A simple but loaded question:
When you start GMing a new campaign, how long do you expect it to last?
Do you:
- Plan to play forever?
- Intend to play as long as you can, but not forever?
- Expect interest to flag eventually, quietly killing the game?
- Have an endpoint in mind (“This game will last for a year/for X sessions”)?
- Discuss any of these options with your players?
Based on my experiences as a GM and player, #1 is the most common (often unspoken) mindset for GMs and players alike, #2 is the second most common, #3 can be very difficult to avoid and I really wish #5 happened more often than it does. Also, the older I get the more appealing #4 becomes.
What do you think?
I almost always have a number of sessions in mind, and I tell people up front. 3-6 sessions tends to be what I stick around, with 8-12 session runs being “long runs”.
Playing this way makes it easier for folks to commit for short periods and allows a lot of malleability to the group whom I play with, as folks can shift in and out every month or so.
I’m still pretty new in my GMing career, so I’m all hung up on the years-long epic campaign. So I cross my fingers that it’ll last for a long time.
Of course, I think my record is a D20 Modern campaign that lasted 2 months. :/
I use number 4 with a side of 2 and 5. I know interest will flag eventually. If I can keep a game interesting for players beyond the original point I planned to ‘end’ it, that’s fine by me, I’ll keep going as long as I personally am interested in it. However, my expectation is that we’ll only play roughly 20 sessions max. Less if players lose interest quickly, or if problems come up in the meantime.
By giving some expectations to my players, and asking for their expectations in return, I hope to avoid some degree of messiness. I also feel it’s a good idea to discuss mid-game whether or not expectations have changed, and if they have, why, and what the changes are. Information is key to keeping players happy, and if I can end the game on a high note for my players and I, I’ll end it somewhat early if I have to, just so that will happen.
I prefer to campaign by season, so basically, four campaigns a year.
Interestingly, the current campaign is running a little long, by comparison. We are still playing the same game well into the spring.
I wonder what summer holds?
I’ve run campaigns with no definite ending point in mind, but they weren’t very good.
Since then, I’ve tried to have an endpoint in mind, and I estimate how many sessions are remaining.
I’m reminded of some advice from Allen Varney, which I think applies to campaigns as well as to individual scenes:
Running a scene is like frying bacon. If you think it’s done, it probably is.
Best not to overdo it, and lose steam.
I typically follow #2. I will try to sustain a game as long as I can, but if I sense from the players that the game is past its prime, or that they would like to play something else, then we talk about it and set a date for the “series finale”, where we can advance the storyline to a point, where the game can be wrapped up, but allow us to re-visit it in the future.
Mostly I just run one-offs. Most of my games lack a forward thinking mentality (the world gets destroyed at the end) or are too bizzare to segue well into a normal campaign world (a local child finds a set of special Nolzors Magical Pigments that makes animate objects instead of inanimate ones and accidentally terrorizes the area with his doodles.
Currently, however, I’m working on something much longer (for the record, the world ends five times. I just can’t resist. ;P ) This one has a five chapter miniseries of set duration and then an open-ended final chapter that has a definate ending. I anticipate getting the characters to epic level and hitting “the grand finale” but if they get bored before that, I have a contingency wrap-up plan.
I once ran only episodic games–because with long games, far apart, with slightly different playes each time–nothing else really worked well.
Now I run campaigns that are expected to run about 2 to 3 years. (That’s very long, “double” session, about 6-8 per year. So about the equivalent of 14 sessions per year.) The game has an endpoint in mind, but it isn’t a set number of session or time. Rather, it’s when the main foes are either defeated or accomplish whatever it is they want to do. I usually plan for about 2 years, because we usually go long.
Lately, I’ve done some fairly blatant experience awarding fiat to keep us moving along. We had out of game issues that were putting us into a stall, and I wanted to kick things into high gear again. 😀
I have an endpoint planned, but it’s not time based.
When the group works out the ‘evil’ group’s plan and foils it (and unless they smart up soon, it’ll be a last-minute foil) then the campaign will end.
Yes, it’s a ‘save the world’ campaign, but I figure everyone’s got to do one once.
Our gaming group meets twice a month, and we have three active GMs in our group. In order to prevent a monopoly at the table, and to allow everyone a shot at running a game we go with two models. One is essentially an extended one-shot, where you get five sessions to run your game. The other is an extended campaign, consisting of 12-14 sessions. At one time one game master would run his game until he reached an end, or interest waned. With our new structure, the GM avoids burnout.
It’s interesting to see this much variation in approaches — and to note that out of 10 commenters, only 3 specifically mentioned discussing endpoints and expectations with their players.
If you don’t discuss endpoints with your group, how do you choose which approach to take?
I’ve defaulted to a mix of vague (trying to read my players’ minds) and specific ways (asking for feedback) of taking my group’s pulse over the years, but I’m less and less enthused about that method.
When we went through our last “propose a system” discussion, I put four ideas forward. The game with the clearest time indication [Primetime Adventures] was shot down because the rest of my group is fixated on the #2 idea.
[Incidently, we’ve finished three good runs– each lasted 18-30 months, so that’s our “forever” I think. Though each of the three suffered a #3 ending– due to group composition issues each time.]
“If you don’t discuss endpoints with your group, how do you choose which approach to take?”
We discuss a general endpoint as part of our overall discussion of what the campaign will be about. We do this in both mechanical and story terms. I didn’t mention it, because to me that is a tiny part of a bigger discussion. 😀
Now, we don’t tend to bring that up as much as we once did. Our guys and gals are pretty darn tired of open-ended and episodic campaigns. So we default to “definite ending” until someone starts to feel differently. Since the switch, we’ve had 100% agreement that definite ending is the way to go.
Typically my campaigns run 2-3 years, with the campaign culiminating when the characters hit high level, which in D&D translates to around 12th to 15th.
In terms of discussing how long the campaign will be before hand, we don’t explictly state the campaign will run X number of sessions or Y number of years, but we do discuss what folks would like to accomplish in the campaigns, in terms of story, character and setting development, and go from there.
So I suppose my answer would be “play until all the stories have been told”.
Actually, none of the above.
In my group, we have a “revolving GM”, and the current GM (GM #1) and the next GM (GM #2) get together when GM #2 has his campaign planned out and somewhat ready to go. They mutually decide what is a good endpoint to the current campaign. When the campaign ends, GM #1 becomes a player and GM #2 takes over, and the process starts anew.
As we are story players our campaigns all develop toward a clear endpoint. I set this point (as the GM) in advance as I have a clear goal (a premise) whereto a campaign will develop. So it’s #2 for me.
I use vague mind reading as I offer my group a campaign proposal that they can accept or reject, making me overthink all the stuff, trying to find a compromise or alternative.
I’ve done all five types, but I think the most fun can be had with a dedicated group and type 4.
You get a higher level of commitment to drama and change.
I’ve never really thought about campaign end in terms of time. I have an idea of the last piece of the story arc, but not a set time period or number of sessions to get there. I do think the campaign will end because of an unwritten #6 – players graduate grad school/move away.
In my years as a GM, I have had a number of short-term campaigns that I planned to be only 4-6 sessions that lasted longer or shorter, depending on player interest and initiative. My current campaign has been going for better than two years, and will probably culminate at summer’s end. I had determined the campaign would last until the PCs faced the great villain threatening the world. It would seem I will finally see the end of a save-the-world scenario, after 15 years of gaming!
For the future, I think talking about it with the players is going to be my route. Perhaps, even, taking an adventure at a time, and seeing if there is interest in continuing or switching gears.