have told the stories of our characters and want to tell other stories. Maybe we'll be hitting our stride and want to go longer. But having an indication of length is a good thing.

Thanks for answering!

I agree, table expectations matter, and if your table expects the GM to have an idea of length, at least for the first arc, then it's a good thing if the GM has that idea. Having just looked at the two campaigns I have going, it looks as though the introductory arc--the one that starts with all the PCs in the same place and time when something hits the fan--wants to run about eight sessions, then we can get into characters' stories or other knock-on events. I hadn't realized that both introductory arcs lasted eight sessions; that's a good thing to know about my campaigns.