Let's Talk About Short Campaigns

[dragoner]

I have run campaigns that have outlived their natural lifespan, except the players simply don't want to stop playing. It's fine in it's own way, though sometimes it is good to have the talk that maybe we should end this? One thing about such game mechanics, as leveling, is that they provide for an ending.

 

[Reynard]

Again, these terms have no clear definitions in the space, but it does lead to an interesting thought.
Is a "normal" campaign one which lasts the entire lifespan of a given group of PCs? Can characters be played over multiple campaigns?

I think so. I know we have brought back characters from a completed campaign for another adventure (which was hopefully the start of a new campaign).

 

[KYRON45]

I like to start a campaign with one main plot line. With the intention of getting to that end by level X.

Along the way we usually get distracted by new plots. So it’s not unusual for one campaign to have many many plots.

How long a campaign is and when it ends usually comes down to….are any of the original PCs still around and who is still interested in which plots.

 

[payn]

It’s interesting to hear West Marches style mentioned as a campaign length. I always thought the campaign here just meant a collection of PCs in a place doing adventure of the week like an episodic sessions until everyone decided to stop. There is no real designated starting or finishing point.

For me campaign has come to mean a setup of intention. The meta plot is known by all and interacted with in every session like a modern serial program. That connection point to the meta plot is what makes it a campaign in the way a setting sandbox makes west marches a campaign.

What’s new to me here is taking episodic west marches a putting a session timeframe to it. Nothing wrong with that, just something I’ve not really considered. Since I’ve moved away from the style it’s not surprising though.

 

[Reynard]

It’s interesting to hear West Marches style mentioned as a campaign length. I always thought the campaign here just meant a collection of PCs in a place doing adventure of the week like an episodic sessions until everyone decided to stop. There is no real designated starting or finishing point.

For me campaign has come to mean a setup of intention. The meta plot is known by all and interacted with in every session like a modern serial program. That connection point to the meta plot is what makes it a campaign in the way a setting sandbox makes west marches a campaign.

What’s new to me here is taking episodic west marches a putting a session timeframe to it. Nothing wrong with that, just something I’ve not really considered. Since I’ve moved away from the style it’s not surprising though.

I think the rhythms of life can also determine length. Like, college kids probably have campaigns that are 7-9 months long. Other people like the clean measure of "a year."

I tend to think in number of sessions just because of the way real life messes with schedules.

 

[Laurefindel]

What do you think? How do you feel about short campaigns?

I used to be a sucker for slow adventure pace and long campaigns but I’m starting to appreciate more and more short campaigns.

For me, a campaign is defined by a series of distinct adventures. Our Blades in the Dark games are pretty much 1 night = 1 adventure, so a short ark over 3-4 session would qualify as a short campaign.

Conversely, I had D&D games that spanned over several years that essentially were one long adventure and would not qualify as a “campaign” according to my definition. Single adventure books like Curse of Stradh for example are not campaigns; the same PCs would need to complete at least two to qualify as a campaign.

Now “short” is harder to define but I’d half-hazardly say one or two school semesters because even at 48, my life is very much paced by when students (be they elementary or college level) are in school or not.

So a short campaign would probably require an episodic structure to qualify as such; a series of one-and-done or two-part episodes with a recurring cast of characters. I’m more and more warming up to this concept because it’s something we CAN do, whereas long campaigns these days always die off prematurely because life gets in the way.

 

[Thamus]

It's an odd thing to define a short campaign vs a long adventure, most of my games are played at a local club in 8 week sessions (3-4 hours each) with GMs and Player rotating between roles and games, some feel like they could be short campaigns, I ran the slipstream savage worlds plot point book which felt like a short campaign since there was an overarching goal which was completed during the final night, other like long adventures, I'm about to run slipstream episode 2 as a more sandbox like scenario as returning and new characters deal with the fallout from the first session, which no overarching plot or goal it feels like its going to be more adventure than campaign.
We do sometime run the same game over multiple sessions, normally with a 2-3 session gap between which tends more towards the short campaign style but not always, if my plan to revisit triple ace's daring tales of adventure happens next year that won't feel like a campaign, more a string of adventures the character go through one after another as there's no overarching plot or goal.
I do also play longer games so have something to compare with, we're just about to wrap up a homebrew 5se game I've been playing in weekly for 5 years.

 

[Theory of Games]

This came up in another thread and i thought it would be interesting to discuss on its own.

How do you feel about short campaigns. Not one shots, or single adventures that might take a couple sessions, but actual campaigns (whatever that means to you) that run for a finite period of time of anywhere from a few to a (say) a dozen sessions or so?

For me, the thing that makes a campaign a campaign (as opposed to a long adventure) is that it has complexity. it is like the difference between a short novel and a ong story: what makes a novel a novel isn't its length, but its use of subplots and side characters and material not central to its main plot. A campaign is similar in that there are side quests and locations off the railroad and so on.

For my part, I really enjoy running short campaigns. I like developing a neat concept and then seeing where it goes for 6 or 8 sessions. I tend to run games that have strong themes and weak plots -- meaning, I improvise a lot off the player choices and PC actions, but within a pretty well defined milieu and situation.

Short campaigns let me explore different ideas without committing to or asking players to commit to dozens of sessions. it also helps a lot with GM ADD. I find the regional conventions are a good way to test out ideas to then bring to a full short campaign.

For published short campaigns, I often find that Savage Worlds "Plot Point Campaigns" can work well, since the GM is free to embellish as much or as little as they like.

What do you think? How do you feel about short campaigns?

You're not running campaigns, you're literally playtesting like a game designer. As you wrote, you have no commitment to anything, you're just exploring ideas. It makes sense that prep isn't important for this kind of play since there's no setting involvement for the group, no real storytelling and no real character exploration. Occasionally I'll playtest material by myself to get ideas for a scene, but I'd never drag players into it since they're involvement isn't necessary. Once my prep is complete THEN I engage players.

Being a player in a group where the GM is constantly switching games would be terrible IMO. There's nothing as satisfying as getting to enjoy a traditional campaign where players can advance their character (on the sheet and in the setting). The group gets to engage in deep storytelling while developing system mastery in a way that can only be gained from traditional campaign gameplay.

But playtesting has its merits

 

[Retros_x]

You're not running campaigns, you're literally playtesting like a game designer. [...] But playtesting has its merits

This feels almost insulting, at least quite the patronizing gatekeeping. "You are not actually playing, you are playtesting" lol wtf.

Short campaigns still can evolve character development, "real" storytelling, and "real" character exploration. You don't need a multi-year heavily plotted campaign for this.

 

[TiQuinn]

You're not running campaigns, you're literally playtesting like a game designer. As you wrote, you have no commitment to anything, you're just exploring ideas. It makes sense that prep isn't important for this kind of play since there's no setting involvement for the group, no real storytelling and no real character exploration. Occasionally I'll playtest material by myself to get ideas for a scene, but I'd never drag players into it since they're involvement isn't necessary. Once my prep is complete THEN I engage players.

So all that matters to you when it comes to defining a campaign is length of time at the table, and nearly two months of real time is not enough to do that? All you described is the way you do things. Why do you have to get nasty with people?