Limited Run Systems

[Retreater]

I was thinking recently about how certain systems come with a breadth of scope and how others don’t. For example, you can have a one-page system like “Lasers and Feelings” or “Honey Heist” and have a great time for one session, but you’re likely not going to have a 6-month campaign. Realistically, you’re probably going to have a one-shot. Maybe a couple of one-shots with different groups over several years.

Then there are games that obviously have the options to sustain a year-long campaign or longer. These are games like Pathfinder or D&D. These have traits such as plenty of character options, feelings of progression, lots of equipment and challenges (monsters).

Between games like Honey Heist and D&D are games that – to me – seem like they could last for medium-length campaigns (~10 sessions): Dragonbane, Fabula Ultima, etc. You will have explored most of the options open to your character, battled every monster in the book, etc.

Strangely, after running several sessions of Daggerheart (which I do really like), I think it’s closer to a lifespan of 20 sessions. It looks like each level can handle about 2 sessions of play before you’ve seen/done everything your character can do. Additionally, there aren’t enough challenges (adversaries) to keep the game interesting for multiple campaigns. The two power source options also allows duplication of abilities, so characters can feel very “samey.”

What do you think? Are there systems that you can start to play and realize that there’s an expiration date or just a limit on how long you can play it?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I never ran it, but I always liked the idea of White Wolf's Orpheus, which had a very set story it was telling, with mechanical support throughout, and once it was over, I believe, the story ended in such a way that there wasn't really a way to do a sequel using Orpheus, and you probably wouldn't want to anyway, since that story would be over.

Tying an adventure path, essentially, to its own bespoke system seems like a great way to go.

I haven't had a chance to play Eat the Reich yet, but I think it also meets your definition. Maybe you've got three or four sessions at most of your vampires tearing around Paris until they've killed all the significant Nazis and then everything ends in massive bloodshed and everyone dies. It's not meant to sustain a longer story, but again, there isn't really a need. Hitler and his inner circle are dead.

Similarly, Deathmatch Island is made to do one shots or a limited series of linked episodes, but at some point, the characters are dead, cash out (assuming that's an option) or bring down the conspiracy. Much like Squid Game, if there's a sequel, it'll be starting over with new characters and a new conspiracy.

 

[zakael19]

I was thinking recently about how certain systems come with a breadth of scope and how others don’t. For example, you can have a one-page system like “Lasers and Feelings” or “Honey Heist” and have a great time for one session, but you’re likely not going to have a 6-month campaign. Realistically, you’re probably going to have a one-shot. Maybe a couple of one-shots with different groups over several years.

Then there are games that obviously have the options to sustain a year-long campaign or longer. These are games like Pathfinder or D&D. These have traits such as plenty of character options, feelings of progression, lots of equipment and challenges (monsters).

Between games like Honey Heist and D&D are games that – to me – seem like they could last for medium-length campaigns (~10 sessions): Dragonbane, Fabula Ultima, etc. You will have explored most of the options open to your character, battled every monster in the book, etc.

Strangely, after running several sessions of Daggerheart (which I do really like), I think it’s closer to a lifespan of 20 sessions. It looks like each level can handle about 2 sessions of play before you’ve seen/done everything your character can do. Additionally, there aren’t enough challenges (adversaries) to keep the game interesting for multiple campaigns. The two power source options also allows duplication of abilities, so characters can feel very “samey.”

What do you think? Are there systems that you can start to play and realize that there’s an expiration date or just a limit on how long you can play it?

DH is pretty consciously designed for ~30 sessions of play, averaging ~3 sessions per level. I think it even states this in the book?

Lots of tight focus narrative games fall into that 15-20 session spot where you see an arc of characters and narrative through to a solid conclusion and wrap. The best "story" I've personally seen unfold at the table was the 23 session game of Songs for the Dusk (a Forged in the Dark design); where we had consistent character growth and changes, an interesting overarching plot get created based on who and what the players decided to focus on, and everything landing just so well while we were all still invested and excited.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think? Are there systems that you can start to play and realize that there’s an expiration date or just a limit on how long you can play it?

Well, there are some games that explicitly limit their length.

Deathmatch Island runs through three islands, in a recommended six sessions, and then you are done.

Scum and Villainy is structured so that you play until you have effectively given sufficient support to one faction that they are poised to make a difference in the galaxy, and you then play through the finale sessions where they try to do just that.

 

[dbm]

I think it depends on what the hypothetical you is taking enjoyment from.

If you want mechanical variation and novelty of mechanical challenges (and the GM isn’t interested in making new things) then there will be a point where you feel there is nothing new left to experience. Some systems are so huge and varied that this point is far in the distance, others have a visible horizon.

Some people are more interested in exploring the inner life or social connectivity of their character which doesn’t necessarily need mechanical change or challenge. And so on.

All preferences are equally valid, and some games will be better at supporting different agendas. Difficulty comes from mis-match in expectations and it’s exponentially more tricky to balance when the play-agendas around the table are very different.

 

[Aldarc]

Then there are games that obviously have the options to sustain a year-long campaign or longer. These are games like Pathfinder or D&D. These have traits such as plenty of character options, feelings of progression, lots of equipment and challenges (monsters).

Between games like Honey Heist and D&D are games that – to me – seem like they could last for medium-length campaigns (~10 sessions): Dragonbane, Fabula Ultima, etc. You will have explored most of the options open to your character, battled every monster in the book, etc.

I'm not so sure about that. "Fabula Ultima is designed to shine over the course of approximately twenty to fifty game sessions" (p. 32). A typical 5e D&D campaign lasts around the same amount of time, and I am being generous.

Moreover, Fabula Ultima goes to 50 levels. You start at level 5, and you must have levels in 2-3 classes. You are forced to multiclass, with level 10 caps on each class, and classes are designed so you won't be able to get everything in your class. Assuming that you have the XP, you can only level up once at the end of a given session. However, most estimates are that you will gain one level every two sessions, with sessions being 4 hours each.

So I'm not sure how your math checks out that this is a game that works out to be only for around 10 sessions. Approximately 10 sessions, and assuming one level per two sessions, would take your starting level Fabula Ultima character to around level 10 out of 50 levels. It's impossible to even get one of your starting classes capped at that point. Even if you had ten 8-hour sessions, that would still just get your character to around level 15 out of 50. Even if we assume one level per session, it would take a starting level character forty-five sessions to reach level cap. There are a lot of other class options that your character hasn't taken in that time. And you feel like "you will have explored most of the options open to your character" and battled every monster? Ummm... okay?

Moreover, Dragonbane and Fabula Ultima have bestiaries that (will) expand the monsters in the core rulebook. There are additional splatbooks for Fabula Ultima (Atlas of High Fantasy, Techno Fantasy, and Natural Fantasy), and the Book of Magic is coming out for Dragonbane next year.

 

[Arilyn]

Brindlewood Bay has a finite arc built in. There's enough sessions to get the tension building and then the apocalypse is upon out poor mavens. The expected length seems right.

We're puttering somewhat with our Daggerheart game, slowing down the recommended speed of advancement. We don't want to see the wrap up of this group!

The 10 levels in 13th Age hits a sweet spot. We actually got there a few times!

Agree fully with @Aldarc. Fabula Ultima is a game that's in for the long haul.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Campaign length in the design of a game is not based upon using game mechanics a certain number of times and then ending it. It's about when the story you all are creating together comes to a conclusion that everyone agrees on and is happy with it ending.

Fiasco is designed specifically to be a one-session game, with the wrap-up of the story built into its design. Same with a game like Ten Candles. Then there's a game like Agon... designed and written with a certain number of scenarios available for the players to play through in the book before the final scenario is meant to take place. So it's length is dependent on how many of those scenarios the GM and players decide they want to play through. But other games do not have an ending built into them... the ending to the campaign can be whenever the players and GM feel like the narratives of their characters have been completed for this particular aspect of their lives (the ones being represented through playing the game.) And that can go for as short or for as long as everyone wants and agrees, regardless of the gain or re-use of game mechanics.

 

[sevenbastard]

It looks like each level can handle about 2 sessions of play before you’ve seen/done everything your character can do.

Definitely some players are motivated by "cool new powers" but others are fine playing a game of 1e D&D where you might play a 2nd level fighter for 4 to 5 sessions before you levels to 3rd but mechanically are basically the same.

If someone is fine playing a 80 session campaign of B/X they will be fine playing Daggerheart for 80 sessions.

Different strokes for diffrent folks.