Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9771894" data-attributes="member: 6667921">What stands out to me about this question isn’t the choice of system, but the way it’s framed. The stipulations remove every real-world constraint that usually shapes how campaigns form—time, player interest, preparation, and technical support. What’s left is a thought experiment about design endurance: how well a system can sustain meaningful play when everything external works perfectly.Viewed that way, the question isn’t really “what would you run,” but “what kind of system remains engaging across 60 or more sessions?” Once you strip away the practical friction, the focus turns to internal qualities—progression durability, narrative elasticity, and mechanical variety.The “60 sessions” benchmark feels deliberately arbitrary. If the group meets weekly, that’s about fourteen months of play, but there’s no clear reason that number should define a long campaign. It functions more as shorthand for “long enough that system fatigue becomes noticeable.”In practice, I wouldn’t start a campaign by setting a target session count and then choosing a system to match. Most campaigns take shape around shared interest in a setting, tone, or ruleset the group already enjoys. The length follows naturally from those choices. Some stories conclude when their premise runs its course; others continue as long as the players stay engaged.So my answer would be straightforward: I’d use the systems I already know and like, that my players are interested in, and that are accessible. The intended duration wouldn’t change that decision. If the group remains invested and the story still has room to grow, the system will hold up as long as we do.In the end, pacing determines everything. A well-paced campaign—one that balances escalation, reflection, and evolution—can thrive in any system and adjust to whatever lifespan the table settles into.</blockquote>

Verification