Let's Talk About Short Campaigns

[BrokenTwin]

There's also the difference between cultural expectations and system expectations when it comes to campaign length.

Shadow of the Demon Lord, for instance, has 0-10 levels and expects the players to level up after every adventure, which are expected to each be 1-2 sessions. So a "full" SotDL campaign might still be shorter than a "short" D&D campaign.

 

[Piperken]

Time-to-play obviously affects how long a campaign's content could last. Setting that aside, it feels like campaign now is something that finishes in the teens (~10-15 sessions).

For any one who has had the privilege of a long standing table (there's quite a number here!) that would seem short.

And like others have said, what game you play will also matter: Delta Green, Brindlewood Bay, Paranoia, Mothership, Vaesen, Monster of the Week, etc. tend to that length.

 

[Retros_x]

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.

Late answer because of vacation but your tone is so patronizing in your whole answer, I couldn't let that slide. By definition it is NOT playtesting. A short campaign is not necessarily done to get a taste for a system, this was just one of many potential aspects OP listed. But even if, getting a taste is not playtesting. Playtesting by definition is when you test your design in an unfinished game product.

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. I also noted that playtesting has its merits. If you consider that "nasty", so be it.

The nasty part is that you completely degrade short campaigns as playtesting as if they are not "real" games, but merely tests for real games. That is the gamekeeping I alluded to, or the "nasty" part. It is a valid form of actual gaming and not just testing out.

 

[Theory of Games]

Late answer because of vacation but your tone is so patronizing in your whole answer, I couldn't let that slide. By definition it is NOT playtesting. A short campaign is not necessarily done to get a taste for a system, this was just one of many potential aspects OP listed. But even if, getting a taste is not playtesting. Playtesting by definition is when you test your design in an unfinished game product.

The nasty part is that you completely degrade short campaigns as playtesting as if they are not "real" games, but merely tests for real games. That is the gamekeeping I alluded to, or the "nasty" part. It is a valid form of actual gaming and not just testing out.

We can agree to disagree here

 

[Reynard]

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.

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.

You should re-read the OP because it says nothing about playtesting or lack of commitment. And it certainly does not invite the sort of gatekeeping and passive aggression you have been engaging in here. You made up that nonsense about "commitment".

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

Lack of commitment by definition. And you can call it gatekeeping as much as you like but it only shows that you ask questions looking for answers you want, rather than actually being interested in open discussion.

Agreeing to disagree.

 

[Umbran]

We can agree to disagree here

Mod Note:
I would suggest agreeing to treat folks with less condescension going forward, and spend about 300% less energy defending put downs of other people's styles of play.

 

[Retros_x]

To bring the thread back to topic - I was a player last year in a 10-12 session campaign and I was quite intrigued. It was a mystery game in a "magepunk" setting a bit similar to Eberron in vibes in a flying city. Was a lot of fun - and not a test! We did not test anything, we just played a mini campaign, seperated in 3 ards/adventures from level 3 to 5. I am currently preparing a big sandbox open table game, but I am considering running mini campaigns in the same setting as sort of "special events". Did somebody did something similar and has some advide/ideas?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Im not opposed, but Im more in the one shot or long campaign camp.

I think it's a lot easier to sell groups on those.

Also I'm not really sure there's a clear delineation between "long single adventure" and "short campaign". Personally I quite like short campaigns so long as they have a pretty clearly defined scope, and aren't sold as something they aren't.

 

[Reynard]

I think it's a lot easier to sell groups on those.

Also I'm not really sure there's a clear delineation between "long single adventure" and "short campaign". Personally I quite like short campaigns so long as they have a pretty clearly defined scope, and aren't sold as something they aren't.

I think a short campaign can be described similarly to a short novel: length isn't really the defining factor of either. A novel is more than a long story or novella because of its complexity -- characters, subplots, etc... -- and similarly a campaign is more than a long adventure due to its complexity. I admit it is a little harder to pin down what that means precisely.