Let's Talk About Short Campaigns

[kronovan]

I prefer to homebrew adventures as opposed to running prewritten, so more of my campaigns would be classified as short. I like variety and currently have 6 TTRPGs I homebrew for, so brewing up a long campaign specifically for one of those dosen't have much appeal. My different circle of players have come to expect shorter campaigns from me.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

How you feel has nothing to do with my post. You control your feelings, right? The OP described a short campaign as "a few to a dozen sessions" then later "6 to 8 session". Also I never posted that a group needs a "multi-year heavily plotted campaign" to engage in traditional roleplay - YOU did. Most of the experienced GMs understand the time commitment necessary for traditional campaign play. As has been posted, the "short campaign" is done to just "get a taste" of the game system, which is playtesting by definition and not a bad thing. It just isn't the same experience as traditional campaign play.

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?

I didn't mention the "length of time at the table". I expressed what can be accomplished with traditional campaign play versus playtesting. The OP reads that the GM has no commitment to traditional campaign play and those of us who are experienced with ttrpg campaigns understand the commitment required. So I'm describing how most of us have played, not just how I play. I also noted that playtesting has its merits. If you consider that "nasty", so be it.

 

[TiQuinn]

I didn't mention the "length of time at the table". I expressed what can be accomplished with traditional campaign play versus playtesting. The OP reads that the GM has no commitment to traditional campaign play and those of us who are experienced with ttrpg campaigns understand the commitment required. So I'm describing how most of us have played, not just how I play. I also noted that playtesting has its merits. If you consider that "nasty", so be it.

This certainly indicates that the length of time matters.

Being a player in a group where the GM is constantly switching games would be terrible IMO.

In fact, I don’t really see any other point other than the length of the game that would make you write what you wrote. “Those of us who are experienced with TTRPG campaigns” - could you elaborate what you mean here? What exactly do you think playtesting is?

I’m waiting to see a little bit more theory from you.

 

[Theory of Games]

This certainly indicates that the length of time matters.



In fact, I don’t really see any other point other than the length of the game that would make you write what you wrote. “Those of us who are experienced with TTRPG campaigns” - could you elaborate what you mean here? What exactly do you think playtesting is?

I’m waiting to see a little bit more theory from you.

We clearly disagree on the topic and that's fine. I wrote my opinion in a clear, non-derogatory manner. For your understanding, I'll post a link explaining what playtesting is:

Playtesting your Tabletop RPG - Storybrewers Roleplaying

Playtesting is one of the most important parts of being a game designer. In this article I cover my view on why and when to playtest, as well as tips.

storybrewersroleplaying.com

Also, a "TTRPG campaign" is series of connected scenes - some combat, some social, some exploratory - for players to engage with via their characters:

Guide to Planning a DnD Campaign

www.worldanvil.com

 

[TiQuinn]

non-derogatory

LOL.

 

[TwoSix]

I generally prefer for games to run for 18-24 3-4 hour sessions. So around 75 hours of play, roughly. Most of my games are twice a month so this would be about a real-world year of play. To me, that's plenty of time to engage with some plot, and have a nice little character arc for everyone.

But especially for trying out new systems, running a 6-8 session campaign sounds pretty ideal. We've done that with a few games, and it was pretty intense and enjoyable.

 

[BrokenTwin]

In traditional level-based systems ala D&D, a game that runs for five to ten levels is ideal, and ten is still kinda pushing it. So I prefer shorter campaigns, for a few very important reasons:

1. Life is busy and hectic, for me and for my friends. We just don't have time for slow paced plots and long drawn out stories anymore. Back in high school we'd have entire sessions devoted to "filler" episodes (shopping in the market, etc), but nowadays we start where the excitement does, and the "boring" stuff is handled between sessions.
2. There are so many different RPGs to play out there, and not enough time to play them all. By sticking to "shorter" games, we get to play with more systems, having different adventures, telling other types of stories. Having said that, I don't usually like one-shots, because they don't really give me enough time to explore and develop whatever character I'm playing, or truly embrace the mechanics of the system.
3. Despite constantly romanticizing the "level 1 to 20 campaign", the closest I've ever gotten was level 12. If we want more power characters now, we'll just start at a higher advancement (whatever that means for the system we're playing).

 

[TiQuinn]

Having played some FitD and Mothership games recently, I would say 6 to 8 sessions is the sweet spot for some games, and perfectly doable in maybe most systems. Storytelling and characterization is something that can happen in any campaign, regardless of length - if I'm playing a narrative game, then I'm coming to the table with a character who has most of the gaps filled in already. Growth in the character may not be extreme - it can simply be how the character reacts to the given situation. For Mothership, I played a very distinguishable type: the cocky space marine who gets in over his head, and is basically going to turn into a big pile of mush when all his guns, and all of tech, and all of bravado gets exposed. Not too hard to accomplish because if you know anything about the system: crap is going to go sideways very, very quickly. This is why I don't have any issue with playing into an established trope. Tropes are fun because they are recognizable to others, but there's still enough randomness that you still have to decide how you'll react to a new situation.

 

[Reynard]

I generally prefer for games to run for 18-24 3-4 hour sessions. So around 75 hours of play, roughly. Most of my games are twice a month so this would be about a real-world year of play. To me, that's plenty of time to engage with some plot, and have a nice little character arc for everyone.

Just out of pure curiosity, do you consider this a short or long campaign?

 

[TwoSix]

Just out of pure curiosity, do you consider this a short or long campaign?

To me, 24 sessions feels pretty long. Something going to 50 sessions would feel eternal. Looking back, the most sessions I've ever done in a single campaign was in the upper 30s.

For D&D-type games, I would say 20 sessions spanning 3-4 levels feels "just right". Anything under a dozen I would describe as "short".