The Challenge of Campaigning
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Unfortunately, in a world when appeasing the shareholders and retaining a profit margin is more important than creating a playable and genuinely good game, all that is going to happen to RPGs is a slow, undignified and expensive death.
Take Final Fantasy. That has been dying since FFVII, but Square Enix know it will still sell, so they keep chugging out blander and blander crap. This, alas, will become the fate of all RPGs until Bioware or Valve start making them.
Take Final Fantasy. That has been dying since FFVII, but Square Enix know it will still sell, so they keep chugging out blander and blander crap. This, alas, will become the fate of all RPGs until Bioware or Valve start making them.
Everyone is there to have fun, but if one person's fun interferes with another person's fun, you have a problem. As a DM I know there have been times when player's outright refuse to continue with a story I have built for them. It's no fun to spend time building a story, only for someone to try to discard it. My idea of fun was running that story and campaign. Theirs was trying to derail anything I created. Ergo there was a problem.ItsAPaul said:
I believe the game should be as serious as the group decides to take it. If you are playing to talk with friends, make jokes ,and quote 8bitDND all night, good for you. If you want a more serious roleplaying experience with and intracate story and believable world, then thats good too. The latter happens to take a little bit of effort.
Always good to see the tabletop articles, rare as they are.
We're a dying breed, but I suppose that's what the previous tabletop generation said too.
I've personally found that the ideal number of players varies considerably between game systems; to say nothing of tone or plot.
I've had games with only two players run extremely effectively. Sometimes a lack of resources and/or abilities can breed creativity.
One thing I've noticed, and this shouldn't come as a surprise, but adding players to a detailed game is far more difficult than adding them to, say, a random LARP.
My friend ran a "by-the-book" campaign (Shadowrun 2nd ed) and he had no problem loading it up with 8 players.
In contrast, I usually design and describe locations pretty much on the fly, but in detail.
Things like vines, garbage bins, passing traffic, or even the type of lighting are important to me (I also use these descriptions to bluff meta-gamers, or sometimes drop hints to the more clever players).
Adding a player to the former sort of campaign is like adding a factor to an equation. It's harder, but manageable.
Adding a player to the latter is like tacking on an exponent, and adding 1 for each player beyond. There eventually reaches a threshold where the number of players become too innately bored that they distract each other and themselves.
It takes a true force of will to keep the game going at that point. Planning and effort are definitely required.
Short version: 4-5 players works for a reason, but beware weight of your own play group.
We're a dying breed, but I suppose that's what the previous tabletop generation said too.
I've personally found that the ideal number of players varies considerably between game systems; to say nothing of tone or plot.
I've had games with only two players run extremely effectively. Sometimes a lack of resources and/or abilities can breed creativity.
One thing I've noticed, and this shouldn't come as a surprise, but adding players to a detailed game is far more difficult than adding them to, say, a random LARP.
My friend ran a "by-the-book" campaign (Shadowrun 2nd ed) and he had no problem loading it up with 8 players.
In contrast, I usually design and describe locations pretty much on the fly, but in detail.
Things like vines, garbage bins, passing traffic, or even the type of lighting are important to me (I also use these descriptions to bluff meta-gamers, or sometimes drop hints to the more clever players).
Adding a player to the former sort of campaign is like adding a factor to an equation. It's harder, but manageable.
Adding a player to the latter is like tacking on an exponent, and adding 1 for each player beyond. There eventually reaches a threshold where the number of players become too innately bored that they distract each other and themselves.
It takes a true force of will to keep the game going at that point. Planning and effort are definitely required.
Short version: 4-5 players works for a reason, but beware weight of your own play group.
10h of preperation for a 5h game? Really? I think that's overkill. Most of the time, I just think about it on my way to work so that's about 2h of preperation for a 6-7h game.
Based on the feedback from my players, the more I plan, the less fun the game is. The more I planned, the more rigid my campaign seems to get and players sense that they lose freedom.
Sure I planned important NPC, setting and a synopsys of the overall story, but that's pretty much it. In the short panning time between session, I plan a short term goal (what I want to show the players this game) and a long term goal (where this game should lead) and that's it. I usually use predetermined character stats from the books or the wiki of the system for most encounters (except the real important ones).
Based on the feedback from my players, the more I plan, the less fun the game is. The more I planned, the more rigid my campaign seems to get and players sense that they lose freedom.
Sure I planned important NPC, setting and a synopsys of the overall story, but that's pretty much it. In the short panning time between session, I plan a short term goal (what I want to show the players this game) and a long term goal (where this game should lead) and that's it. I usually use predetermined character stats from the books or the wiki of the system for most encounters (except the real important ones).
The problem with my group of friends is that we have too many long term campaigns going on, and not enough time to play them all. Got a D20 present, D20 Western, and two D&D 4E campaigns that all have some of the same players, and we only ever seem to focus on one at a time for a couple weeks or so, take a 3 or so week break, and then go back to another campaign, and unfortunately my favorite campaign (D20 present, what can I say? I like guns and tech) is the least touched.
I'm gonna have to talk to my friends about this article, and probably just kill off a campaign or two and really focus on at least bi-weekly sessions for the remaining ones.
I'm gonna have to talk to my friends about this article, and probably just kill off a campaign or two and really focus on at least bi-weekly sessions for the remaining ones.
Personally, I find describing the campaign as primarily a social gathering to work well. Perhaps it's just because I've got a small group and we'd otherwise not see each other weekly, but it seems to lighten the mood and help people loosen up. Or it could just be that I got lucky with the players; one was the person that GM'd for me for months and got me into the hobby, one is new and having a surprising impact on the story, and the other is eager to exploit the game as early as possible to form what I guess would be an imaginary power-trip.
We're not too far in yet, but there's been no real complications. I'd really like to get some more people in case of someone not being able to make it (as is, I'd think cancelling a session for absence is acceptable), but there's limited appeal here.
So far it seems the best way to prevent people from missing sessions is just to make sure important stuff happens, and that it's the players that control it. In my case, the players have a lot of freedom in the story, and a fair bit happens each session. One unexpected bonous is that while they seem to benefit themselves by doing this, they make mistakes that can/will come back to haunt them all later (some of which I didn't pick up on until the group started realising where they messed up themselves). It's all good fun, and makes the players have a sizeable impact on the story that they'd miss by not turning up.
We're not too far in yet, but there's been no real complications. I'd really like to get some more people in case of someone not being able to make it (as is, I'd think cancelling a session for absence is acceptable), but there's limited appeal here.
So far it seems the best way to prevent people from missing sessions is just to make sure important stuff happens, and that it's the players that control it. In my case, the players have a lot of freedom in the story, and a fair bit happens each session. One unexpected bonous is that while they seem to benefit themselves by doing this, they make mistakes that can/will come back to haunt them all later (some of which I didn't pick up on until the group started realising where they messed up themselves). It's all good fun, and makes the players have a sizeable impact on the story that they'd miss by not turning up.
I like this particular article and appreciate it.
Many of the rules in different games are made specifically for the longer campaigns, for growth and longevity. I don't think it is overstating the case to say most RPG rulesets (most) are written with the Long Campaign as the truest expression of the game.
I will say that most of the really longer term games that I know of are not one weekly schedules. I am involved casually with three other 10+ year old campaigns in addition to my own, and none of run weekly. Bi-weekly, once per three weeks, and monthly are very common for longer term campaigns, at least in my experience, for a number of reasons.
Children, career success, health/fitness, property, and more, these things are priorities in life not to be taken lightly. And did I mention children? Once all of these things are added in, I consider a person lucky to get out once every other week for a game.
Frankly, I also prefer more talented individuals, as well. I have a list as long as may arm for people willing to make weekly time to game; I prefer the extremely talented person who generally has a pretty full plate in the real world. I try to maximize this, and would encourage other GMS who want a game that lasts to look at this. My most active group has 6-10 people at all times, and I have moved 1-2 players per year in or out to increase talent and harmony.
One thing a GM who has a less frequent game has to do is increase between game communication, with wiki work, game upddates, and email communications. But the most important thing to do is to make sure each session is an EVENT, in bold and not to be missed.
Now, apparently my 26 year old Sandbox does not meet with your criterion for success, due to a lack of terminus point. I've had the players of various groups finish chapters or books in the campaing story, but never finished it. So I'll have to live with my lack of success in your eyes.
Ultimately, your article's closing comments about the GM leading by example and leading the charge is unabashed truth. The success of a longer term game is based on the success of the GM. Without the GM providing the foundation, the structure will fail.
Keep up the good work.
Many of the rules in different games are made specifically for the longer campaigns, for growth and longevity. I don't think it is overstating the case to say most RPG rulesets (most) are written with the Long Campaign as the truest expression of the game.
I will say that most of the really longer term games that I know of are not one weekly schedules. I am involved casually with three other 10+ year old campaigns in addition to my own, and none of run weekly. Bi-weekly, once per three weeks, and monthly are very common for longer term campaigns, at least in my experience, for a number of reasons.
Children, career success, health/fitness, property, and more, these things are priorities in life not to be taken lightly. And did I mention children? Once all of these things are added in, I consider a person lucky to get out once every other week for a game.
Frankly, I also prefer more talented individuals, as well. I have a list as long as may arm for people willing to make weekly time to game; I prefer the extremely talented person who generally has a pretty full plate in the real world. I try to maximize this, and would encourage other GMS who want a game that lasts to look at this. My most active group has 6-10 people at all times, and I have moved 1-2 players per year in or out to increase talent and harmony.
One thing a GM who has a less frequent game has to do is increase between game communication, with wiki work, game upddates, and email communications. But the most important thing to do is to make sure each session is an EVENT, in bold and not to be missed.
Now, apparently my 26 year old Sandbox does not meet with your criterion for success, due to a lack of terminus point. I've had the players of various groups finish chapters or books in the campaing story, but never finished it. So I'll have to live with my lack of success in your eyes.
Ultimately, your article's closing comments about the GM leading by example and leading the charge is unabashed truth. The success of a longer term game is based on the success of the GM. Without the GM providing the foundation, the structure will fail.
Keep up the good work.
I've found that modules have really helped me keep a weekly game going. Their great to use for encounters and dungeon designs and are easy enough to work into my stories.
I do have to disagree with something, though. Running other players' characters shouldn't just be up to the game type, it should mostly be up to the player who's character is being used. I know plenty of roleplayers who really get into their characters and are uncomfortable with someone else controlling them. In my game, I gave 2 options for when someone was absent: let someone else control the character (and get full experience) or we find a reason that the character is gone for a season (and get half experience). The choice was entirely up to the player.
I do have to disagree with something, though. Running other players' characters shouldn't just be up to the game type, it should mostly be up to the player who's character is being used. I know plenty of roleplayers who really get into their characters and are uncomfortable with someone else controlling them. In my game, I gave 2 options for when someone was absent: let someone else control the character (and get full experience) or we find a reason that the character is gone for a season (and get half experience). The choice was entirely up to the player.
This is called a "railroad" most players do not like them. Be thankful your entire group didn't quit. Most players do not want to be characters in your novel. They want to be characters with agency in a game. There is an earlier article in the "Check for Traps" series about the Agency theory of fun. Yes, there was a problem, it was you.cschraer said:
Norm, it sounds like your campaign would meet anyone's criteria for success! I certainly would not hold up my theoretical advice as evidence against your real-world success. All I can say is that you have my high regard for running a long-term campaign. I hope you continue to kick ass, brother. Thank you for your kind words on the article.Norm Morrison IV said:
Also, what made you think I expect a campaign to have a terminus point? I don't think that, but I must have said something that made it sound like I do. Please let me know.
I'm so used to showing my name as LordVreeg that I don't even recognize my own name. This is what I get for using Facebook do things for me.
"I define a successful long-term RPG campaign as a campaign that runs on a regular schedule that allows the players to complete the experience available to them from that game."
That was the quote in question, not that my tongue was not placed firmly on the inside of my cheek when I bemoaned my lack in my first post.
More kind words, BTW. I read a lot of stuff on game theory etc, but rarely have time or reason to respond. And the more mass-market the platform, the less I am moved normally. You have broken that paradigm 3 or 4 times now. Kudos.
( I almost responded on the Meals interview; as I've spent way too much time on expounding on the causal link between JA's associative mechanics and immersion. I just didn't have the time to write the pages it would have ended up...)
"I define a successful long-term RPG campaign as a campaign that runs on a regular schedule that allows the players to complete the experience available to them from that game."
That was the quote in question, not that my tongue was not placed firmly on the inside of my cheek when I bemoaned my lack in my first post.
More kind words, BTW. I read a lot of stuff on game theory etc, but rarely have time or reason to respond. And the more mass-market the platform, the less I am moved normally. You have broken that paradigm 3 or 4 times now. Kudos.
( I almost responded on the Meals interview; as I've spent way too much time on expounding on the causal link between JA's associative mechanics and immersion. I just didn't have the time to write the pages it would have ended up...)
Actually it wasn't a "railroad" game. It was a very open game where the player's were free to choose what they want. The problem would be that a player would establish himself as a greedy mercenary and then refuse to go on any presented quest, ie. the ones I had created for him the day before, that promised treasure. Whatever I built for the group, he would change his character to deny it. The rest of the group was fine, and some even stretched their characters to find reasons to put up with this schizophrenic character.wyrdbrew said: