Worlds of Design: How Long is Your Game Meant to Be?

Experience with a RPG’s rules can vary depending on how long the game is meant to be played.

sunset-3988885_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Play of the same RPG rules can turn out quite differently, depending on whether it’s within a one-shot adventure, a sequence, or a campaign.

What’s in a Game?​

Most RPGs were originally designed for long campaigns, not one-off (one-shot) adventures or a shortish sequence of adventures (typically less than a dozen). A sequence can be a short campaign, but lacks many of the hallmarks of a campaign.

Another way to differentiate is to ask yourself how many compelling things are happening. Some characteristics to consider:
  • GMs and Players: The number of GMs and players, and how consistently they show up, matters a lot. Especially in campaigns with multiple GMs.
  • Player Consistency (Years of Play): Sequences and campaigns usually involve the same group of adventurers, give or take. But in campaigns, that group can change a lot over time.
  • Single Story Arc: What happens outside of the game sessions? If it’s “not much,” you’re in one-shot or sequence territory. If it’s “a lot,” you’re likely in a campaign.
  • Length and World: The setting or “world” isn’t usually important in one-shots, maybe a little in sequences, but it’s vital to campaigns. Campaigns and sequences have a continuity that one-offs just don’t. There’s a huge difference in feel between a campaign that lasts years and a sequence that lasts a few sessions.
  • Rate of Progression: Campaigns are all about slow character progression. This is why most commercial “adventure paths” are actually sequences – they’re designed for fast leveling. In a true campaign, it’s all about the journey.

One-Shots: Bang, Zoom, Done!​

Older commercial adventure modules were often one-shots. There is a definite objective and an ending attainable in a short period of game-time. In a one-shot, there is one compelling thing happening at a time.

Some activities can only be done as one-shots. I think of my old “Barroom Brawl” scenario from White Dwarf #11, where 15 players individually receive pre-generated characters and motivations, and then play out the adventure in a tavern/inn. It’s necessarily the case where the characters will not be used any further (as with most one-shots) and where the fun comes purely from the interaction of the characters and their motivations rather than the more typical incentives of RPG play.

One-shots are more likely dominated by tactical concerns. That is, they’re more strategic, focusing on what you do before or aside from fighting; and tactical, what you do during a battle.

Sequence: Short & Sweet (and Level-y)​

“Adventure paths” consisting of several adventures designed to let characters regularly rise in level, are usually a sequence/“short campaign” though the consequences (level rise) are quite dramatic and drastic. Sequences will often be dominated by one story-arc or objective. An example is the trilogy of extensive modules that made up Gary Gygax’s famous “Against the Giants.”

Sequences and campaigns tend to require players who work together. If it’s a game with an overarching narrative, something they could “lose” all the way up to being wiped out, they’ll have to work together. Yes that’s also true of one-shots, but the players may not care about their characters in one shots, and may not mind how others react to a lack of cooperation, whereas in even a sequence players may become attached to the characters.

Advancement tends to be a hallmark of sequences. This is what makes almost all commercial “adventure paths” sequences, because they are designed for characters to rise in level quite rapidly. Players can sometimes become focused on the destination (power increase) rather than the journey (adventure), whereas you can make the case that a hallmark of campaigns is that people focus on the journey and not the destination. Though this is often associated with video games (where rapid leveling is part of the way the game keeps players coming back for more), it predates computer RPGs.

Campaigns The Long Haul​

Commercial adventure modules are rarely campaigns because they need to be at least book-length to be comprehensive, and even then it's likely missing something. Campaigns tend to have stronger strategic aspects than sequences or one-shots. In a campaign, several compelling events are often happening at the same (game) time. The longer the campaign, the more likely that there will be several story arcs, one after the other or simultaneously.

Consistency of play, with many of the same people involved in the campaign over many years, is a characteristic of campaigns. You can also have more than one GM in a campaign provided there are one or two GMs who are “in charge”. The “world” is shared by the GMs. If it’s a storytelling campaign, how much cooperation will be required depends on the GM. Characters can also be shared amongst those campaigns. This also makes it easier for players to drop in and out, depending on schedules. Player attachment to characters will certainly be strong in a game campaign.

It's not uncommon for companies to publish megadungeons and overarching campaigns, but in the early days before digital products such campaign-style producers were rare. The old TSR boxed sets such as Dragon Mountain came closest. Even then, a characteristic of a true campaign is that it changes quite significantly over time: both the players and the objectives, often the overarching story itself.

Next time, I’ll discuss each of the three modes of play (one-shot, sequence, and campaign) in more detail.

Your Turn: Which of these three alternatives do you prefer?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Arcanra

Explorer
Longer campaigns for sure. Our group has 8 people, five of us rotate the gm chair, and we have been playing together, some of us, for almost 35 years. Generally someone signs up to run a campaign for 18-24 months. Heck, we just returned recently to a campaign we started in the mid-90's, that we play on and off for a year or two, every couple of years. We only do one shots if several members can't make the weekly game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Long haul, all the way.

One-shots can be fun for special occasions - one of our crew runs one each New Years Day and it's a blast - but actual campaigns run for 10+ years of regular play. Yes this means lots of character turnover and some player turnover as well, but so be it; and I've developed a number of strategies to (gently) prevent character levels from getting beyond what the system can handle, which is otherwise the biggest threat a very long campaign is likely to encounter.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
I definitely prefer the full campaign, but I always keep the story in mind. My first 5E campaign went from level 1-17, having three distinct story arcs that culminated into an overarching story. I did a Saltmarsh campaign in 5E that only went to level 7, because that's as much story as I had for it. I could have kept going afterwards, but it usually feels like a TV show that's jumped the shark.
 

PhD20

Villager
I play in and run mostly longer campaigns. I’d love a mix of each though. If I had a magic wand, I’d say 20% one shots, 20% campaigns, 60% sequence adventures.
 

Quartz

Hero
I like the idea of a series of mini-campaigns. Possibly - but not necessarily - related. Maybe one per tier. That way you can have buy-in and commitment for 4-6 months rather than 2 years.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Play of the same RPG rules can turn out quite differently, depending on whether it’s within a one-shot adventure, a sequence, or a campaign.

What’s in a Game?​

Most RPGs were originally designed for long campaigns, not one-off (one-shot) adventures or a shortish sequence of adventures (typically less than a dozen). A sequence can be a short campaign, but lacks many of the hallmarks of a campaign.

Another way to differentiate is to ask yourself how many compelling things are happening. Some characteristics to consider:
  • GMs and Players: The number of GMs and players, and how consistently they show up, matters a lot. Especially in campaigns with multiple GMs.
  • Player Consistency (Years of Play): Sequences and campaigns usually involve the same group of adventurers, give or take. But in campaigns, that group can change a lot over time.
  • Single Story Arc: What happens outside of the game sessions? If it’s “not much,” you’re in one-shot or sequence territory. If it’s “a lot,” you’re likely in a campaign.
  • Length and World: The setting or “world” isn’t usually important in one-shots, maybe a little in sequences, but it’s vital to campaigns. Campaigns and sequences have a continuity that one-offs just don’t. There’s a huge difference in feel between a campaign that lasts years and a sequence that lasts a few sessions.
  • Rate of Progression: Campaigns are all about slow character progression. This is why most commercial “adventure paths” are actually sequences – they’re designed for fast leveling. In a true campaign, it’s all about the journey.

One-Shots: Bang, Zoom, Done!​

Older commercial adventure modules were often one-shots. There is a definite objective and an ending attainable in a short period of game-time. In a one-shot, there is one compelling thing happening at a time.

Some activities can only be done as one-shots. I think of my old “Barroom Brawl” scenario from White Dwarf #11, where 15 players individually receive pre-generated characters and motivations, and then play out the adventure in a tavern/inn. It’s necessarily the case where the characters will not be used any further (as with most one-shots) and where the fun comes purely from the interaction of the characters and their motivations rather than the more typical incentives of RPG play.

One-shots are more likely dominated by tactical concerns. That is, they’re more strategic, focusing on what you do before or aside from fighting; and tactical, what you do during a battle.

Sequence: Short & Sweet (and Level-y)​

“Adventure paths” consisting of several adventures designed to let characters regularly rise in level, are usually a sequence/“short campaign” though the consequences (level rise) are quite dramatic and drastic. Sequences will often be dominated by one story-arc or objective. An example is the trilogy of extensive modules that made up Gary Gygax’s famous “Against the Giants.”

Sequences and campaigns tend to require players who work together. If it’s a game with an overarching narrative, something they could “lose” all the way up to being wiped out, they’ll have to work together. Yes that’s also true of one-shots, but the players may not care about their characters in one shots, and may not mind how others react to a lack of cooperation, whereas in even a sequence players may become attached to the characters.

Advancement tends to be a hallmark of sequences. This is what makes almost all commercial “adventure paths” sequences, because they are designed for characters to rise in level quite rapidly. Players can sometimes become focused on the destination (power increase) rather than the journey (adventure), whereas you can make the case that a hallmark of campaigns is that people focus on the journey and not the destination. Though this is often associated with video games (where rapid leveling is part of the way the game keeps players coming back for more), it predates computer RPGs.

Campaigns The Long Haul​

Commercial adventure modules are rarely campaigns because they need to be at least book-length to be comprehensive, and even then it's likely missing something. Campaigns tend to have stronger strategic aspects than sequences or one-shots. In a campaign, several compelling events are often happening at the same (game) time. The longer the campaign, the more likely that there will be several story arcs, one after the other or simultaneously.

Consistency of play, with many of the same people involved in the campaign over many years, is a characteristic of campaigns. You can also have more than one GM in a campaign provided there are one or two GMs who are “in charge”. The “world” is shared by the GMs. If it’s a storytelling campaign, how much cooperation will be required depends on the GM. Characters can also be shared amongst those campaigns. This also makes it easier for players to drop in and out, depending on schedules. Player attachment to characters will certainly be strong in a game campaign.

It's not uncommon for companies to publish megadungeons and overarching campaigns, but in the early days before digital products such campaign-style producers were rare. The old TSR boxed sets such as Dragon Mountain came closest. Even then, a characteristic of a true campaign is that it changes quite significantly over time: both the players and the objectives, often the overarching story itself.

Next time, I’ll discuss each of the three modes of play (one-shot, sequence, and campaign) in more detail.

Your Turn: Which of these three alternatives do you prefer?
I always prefer long, sandbox-based campaigns as a DM. If I run anything else, it's because the circumstances demand it, not because it's my preference.

As a player, I'm good with any length, because it's always the DMs game I'm playing in.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I like the longer campaign, but broken up into short and sweet chunks. The new books with 5e where you have a whole campaign from 1-15 or wherever all are focused on giants or dragons or evil cults or something. I like to have chunks of the campaign go back and forth to other problems and bad guys.

Lost Mines of Phandelvar (LMoP) is a great starter with levels 1-5. Then transition that to something from levels 5-8 or 9. I can be a bigger threat around the same town or lead to a big discovery that shifts the campaign in another way. Maybe levels 10-14 are dealing with giants to not do something or get the mcguffin, but then you come back to the town you started from or something close and finish with saving everything.
I love Lost Mines, but I would use it as the starting point of a larger, sandbox campaign.
 

talien

Community Supporter
I like the idea of a series of mini-campaigns. Possibly - but not necessarily - related. Maybe one per tier. That way you can have buy-in and commitment for 4-6 months rather than 2 years.
That's how I set out my campaign, although it's increasingly stretching to years due to scheduling challenges. Another benefit is players can drop out without it being massively disruptive, and we can recruit new ones, when the mini-campaign ends. To date, not all of my players have made it to the end of one mini-campaign, so may as well build it into the process, right?
 

jasper

Rotten DM
The campaign ends when the DM dies. But if you want to put numbers to it.
The Adventure Path ends in 15 to 20 sessions.
The Adventure ends in 8+
The Module ends in 6 sessions.
The one shot ends in 4 to 6 hours. Aka 1 session.
 

MoFoCThat

Villager
I like playing in sequences, the DM can pepper in some one shots if the group gets sidetracked from the main story. Our group doesn't meet up that often, so it always feels like a campaign lol The DM can string together a few sequences together with the appropriate leveling if most of the players want to keep their characters for the next adventure.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top