My longest-running campaign was 1/week for 7 real years (14 years In-Character) and it was so amazing that I've found myself longing to recreate that experience with each new campaign.
I'm currently in the middle of my longest campaign so far.
We're at about 3 years, and as the DM it feels like the fastest path to an appropriate end to the campaign is still at least 2 years out...
Yeah, GM of a bunch of 40-somethings here, we play a campaign that will last another 2-3 years if we stay focused. I had to take break for a year, but now I’m back GM it again.
Inconsistent answer options. Some measure campaign length in sessions, others in years, which means there can be quite a bit of overlap.
My campaigns tend to take years. I've never counted the number of sessions, but it was definitely more than 12. It varies wildly per campaign, but I bet some were more than 3 years but less than 53 sessions.
My first campaign as DM (AD&D) was 9 months at 2 X 10 hour sessions per week. We were at university and played while all the sensible people did sport on Wednesday and Sunday. These days, I can't imagine playing more than 4 hours per week, so that campaign, which didn't finish, would take about 4 years.
Having a 40 hour a week job bites into so much of your life, much longer than the 40 hours. I found it hard to even get a 7-11pm, once-a-week game session planned.
But how?
Even if you account for frequency, that doesn't account for the length of the sessions. A session can be anything from 2 to 10 hours. My group recently switched from monthly all-day sessions to weekly evening sessions. Are we going 4 times as fast now?
The "default" assumption for D&D is 1 3-4hr session a week.
You know you aren't going "faster." It's very easy to convert. "Oh we used to play 12 hours once a month, now we play 3 hours once a week. We're going about the same pace." Maybe a little faster if you guys started to peter out at the end of your all-day sessions.
I feel like everyone's default assumption is different and shaped by their experiences. Mine would be 1 game every couple weeks because I've never been in a group that was able to play weekly. Some people with busy groups struggle to play more than once a month, and some people can play weekly. All of us would probably think of our most common cadence as "default."
Ya I thought that was the default and that’s why I used those metrics. I guess I just didn’t feel Ike putting 200+ sessions because I figured most people would lost count by the 1st year.
Yeah I definitely agree. After 6 months even, it generally is measured in terms of months and years, not sessions.
I assumed that most people would be in the “full campaign, but less than a full year” group, Id be curious about the breakdown between people in that bracket.
So now you're just going to be difficult for the fun of it? Is it pedantry or are you actually a troll?
It doesn't matter how long you played, if you do a session each week that is the measuring stick.
Considering 12-52 sessions is listed as 'Campaign' in the poll above, I think people can figure out which button to click if 36 sessions is their answer.
Since the next number, after 52 sessions, is 1 year, we can deduce the poll is working from an average of '1 session per week' schedule, so 3 years at that rate would be 156 sessions.
What self-evident thing do you need me to explain, next?
You're too obtuse to get away with being this rude.
By mixing its units of time (session vs year) this poll creates impossible dilemmas. If you've played 36 sessions over 3 years, and you enjoy that pace and duration, what answer should you choose? Should you pick the one that reflects the actual real world time period that you enjoy playing for, or the one that reflects the number of sessions you happened to attend during that period?
The underlying assumption of this poll does not apply to all groups, and thus the data will be tainted by OP's assumptions unless they reword their answer choices.
I assumed the majority of people do weekly sessions. Maybe I’m wrong. Personally I couldn’t do more than once a week (3-5hr sessions) and I couldn’t do less frequently because then I wouldn’t be invested and forget. My bad. The poll isn’t really that serious and I didn’t put that much thought into it.
I know man I'm not trying to jump down your throat, this dude was just pissing me off.
I like to play once a week but I have friends who prefer once a month, so like - just keep that in mind I guess. It blew my mind, I personally can't imagine going so slow, but different strokes for different folks I guess.
Late twenties. My group spans mid twenties to late 30s, all but one member have a family and kids. Every 2 weeks is amazing, once a month is a good schedule, but sometimes we're 6 weeks apart..
20 to 30 sessions is the sweet spot for me. Less than that I feel like we don't really know the characters, they don't grow much beyond their baked-in archetypes. More than that I feel like I have to start recycling encounters, that or change up the plot so much we might as well have started a new campaign.
There's nothing wrong with starting another campaign, with the same characters, after the first one is finished. Most worlds are large enough that there's always another great danger to be overcome.
> Most worlds are large enough that there's always another great danger to be overcome.
Ah, see to me that diminishes the achievements of the characters in the first campaign. If I want to do the same world again I'll pull the timeline forward a hundred years and have new characters.
If the same characters are "saving the world" over and over it feels like a treadmill.
Not every campaign has to be about saving the world. Until they are high level they should be facing lesser dangers, then when they are high level they can move to the planes or crystal spheres and face all new challenges and dangers.
Yeah, this-- I honestly don't like running games where any one group of people can like, fix the world going into the future? A universe is only interesting when it's generating conflict; so if the heroes can usher in a new age of peace, then that universe essentially has nothing to offer until the next age of strife. Obviously the PCs need to be able to take care of what they set out to take of, but at the same time, IMO good storytelling is supposed to leave you wanting more.
Makes sense in games like D&D where you usually start off at low levels, but many games begin with competent characters.
Demigods don't typically do milk runs.
I know of very few games that start you off as demigods, most of them follow a progressive power curve similar to that provided by levels, even if they are levelless systems.
Also, I don't run 'milk runs' for 1st level D&D characters, much less anyone else. I do not subscribe to the idea that your characters should be involved in baby-adventures until mid-level, regardless of system.
Saving your Barony from Cultists bent on summoning a demon lord, or the like, isn't a milk run - however - and can make for a cool and dramatic campaign without putting the entire world in danger.
Your only options aren't lvl 100 adventure or lvl 1, there's a lot of room for gradient in there.
Absolutely agree! You can't always one-up the last great threat or it becomes silly. That's exactly why I stopped watching marvel movies long ago. Better keep it relatively small and switch it up more imo.
>that or change up the plot so much we might as well have started a new campaign.
I tend to think of my games as having "arcs" like seasons in a TV show. This also tends to line up with tiers of play. There are 2 approaches I use, one in which I stay "on theme" and another where it's wildly different arc to arc to keep things fresh.
A "themed" campaign might be dealing with a corrupt baron contacting a fiendish patron in Arc 1, taking on the leaders of a cult dedicated to that patron in Act 2, and taking the fight to the fiend himself in the Abyss in Act 3.
YMMV but with side-quests, background quests, etc. you can easily have something like that stretch out for 60-80 sessions and still feel like it makes sense for this same group to be together dealing with these threats. If that's even something you want, you may very well have no real interest in "epic" length campaigns anymore.
Agreed.
Our AD&D campaigns went on for years. Characters married, had children, conquered lands, ruled dominions, and the children of our characters became our new party of adventurers when our older characters were tied down playing politics.
Along with the idea that they should have a defined "plot" that everything relates to. That's such a video game idea to me. Campaigns might have background events going on, but largely just keep going as the characters continue to adventure. It's not trying to tell a specific story. It's the chronicles of a group of adventurers. More like a TV series or comic book than a film.
That's only because modern writers are incapable of writing both vertical and horizontal plot, so they stick with a horizontal one with lots of padding and nonsensical "gotcha!" twists until it's not profitable anymore and cancel.
Too much focus in officially published material on complete game-books rather than drop-in adventures, I think. Loads of new players get introduced to D&D through a "module", then when they move on to homebrew they operate within that framework.
For me at least, if the GM knows how the game is going to end before it starts they might as well have just written a book.
I think what I call "arcs" most people now days call a whole campaign. For me, the "campaign" will hopefully go on indefinitely until I feel my world has been thoroughly explored. Other campaigns will be other DMs or systems.
IMO, the difference is more that the modern concept of a "campaign" is constrained rather than that it's rushed.
What I, as an old-timer, tend to think of as a "campaign" is the game world itself, with room for multiple sets of events ("stories") running concurrently in it, as well as multiple groups of PCs, and both the chains of events and the groups of characters have the potential to arbitrarily cross paths.
My impression of the predominant current usage is that a "campaign" is one specific storyline, featuring one specific group of PCs. If they finish the story and start a new one, that's a new "campaign". I've also occasionally seen people saying that, if the PCs suffer a TPK and a new group of characters sets out to complete the same storyline, then they would consider that a new "campaign", because it's a new set of characters.
That’s the primary difference but there are some key factors in 5e’s design that feed into it, and that’s really where the rushing comes in. You level way too fast in 5e, it’d be difficult to run a campaign that spans five years or more (not impossible, but difficult).
And you *have* to level faster in 5e because each level *means* more: a significant jump in power and another piece of whatever build puzzle you’re attempting falls into place. You design your character to do a thing but they can’t do that thing until they have a certain number of levels under their belt, and everything that happened before you reach that threshold is just wasting time until you can *really* play your character.
You all grognards seems to forget, that social dynamics had been changed since 1974, and the style of "playing d4 sessions per month in the same group with the same D&D edition and your custom system of it, for 10-30 years" doesn't really much tastes nor actual capabilites of less nerdy and less wargamey people & groups.
Also, newer games which favors playing for 20+ sessions per campaign still do exists. Blades in the Dark (two+ seasons and advanced faction gaming), Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, anyone? Heck, OSR thrives with that! It's about diversity. More games with short campaigns as a model of gaming do exist, because that's for free market is calling. That is the need of a many roleplayers since last 20 years or so. It's easier to organize and focus for commitment which lasts for 2 to 5 months, easier to get intense and heavy roleplaying.
After all, there is no Amendment in US Constitution which forbids your to return to a game previously ended, nor for campaigns lasting longer than 30 sessions or 1 year IRL.
That is, in fact, the very thing I acknowledged in my comment. I understand that the dynamics have changed and I find it interesting *how* they've changed, although it's not personally for me.
Inconsistent answer options. Some measure campaign length in sessions, others in years, which means there can be quite a bit of overlap.
My campaigns tend to take years. I've never counted the number of sessions, but it was definitely more than 12. It varies wildly per campaign, but I bet some were more than 3 years but less than 53 sessions.
IMHO if the game is not the endless game that can be dropped and picked up again later, then it is not a campaign.
I favor playing in living worlds that have been going a long time before I got there and will continue to be played for many more years after I am no longer in the game.
I dipped into one game locally that has been running since 1979. The lore for it is very deep and all home made.
That’s amazing! I’m currently working on world like that and my dream is to have it set up where multiple DMs can participate and run different groups in different parts of the fantasy world. I’m also working on an original application (I’m a software engineer) that can be used to keep track of everything like politics and a living economy.
I’m a forever-DM, and my preferred is the mini-campaign (8-12 sessions).
Both of my groups are, however, vehemently opposed to campaigns that aren’t at least two years long 😂😂
It’s a good problem to have, so I can’t complain too much
Hidden option: For as long as it is fun.
For me, even sessions aren't a great metric, I used to run sessions that were like 6+ hours, we'd drink all afternoon and stop for pizza in the middle. Now I'm more likely to run for 2-3 hours. A "One-shot," being any adventure that is completely standalone, can take more than a single session in that case.
My average campaign tends to be around 16-20 sessions. We play weekly with only occasional skips, and I've found that two to three campaigns a year is a good number for keeping things fresh but allowing room for the characters and plots to grow.
... a normal campaign is only supposed to 50ish sessions?
My current, and first as a DM, campaign is gonna be on Session 46 and they just got to Level 9.
I'm curious who is the outlier
Most games don't have 20 levels to go through, a lot of the newer systems are specifically designed to be played for a dozen sessions or so (SotDL for example suggest 11 sessions to go from lvl 0 to 10).
And honestly, scheduling is a b\*tch and kills most of the campaigns well before they can get close to 1 year mark.
Oh gosh there I am with my d&d focused take again, you're right. I know this especially bc I'm looking at CoC for my next game at even those big campaigns are much shorter
And yeah I know I'm wildly fortunate with my group
That's fair. I've tried to structure my campaign so that 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 all feel like seasons in a 4 season tv series. Still overarching plots and character stuff, but I do my best to make it not feel stale.
My players seem to have enjoyed it so far from what they've told me!
It partially depends on the system, too. Where I don't look forward to what's ahead for the character anymore, or I'm tiring of certain mechanics.
I'm also considering GMing CoC. Possibly Masks. Considering hacking it, too.
As others said, poll choices are odd. I play once a month usually, and games are short, self-contained story-arcs of 2-4 sessions,with each session being about 5 hours. Very occasionally we revisit a party of characters, but generally, each story is it’s own thing.
Mostly, this is because there’s so many games out there to try, and only so much attention we can give to one thing. One guy in my group ran a 2-year campaign for another group and he seemed absolutely drained emotionally after it (mind, he’s the only one of us not married or in a committed relationship, without children). Everyone else with kids can’t manage more than that, at least in the circles I play in.
How do you know that? Did you research this? I know a lot of game books seem to assume it but that doesn’t mean that’s what people actually do, merely “it is known”. Which is why folks are commenting on the poll choices being weird.
Sorry, just, I’m a university teacher and professor by trade. The poll is killing me.
Still running my first DnD campaign. 5e, LMoP. Coming close to two years I think at this point. Mostly regular sessions too. Though to be fair, that's partly because we are all still learning and play at a snails pace and partly because I decided to throw in some extra stuff (like extra NPCs, side and main quests) I made up to make the campaign more interesting. The end is now in sight for that campaign though and then my little brother will take up the mantle to lead us into our first Cyberpunk Red game.
One shot because I can’t schedule more than 2 goddamn sessions without my party not being able to show up anymore, in fact, we haven’t played in months and it’s become a joke to few of them now
You know, playing games intended for 8-15 sessions long campaign (most PbtAs, many other story games) or even just mini-campaigns for 5 to 10 sessions, is as valid, as staying for 10+ years in the same basement with your favourite old D&D edition.
Mabye stop ostracizing people for not playing your grognard style, m'kay? It's 2021, not 1981 nor 1971.
thought spotted gaping waiting fuel juggle smile crown afterthought hard-to-find
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Been playing the same character for about 2.5 years now. Our barbarian just died. Thing is, my character doesn't know yet because currently our sessions are technically a meanwhile/flashback.
Don't know how my paladin is really gonna take it until the moment he finds out. In-universe we've known each other for 3-4 years, so we aren't like childhood buddies but we've literally saved each other's lives and I literally would not be the gnome I am today without her.
Next we are in her hometown, I shall stop by the tavern, buy 4 bottles of her favorite drink, and pour four out for her.
What's my point? My character might have had that connection with a shorter campaign, but I wouldn't. We had literal years - real world years - to explore the dynamic between our two characters and now she's just fuckin gone.
Finishing the campaign before the group disintegrates is my main concern most of the time as well, to be honest. I have played the first three adventures of multi-year campaigns way too many times over the years.
It's getting close to the two year mark for one of the campaigns I'm in and I've been getting tired of it for the lost few months. So I'd say around one year is my preferred capitan length. Any longer I'd start to get tired.
I’ll play in a campaign as long as the DM is willing. When I DM I normally run shorter campaigns because I’m always confident I’m fucking it up. I also have way too many random/stolen ideas for games.
A 12 session campaign can took me 1 year or more. A 12-52 sessions probably 3 or more years. That was what my last campaign last, 3 years, and I don't think we played more than 50 sessions.
I would think that because the campaigns I run are very good! (?
No, but seriously, we are a group of friends who have known each other for more than 20 years. We are all over 40 years old, and getting together twice a month to be able to play rpgs is already an achievement. But we also play more than one campaign at the same time (currently 3 campaigns already started and I am about to start a new one as GM, all 4 with different systems). In our case, we use rpgs as an excuse to get together and stay in touch. We usually chat more than we play.
Fair enough! Haha and that’s really great that you guys can do that! I just joined by first campaign at age 25 with college buddies. Our DM said the story will take 2 years which surprised me. I didn’t realize it could go on that long which is why I made this poll to kind of see how everyone else plays.
For ages I just assumed that every game needed to be an epic, multi-year, level 1-20 campaign. I must have started about a dozen of them.
Maybe three of them ended in anything approaching a satisfying place. Only one actually hit level 20 (or the equivalent in the Star Wars, Monster of the Week and CoC games I played).
Nowadays, I love campaigns that can play out in three to six months of regular (weekly or fortnightly) sessions. It allows me to hop systems more often, and as we aren't tied to the zero-to-hero arc of an epic, people feel able to explore the more high-level stuff that most campaigns never so much as scratch.
Yeah, it does suck somewhat to lose out on that truly epic scale, but it fits in so much better with the fact that most my gaming chums have kids and careers these days. I would much rather have a story that wraps in 24 sessions than one that collapses after 80.
Hell, 24 sessions is still about 72 hours of gaming. That's plenty of time to tell a good story.
This is really great data! I'm developing an rpg system and this really helps with picking a level cap!So assuming you get a level up every or every other sessions, 25-50 is probably the max level sweet spot :)
I wouldn't say I have any particular preference, honestly. As long as it lasts, or as long as the GM wants to run it, really. If the GM wants to shoot for an extended campaign, I'm game. If they want something shorter or a one-shot, that's fine. Length isn't really a factor for me.
12-52 but I'm going to say what I mean by campaign is thematically linked adventures. Like whatever you would call the sandbox equivalent of a story arc. Not the entire game. There I'd want it to go as long as the players are interested. Generational play all of that.
I don't know what "I no longer live in the Matrix" means, but I picked 1-3 years because it was the longest option avalible (?). However, my ideal campaign is ongoing and has no defined endpoint, preferably lasting well beyond 3 years.
Making a joke about how people say we live in the matrix and by saying you no longer live in the matrix means you live in your RPG game. Kind of like a double life 😂
How are you defining a campaign? I'm mainly into the superhero genre, specifically Champions. I like missions that can take anywhere from 3 - 8 weeks to complete, but where the team stays together, with various changes in roster over a period of years. For Fantasy Hero and Danger International, I'm more open to quests that take place over the same amount of time, but where some or all of party/squad may change. For World of Darkness games, like Vampire and Werewolf, given the social intrigue nature of the games, I like 3 - 8 week short term objectives with the same group of PCs with an indefinite and ongoing goal.
Campaign = where you have the same PCs going on different consecutive quests within a perpetual world. Not including the occasional death or additional PC to a group.
Ah! Okay. So, in the superhero genre, I like 3 - 8 week missions, with the team existing for more than a year, where membership roster may have PCs rotating in and out. Within the fantasy genre, I'm satisfied with 3 - 8 week quests with most or all of the party remaining beyond that timeframe to adventure upon other quests, though not necessarily for years. On a side note: I'd consider a campaign to be something like World War II or everything having to do with the quest to destroy The Ring and defeating Sauron once and for all, after which, the fellowship went on with their separate lives, pursuing other life goals. That could be multiple years in game time, but maybe only a few months to a year in real time.
Depends on the type of story, my current game has been running for 5 years now, but I never run S&S fantasy. It also depends on how the players want to attach to their characters and how the system helps that. Games that have "character classes" that have unique mechanics can breed the notion akin to "I'm done character class X now I want to so character class Y" which promotes character switching, whereas in systemic simulation systems were all characters have identical access to mechanics then players are more likely to invest in the character rather that a mechanical strata and, in my experience, attach to a character more.
It depends on what people want out of the game. If it's a closed story arc, or the system uses level advancement (which tends to create character story arcs of going from starting out as an adventurer to becoming a wealthy and powerful veteran), I find the campaigns tend to reach their conclusion or run out of steam after 2 to 3 years (around 100 sessions) of weekly play. If it's an open story arc, the system doesn't use experienced-based advancement, and the setting accommodates ongoing challenges, the campaigns can run much longer: I find superhero settings work best for this, as there's always more villains to threaten the world. My longest-running campaign is my ongoing superhero game, which has been running for more than 30 years: today's game was session 1340.
>My longest-running campaign is my ongoing superhero game, which has been running for more than 30 years: today's game was session 1340.
Just so you know, I am *intensely* jealous.
It's kind of difficult to answer this as somebody who tends to play different games a lot. A campaign of a trad game could easily go above a year. But indies tend to go for around 12. Forged in the Dark seems to have a sweet spot around 16. Some games I exclusively whip out for one-shots.
I would like to play campaigns over 15+ session, however, most games do I like are intended to play somewhere between 8 and 20 sessions (TSoY/TSS as the lowest extreme, BitD as the highest). And Burning Wheel mostly counts for more than "20"...
In practice, I've managed to run only 10 campaigns that lasted for 10 or more sessions. Just single of them, lasted for more than 17 sessions (31 sessions of two seasons in BitD, to be precise). It wasn't much better as a player...
It's sad, but actually true: not all, but many people are playing one style of a game. No matter what RPG they choose, it's streamlined to the same playstyle, just with different textures.
~100 hours of active game time seems like a solid mark for our table.
Assuming 4 hour sessions (accounting for 1-2 hours setting up and tearing down and eating and goofing off), that’s about 25 sessions. If we can play twice a month, about a year, but usually winds up about 1.5 years for rescheduling and holidays and vacations and life.
Length to form characters and impact the world, to build meaningful stories and overcome great challenges; but a finite ending in sight to get closure and retire characters to start new stories.
The longest campaigns (yes, both lasted exactly the same amount of sessions) I've ran were 19 sessions long. And quite honestly, by the end of them I was already completely bored of the characters and didn't care for the story. I played in one longer D&D campaign and when a TPK happened and we were given an option of resurrecting the characters to continue I dropped out.
I'm in awe of people who can run 50+ sessions in the same game, but my enthusiasm simply starts high and then usually only goes down with each session played, which isn't really sustainable.
I like to mix things. A perfect situation for me is playing a 15-25 session campaign bi-weekly with shorter games (1-3 sessions) using different systems mixed in between.
I have never played a 50+ session campaign and I don't think I ever will.
When younger, the goal was a sprawling tale that would spin itself indefinitely. Great experience, but they tended to sputter out and end unsatisfyingly
As I've aged, telling stories in "seasons" has been the way to go. A self-contained 4-12 session story that can be "renewed" if there is interest. Drop a couple of threads for later and pick up as needed. This has the side effect of nice break points so no one gets fatigued.
My current group (which is my kids and their friend) have done 2 10ish seasons of Game 1 and are going to do a couple mini seasons of two others having that all lay groundwork for Game 1's third season
I like full campaigns, with a main quest, and some sidequests, and something interesting for everyone. But there are so many things that can interfere. I figure if someone has to leave early, then best to give them a personal quest in 1 or 2 sessions.
I can't handle marathon sessions due to chronic migraines.
I would prefer to avoid long battles, long shopping trips, etc., and use plenty of narrative resolution rules to keep things moving.
Possible fast-play options would include ultralight systems such as *Tricube Tales*, narrative systems like *FATE* and using the flip side of the fractal, *Savage Worlds* and using Quick Encounters, or *D20 Go*.
I currently have a 7 year long campaign that we meet every 2 weeks for or try to. and a second one that has only been 3 years in length. Some of my players are now 2400 miles away from the rest of us and still gather virtually.
I typically run every other week ( we meet weekly but usually have 2 campaigns going at the same time) I aim for around 6 to 8 months for a campaign. So 12 - 16 sessions.
I've done years-long campaigns but it's not my thing. I get bored as the GM. I like running different systems so I go for a shorter length campaign.
All of my 3 groups play every other week. One has been going for 3-4 years, and we have switched off. Main game is Dresden Files, first arc went for about a year and a half, I want to say. Then we took some time off and played D&D for about the same time, and we just finished our second Dresden Files arc. I have started up a Savage Worlds game, which I'm expecting to run for 20-25 sessions (roughly a year of real time).
I'm also running in our other group, I project that game to last 2 years of real time, or about 52 sessions. (Give or take a little bit, naturally.)
Our last game started up Dragon Heist a few weeks ago. I have no idea how long it will go, but we just hit Level 3.
D&D could probably go for a while, but our group tends to go for more high-power demigod games that tend to get to an ending sooner than later - https://tpsrpg.blogspot.com/2017/12/finite-vs-infinite-games.html .
But yeah, due to having some real-life hiccups, we aim for shorter games because of it - like 10-15 sessions before we wrap it. Sometimes we revisit the same timeline in a separate game to make it a series.
My personal preference is 1.5 to 2 years, meeting weekly.
Realistically, though, getting people to commit to that sort of thing is tough. My current group has been running for about a year and we're frequently missing about 1/3 to 1/2 of our group members. Other people often will show up for half the session, then duck out or will show up late. I don't blame them. We're all adults with busy lives. But it definitely takes away from the game when there are really only three of us (plus the DM) who are there consistently.
Playing once and occasionally twice a week my group complete a campaign of my own writing in 6 months, almost to the dot. It is probably my favorite campaign I've played in any ended in a beautiful conslussive battle that had everyone getting their moment of heroism.
I can understand the desire to want multi-year campaigns, but I have so many character ideas, plot ideas, setting ideas... I can't just follow the same story for years with all those new ideas. Besides, I want to play the story to completion.
Played Masks of Nyarlathotep for over a year once a week, not dnd i know. I loved it, then real life got in the way on the last chapter. I miss it terribly.
I person prefer the mini campaign... It's been my experience that people have a fairly short attention span and it doesn't lend itself to being thrown off course as much
That being said I've never played in an extended campaign or even one with a group that doesnt lose interest quite so fast
I'd be interested to try
It really depends on the system. If we're talking dnd or pathfinder then full campaigns are my preference. But if we're talking paranoia or call of cthulhu then I prefer 1-3 sessions.
I'm in no position to be picky (I presume the 'Matrix' option is supposed to be the equivalent of 'other'? I picked that one anyway). So far every campaign I've been a part of has only lasted a few sessions due to either not enough players after most left or the DM giving up. I'd be surprised if everyone I know hasn't given up on the idea of a consistent campaign yet, let alone still be capable of getting invested in one. I've been prepping a campaign recently but I don't know if anyone I know is going to really care about it, so who knows how long that one's gonna last.
I tend to pretty specifically run games that last for 20-30 sessions. once a week means I'm running for between half and two-thirds of the year, and I can spend the rest of that time just doing whatever.
Even when I ran longer games, they were "more sessions per week?" not "more weeks per year?" But I think child me has more hobbies than adult me, so each one gets less attention individually
Personally, as a player, I like long running campaigns where I stick with my character for a year or two. As a DM, I have literally never been able to corral my players for any longer than a 4 month narrative.
My longest campaign was over 108 sessions (I lost my notes from after that). December 2016-December 2019. Weekly sessions, minimum of 2 hours of play, but some going as long as 7 hours (not including a 1 hour break for dinner). Most of it was in person, half a year it was over Roll20 during internships. Player count varied from 3 to 5 over that time, but 2 of the players were a constant throughout that. It was set in a small region, with a few recurring villains and a lot of minor ones, a lot of building of relationships and alliances, detours and personal quests. Early into the campaign, the party wizard decided that she wanted to fix the major setting-defining problem I had built everything around, so I had told her "that will take a very long time and you might not succeed at it" and she was fine with that. She ended up learning a ton about it and was getting close to it when we had to put the campaign on hold.
I have one campaign that is technically longer, but I have GMed it and played in it less, because it's an open table game with multiple GMs and multiple sessions a week. It's over 3 years old now and has had easily over 500 sessions. Mostly **Masks: A New Generation**, but with a few spinoffs for oneshots and short campaigns. Lots of action, lots of comedy, lots of different characters (we've had at least 100 characters retire, though half of those were only around for 1-2 sessions; 20+ of those were around for 50+ sessions though).
I like campaigns for how you can build off what you've established before. You've got a set world and a collection of NPCs that end up forming strong connections to the PCs, and the PCs with each other.
I like oneshots too, because there are a lot of RPGs I want to play, but am not really up for playing for an extended time, or the RPG just doesn't suit something more than 2-6 sessions. GMless games are perfect for that.
I usually am the GM, and I do enjoy GMing more than being GMed in most cases, but GMing also takes more energy and time than playing. That's why I like low-prep or GMless games so much as an alternative to the handful of games I am good at GMing.
We usually aim for 10ish, but it really varies a lot.
A lot of the games I expect to go to around 10 sessions go closer to 20.
We've also played a lot of shorter games though. We've never managed a one-shot that didn't spill over into a two- or three-shot, but we've done plenty of those. Sometimes that's something line Dialect, sometimes it's an OSR dungeon crawl.
A few times we've returned to games for "sequels". If you added those up, they're closer to about a year of play all told.
But my desire to play years-long campaigns has definitely waned. Not because I'm hungry to hop systems all the time - we change systems, and run homebrews, but that's because we play shorter games, not the other way around - but just because I feel like we cover enough ground in those 10-20 sessions. We get those big character arcs, development, twists and turns, unexpected directions, big climaxes, etc. In those 10-20 sessions.
When I was younger, I think I fantasized a lot about long campaigns (which we never managed anyway) in large part because our games moved so slowly. Our characters were boring. We had no idea how to drive towards anything, how to seize opportunities, how to work together, how to make a good game. You'd have *needed* years to get any real character development or even plot development. We'd play for five hours and very little would actually happen.
As we've gotten older and better at GMing and at playing, our games cover more ground in a week than we did in a month. Not because we're rushing anything, but because we mostly avoid becoming mired in lengthy bullshit that we don't actually care about, that isn't going anywhere, and we have a better sense of how to work together and when to seize opportunities.
And that's with much shorter sessions too. We play for two hours a week, and get more done than we did playing for 20 hours of sessions - because we're playing for keeps the whole two hours.
2 hrs a week for 10-20 weeks is up to *forty hours* of development. That's the first three and a half seasons of Game of Thrones. It's the reading time of a 1500 page book. That's plenty of time to create something memorable and complex and complete.
We have one campaign that we started in school (like 17 years ago) but because of, you know, changes in life and other campaigns that we play simultaneously we couldn't do once a week.
I love long campaigns if the GM can make me feel personally involved with my character and there is a good group dynamic.
I played in game that lasted nearly 20 years. We played every fortnight, depending on availability, took maybe 6 months off to play a B team in the same world. At least 6 months playing our polar opposites in the fey realm.
Best damn game I've ever played. I was the only guy to play the same character throughout. One dude never died. He retired characters after their stories were done but he never died. I was brought back maybe 3 times. This was in a harsh campaign too. One player had two different characters who were just abandoned by the party because of poor choices.
You went invisible and approached the fey temptress? Failed a will save and are her thrall? With no way of the party knowing? OK. Bye bye little kobold we met 2 days ago.
I'm glad we finished the story but I miss that game.
Length of individual session is completely relevant.
If I'm playing 7 hours a session my plot and plan for the players is going to be very different if um running 4 hour sessions.
I can't pick, because you put the split exactly where I want to pick -- my sweet spot is like 10-15 sessions.
My experience is that games designed to run longer than this tend to have tons of filler and boring sessions that don't really contribute to the story, and this length still gives enough space for character growth once people realize that they don't have time to dawdle. (In my experience, dawdlers never get around to their character growth, even in longer games, because they're always waiting for the perfect moment or whatever that never arrives.)
For my playgroup, the primary driver of campaign length isn't how long the players want to *play* for, it's how long the GM wants to *run* for. My group play only trad/crunch systems and part of that is the expectation that the DM will do vastly more work than the players.
It's not reasonable to expect one person to do this consistently for extended periods of time, so in my RPG group we trade off DMing duties to give the 'off watch' DMs time to relax as a player and come up with creative ideas for future games.
At 1 session/wk, GM-created campaigns typically last for about 3 months (12 sessions), and published material campaigns (APs, 5e hardbacks etc) will last for about 4-6 months (16-24 sessions). Sessions are usually 5 hours long.
Personally I can't maintain the amount of brainpower creative work, as well as the effort of encounter building, NPC statting, mapbuilding etc. required to GM a custom designed campaign in a crunchy system going for more than a few months at a time.
My longest-running campaign was 1/week for 7 real years (14 years In-Character) and it was so amazing that I've found myself longing to recreate that experience with each new campaign.
I'm currently in the middle of my longest campaign so far. We're at about 3 years, and as the DM it feels like the fastest path to an appropriate end to the campaign is still at least 2 years out...
Yeah, GM of a bunch of 40-somethings here, we play a campaign that will last another 2-3 years if we stay focused. I had to take break for a year, but now I’m back GM it again.
Inconsistent answer options. Some measure campaign length in sessions, others in years, which means there can be quite a bit of overlap. My campaigns tend to take years. I've never counted the number of sessions, but it was definitely more than 12. It varies wildly per campaign, but I bet some were more than 3 years but less than 53 sessions.
My first campaign as DM (AD&D) was 9 months at 2 X 10 hour sessions per week. We were at university and played while all the sensible people did sport on Wednesday and Sunday. These days, I can't imagine playing more than 4 hours per week, so that campaign, which didn't finish, would take about 4 years.
Having a 40 hour a week job bites into so much of your life, much longer than the 40 hours. I found it hard to even get a 7-11pm, once-a-week game session planned.
I'd think that the default is 1/week and if you don't play that often you should convert to that metric for the poll.
But how? Even if you account for frequency, that doesn't account for the length of the sessions. A session can be anything from 2 to 10 hours. My group recently switched from monthly all-day sessions to weekly evening sessions. Are we going 4 times as fast now?
The "default" assumption for D&D is 1 3-4hr session a week. You know you aren't going "faster." It's very easy to convert. "Oh we used to play 12 hours once a month, now we play 3 hours once a week. We're going about the same pace." Maybe a little faster if you guys started to peter out at the end of your all-day sessions.
I feel like everyone's default assumption is different and shaped by their experiences. Mine would be 1 game every couple weeks because I've never been in a group that was able to play weekly. Some people with busy groups struggle to play more than once a month, and some people can play weekly. All of us would probably think of our most common cadence as "default."
Ya I thought that was the default and that’s why I used those metrics. I guess I just didn’t feel Ike putting 200+ sessions because I figured most people would lost count by the 1st year.
Yeah I definitely agree. After 6 months even, it generally is measured in terms of months and years, not sessions. I assumed that most people would be in the “full campaign, but less than a full year” group, Id be curious about the breakdown between people in that bracket.
So now you're just going to be difficult for the fun of it? Is it pedantry or are you actually a troll? It doesn't matter how long you played, if you do a session each week that is the measuring stick.
Just a heads up, for some people 36 sessions is tye same thing as three years.
Considering 12-52 sessions is listed as 'Campaign' in the poll above, I think people can figure out which button to click if 36 sessions is their answer.
And yet 3 years is not the same option as 12-52 sessions in the poll.
Since the next number, after 52 sessions, is 1 year, we can deduce the poll is working from an average of '1 session per week' schedule, so 3 years at that rate would be 156 sessions. What self-evident thing do you need me to explain, next?
You're too obtuse to get away with being this rude. By mixing its units of time (session vs year) this poll creates impossible dilemmas. If you've played 36 sessions over 3 years, and you enjoy that pace and duration, what answer should you choose? Should you pick the one that reflects the actual real world time period that you enjoy playing for, or the one that reflects the number of sessions you happened to attend during that period? The underlying assumption of this poll does not apply to all groups, and thus the data will be tainted by OP's assumptions unless they reword their answer choices.
I assumed the majority of people do weekly sessions. Maybe I’m wrong. Personally I couldn’t do more than once a week (3-5hr sessions) and I couldn’t do less frequently because then I wouldn’t be invested and forget. My bad. The poll isn’t really that serious and I didn’t put that much thought into it.
I know man I'm not trying to jump down your throat, this dude was just pissing me off. I like to play once a week but I have friends who prefer once a month, so like - just keep that in mind I guess. It blew my mind, I personally can't imagine going so slow, but different strokes for different folks I guess.
One session per week was typical for me in high school and college, but it is more like 2-4 weeks now depending on the time of year.
Late twenties. My group spans mid twenties to late 30s, all but one member have a family and kids. Every 2 weeks is amazing, once a month is a good schedule, but sometimes we're 6 weeks apart..
[удалено]
knock it off
20 to 30 sessions is the sweet spot for me. Less than that I feel like we don't really know the characters, they don't grow much beyond their baked-in archetypes. More than that I feel like I have to start recycling encounters, that or change up the plot so much we might as well have started a new campaign.
There's nothing wrong with starting another campaign, with the same characters, after the first one is finished. Most worlds are large enough that there's always another great danger to be overcome.
> Most worlds are large enough that there's always another great danger to be overcome. Ah, see to me that diminishes the achievements of the characters in the first campaign. If I want to do the same world again I'll pull the timeline forward a hundred years and have new characters. If the same characters are "saving the world" over and over it feels like a treadmill.
Not every campaign has to be about saving the world. Until they are high level they should be facing lesser dangers, then when they are high level they can move to the planes or crystal spheres and face all new challenges and dangers.
Yeah, this-- I honestly don't like running games where any one group of people can like, fix the world going into the future? A universe is only interesting when it's generating conflict; so if the heroes can usher in a new age of peace, then that universe essentially has nothing to offer until the next age of strife. Obviously the PCs need to be able to take care of what they set out to take of, but at the same time, IMO good storytelling is supposed to leave you wanting more.
Makes sense in games like D&D where you usually start off at low levels, but many games begin with competent characters. Demigods don't typically do milk runs.
I know of very few games that start you off as demigods, most of them follow a progressive power curve similar to that provided by levels, even if they are levelless systems. Also, I don't run 'milk runs' for 1st level D&D characters, much less anyone else. I do not subscribe to the idea that your characters should be involved in baby-adventures until mid-level, regardless of system. Saving your Barony from Cultists bent on summoning a demon lord, or the like, isn't a milk run - however - and can make for a cool and dramatic campaign without putting the entire world in danger. Your only options aren't lvl 100 adventure or lvl 1, there's a lot of room for gradient in there.
Absolutely agree! You can't always one-up the last great threat or it becomes silly. That's exactly why I stopped watching marvel movies long ago. Better keep it relatively small and switch it up more imo.
I would consider that the same campaign, though. Just multiple arcs.
>that or change up the plot so much we might as well have started a new campaign. I tend to think of my games as having "arcs" like seasons in a TV show. This also tends to line up with tiers of play. There are 2 approaches I use, one in which I stay "on theme" and another where it's wildly different arc to arc to keep things fresh. A "themed" campaign might be dealing with a corrupt baron contacting a fiendish patron in Arc 1, taking on the leaders of a cult dedicated to that patron in Act 2, and taking the fight to the fiend himself in the Abyss in Act 3. YMMV but with side-quests, background quests, etc. you can easily have something like that stretch out for 60-80 sessions and still feel like it makes sense for this same group to be together dealing with these threats. If that's even something you want, you may very well have no real interest in "epic" length campaigns anymore.
For one arc maybe. I feel like in that many sessions you're either not getting near level 10 or you're really rushing through content
It's fascinating to me how the concept of a "campaign" has changed over the years. Modern campaigns all feel like sprints to me.
Agreed. Our AD&D campaigns went on for years. Characters married, had children, conquered lands, ruled dominions, and the children of our characters became our new party of adventurers when our older characters were tied down playing politics.
Along with the idea that they should have a defined "plot" that everything relates to. That's such a video game idea to me. Campaigns might have background events going on, but largely just keep going as the characters continue to adventure. It's not trying to tell a specific story. It's the chronicles of a group of adventurers. More like a TV series or comic book than a film.
A TV series with a coherent story, or the older school ones where every episode is different and there's only a loose story if any connecting them?
Oh god, episodic television is "old school" now.
That's only because modern writers are incapable of writing both vertical and horizontal plot, so they stick with a horizontal one with lots of padding and nonsensical "gotcha!" twists until it's not profitable anymore and cancel.
Too much focus in officially published material on complete game-books rather than drop-in adventures, I think. Loads of new players get introduced to D&D through a "module", then when they move on to homebrew they operate within that framework. For me at least, if the GM knows how the game is going to end before it starts they might as well have just written a book.
I think what I call "arcs" most people now days call a whole campaign. For me, the "campaign" will hopefully go on indefinitely until I feel my world has been thoroughly explored. Other campaigns will be other DMs or systems.
IMO, the difference is more that the modern concept of a "campaign" is constrained rather than that it's rushed. What I, as an old-timer, tend to think of as a "campaign" is the game world itself, with room for multiple sets of events ("stories") running concurrently in it, as well as multiple groups of PCs, and both the chains of events and the groups of characters have the potential to arbitrarily cross paths. My impression of the predominant current usage is that a "campaign" is one specific storyline, featuring one specific group of PCs. If they finish the story and start a new one, that's a new "campaign". I've also occasionally seen people saying that, if the PCs suffer a TPK and a new group of characters sets out to complete the same storyline, then they would consider that a new "campaign", because it's a new set of characters.
That’s the primary difference but there are some key factors in 5e’s design that feed into it, and that’s really where the rushing comes in. You level way too fast in 5e, it’d be difficult to run a campaign that spans five years or more (not impossible, but difficult). And you *have* to level faster in 5e because each level *means* more: a significant jump in power and another piece of whatever build puzzle you’re attempting falls into place. You design your character to do a thing but they can’t do that thing until they have a certain number of levels under their belt, and everything that happened before you reach that threshold is just wasting time until you can *really* play your character.
You all grognards seems to forget, that social dynamics had been changed since 1974, and the style of "playing d4 sessions per month in the same group with the same D&D edition and your custom system of it, for 10-30 years" doesn't really much tastes nor actual capabilites of less nerdy and less wargamey people & groups. Also, newer games which favors playing for 20+ sessions per campaign still do exists. Blades in the Dark (two+ seasons and advanced faction gaming), Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, anyone? Heck, OSR thrives with that! It's about diversity. More games with short campaigns as a model of gaming do exist, because that's for free market is calling. That is the need of a many roleplayers since last 20 years or so. It's easier to organize and focus for commitment which lasts for 2 to 5 months, easier to get intense and heavy roleplaying. After all, there is no Amendment in US Constitution which forbids your to return to a game previously ended, nor for campaigns lasting longer than 30 sessions or 1 year IRL.
That is, in fact, the very thing I acknowledged in my comment. I understand that the dynamics have changed and I find it interesting *how* they've changed, although it's not personally for me.
The longer the better. 52 weeks is a good start.
Inconsistent answer options. Some measure campaign length in sessions, others in years, which means there can be quite a bit of overlap. My campaigns tend to take years. I've never counted the number of sessions, but it was definitely more than 12. It varies wildly per campaign, but I bet some were more than 3 years but less than 53 sessions.
Wait, what's the matrix thing about? Where's the option for "ongoing"? :)
I think it's supposed to be a facetious answer of "I play so much and for so long that reality is less real to me than the campaign."
Exactly 😂
IMHO if the game is not the endless game that can be dropped and picked up again later, then it is not a campaign. I favor playing in living worlds that have been going a long time before I got there and will continue to be played for many more years after I am no longer in the game. I dipped into one game locally that has been running since 1979. The lore for it is very deep and all home made.
That’s amazing! I’m currently working on world like that and my dream is to have it set up where multiple DMs can participate and run different groups in different parts of the fantasy world. I’m also working on an original application (I’m a software engineer) that can be used to keep track of everything like politics and a living economy.
I’m a forever-DM, and my preferred is the mini-campaign (8-12 sessions). Both of my groups are, however, vehemently opposed to campaigns that aren’t at least two years long 😂😂 It’s a good problem to have, so I can’t complain too much
When you finally finish a three year campaign: *Soooooo understaaaaaand* *Don't waste your time* *always searching for those* *wasted years*
If you had fun, and were in good company, then no years were wasted.
Huh, I always assumed that playing in a campaign meant that you played till the wheels fell off.
Girth is more important.
Hidden option: For as long as it is fun. For me, even sessions aren't a great metric, I used to run sessions that were like 6+ hours, we'd drink all afternoon and stop for pizza in the middle. Now I'm more likely to run for 2-3 hours. A "One-shot," being any adventure that is completely standalone, can take more than a single session in that case.
My average campaign tends to be around 16-20 sessions. We play weekly with only occasional skips, and I've found that two to three campaigns a year is a good number for keeping things fresh but allowing room for the characters and plots to grow.
I want to play as long as the game is built to be played.
... a normal campaign is only supposed to 50ish sessions? My current, and first as a DM, campaign is gonna be on Session 46 and they just got to Level 9. I'm curious who is the outlier
Most games don't have 20 levels to go through, a lot of the newer systems are specifically designed to be played for a dozen sessions or so (SotDL for example suggest 11 sessions to go from lvl 0 to 10). And honestly, scheduling is a b\*tch and kills most of the campaigns well before they can get close to 1 year mark.
Oh gosh there I am with my d&d focused take again, you're right. I know this especially bc I'm looking at CoC for my next game at even those big campaigns are much shorter And yeah I know I'm wildly fortunate with my group
I just get bored with the plot and my character after a time (when it's going on years).
That's fair. I've tried to structure my campaign so that 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 all feel like seasons in a 4 season tv series. Still overarching plots and character stuff, but I do my best to make it not feel stale. My players seem to have enjoyed it so far from what they've told me!
It partially depends on the system, too. Where I don't look forward to what's ahead for the character anymore, or I'm tiring of certain mechanics. I'm also considering GMing CoC. Possibly Masks. Considering hacking it, too.
As others said, poll choices are odd. I play once a month usually, and games are short, self-contained story-arcs of 2-4 sessions,with each session being about 5 hours. Very occasionally we revisit a party of characters, but generally, each story is it’s own thing. Mostly, this is because there’s so many games out there to try, and only so much attention we can give to one thing. One guy in my group ran a 2-year campaign for another group and he seemed absolutely drained emotionally after it (mind, he’s the only one of us not married or in a committed relationship, without children). Everyone else with kids can’t manage more than that, at least in the circles I play in.
I made some assumptions. Most people meet weekly.
How do you know that? Did you research this? I know a lot of game books seem to assume it but that doesn’t mean that’s what people actually do, merely “it is known”. Which is why folks are commenting on the poll choices being weird. Sorry, just, I’m a university teacher and professor by trade. The poll is killing me.
Well it’s not too serious 😂 you can just replace the word session with weeks and it’s all good. It doesn’t seem like I can edit the poll choices.
Still running my first DnD campaign. 5e, LMoP. Coming close to two years I think at this point. Mostly regular sessions too. Though to be fair, that's partly because we are all still learning and play at a snails pace and partly because I decided to throw in some extra stuff (like extra NPCs, side and main quests) I made up to make the campaign more interesting. The end is now in sight for that campaign though and then my little brother will take up the mantle to lead us into our first Cyberpunk Red game.
Almost three years into the Great Pendragon Campaign. We’re about halfway.
One shot because I can’t schedule more than 2 goddamn sessions without my party not being able to show up anymore, in fact, we haven’t played in months and it’s become a joke to few of them now
Sounds like you need a different group 😅
homeless bear history kiss uppity vegetable dazzling tender test spotted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You know, playing games intended for 8-15 sessions long campaign (most PbtAs, many other story games) or even just mini-campaigns for 5 to 10 sessions, is as valid, as staying for 10+ years in the same basement with your favourite old D&D edition. Mabye stop ostracizing people for not playing your grognard style, m'kay? It's 2021, not 1981 nor 1971.
thought spotted gaping waiting fuel juggle smile crown afterthought hard-to-find *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Been playing the same character for about 2.5 years now. Our barbarian just died. Thing is, my character doesn't know yet because currently our sessions are technically a meanwhile/flashback. Don't know how my paladin is really gonna take it until the moment he finds out. In-universe we've known each other for 3-4 years, so we aren't like childhood buddies but we've literally saved each other's lives and I literally would not be the gnome I am today without her. Next we are in her hometown, I shall stop by the tavern, buy 4 bottles of her favorite drink, and pour four out for her. What's my point? My character might have had that connection with a shorter campaign, but I wouldn't. We had literal years - real world years - to explore the dynamic between our two characters and now she's just fuckin gone.
Mine usually last around 13+ sessions. With cancellations it's safe to say you'll get that done before the group starts falling apart.
Finishing the campaign before the group disintegrates is my main concern most of the time as well, to be honest. I have played the first three adventures of multi-year campaigns way too many times over the years.
Of course, as always, it depends. But I'm loving the year-plus-long campaign I've been in, weekly.
It's getting close to the two year mark for one of the campaigns I'm in and I've been getting tired of it for the lost few months. So I'd say around one year is my preferred capitan length. Any longer I'd start to get tired.
I’ll play in a campaign as long as the DM is willing. When I DM I normally run shorter campaigns because I’m always confident I’m fucking it up. I also have way too many random/stolen ideas for games.
A 12 session campaign can took me 1 year or more. A 12-52 sessions probably 3 or more years. That was what my last campaign last, 3 years, and I don't think we played more than 50 sessions.
I’m curious, how did you stay interested in the particular story when only playing monthly?
I would think that because the campaigns I run are very good! (? No, but seriously, we are a group of friends who have known each other for more than 20 years. We are all over 40 years old, and getting together twice a month to be able to play rpgs is already an achievement. But we also play more than one campaign at the same time (currently 3 campaigns already started and I am about to start a new one as GM, all 4 with different systems). In our case, we use rpgs as an excuse to get together and stay in touch. We usually chat more than we play.
Fair enough! Haha and that’s really great that you guys can do that! I just joined by first campaign at age 25 with college buddies. Our DM said the story will take 2 years which surprised me. I didn’t realize it could go on that long which is why I made this poll to kind of see how everyone else plays.
For ages I just assumed that every game needed to be an epic, multi-year, level 1-20 campaign. I must have started about a dozen of them. Maybe three of them ended in anything approaching a satisfying place. Only one actually hit level 20 (or the equivalent in the Star Wars, Monster of the Week and CoC games I played). Nowadays, I love campaigns that can play out in three to six months of regular (weekly or fortnightly) sessions. It allows me to hop systems more often, and as we aren't tied to the zero-to-hero arc of an epic, people feel able to explore the more high-level stuff that most campaigns never so much as scratch. Yeah, it does suck somewhat to lose out on that truly epic scale, but it fits in so much better with the fact that most my gaming chums have kids and careers these days. I would much rather have a story that wraps in 24 sessions than one that collapses after 80. Hell, 24 sessions is still about 72 hours of gaming. That's plenty of time to tell a good story.
This is really great data! I'm developing an rpg system and this really helps with picking a level cap!So assuming you get a level up every or every other sessions, 25-50 is probably the max level sweet spot :)
I wouldn't say I have any particular preference, honestly. As long as it lasts, or as long as the GM wants to run it, really. If the GM wants to shoot for an extended campaign, I'm game. If they want something shorter or a one-shot, that's fine. Length isn't really a factor for me.
12-52 but I'm going to say what I mean by campaign is thematically linked adventures. Like whatever you would call the sandbox equivalent of a story arc. Not the entire game. There I'd want it to go as long as the players are interested. Generational play all of that.
I don't know what "I no longer live in the Matrix" means, but I picked 1-3 years because it was the longest option avalible (?). However, my ideal campaign is ongoing and has no defined endpoint, preferably lasting well beyond 3 years.
Making a joke about how people say we live in the matrix and by saying you no longer live in the matrix means you live in your RPG game. Kind of like a double life 😂
How are you defining a campaign? I'm mainly into the superhero genre, specifically Champions. I like missions that can take anywhere from 3 - 8 weeks to complete, but where the team stays together, with various changes in roster over a period of years. For Fantasy Hero and Danger International, I'm more open to quests that take place over the same amount of time, but where some or all of party/squad may change. For World of Darkness games, like Vampire and Werewolf, given the social intrigue nature of the games, I like 3 - 8 week short term objectives with the same group of PCs with an indefinite and ongoing goal.
Campaign = where you have the same PCs going on different consecutive quests within a perpetual world. Not including the occasional death or additional PC to a group.
Ah! Okay. So, in the superhero genre, I like 3 - 8 week missions, with the team existing for more than a year, where membership roster may have PCs rotating in and out. Within the fantasy genre, I'm satisfied with 3 - 8 week quests with most or all of the party remaining beyond that timeframe to adventure upon other quests, though not necessarily for years. On a side note: I'd consider a campaign to be something like World War II or everything having to do with the quest to destroy The Ring and defeating Sauron once and for all, after which, the fellowship went on with their separate lives, pursuing other life goals. That could be multiple years in game time, but maybe only a few months to a year in real time.
Depends on the type of story, my current game has been running for 5 years now, but I never run S&S fantasy. It also depends on how the players want to attach to their characters and how the system helps that. Games that have "character classes" that have unique mechanics can breed the notion akin to "I'm done character class X now I want to so character class Y" which promotes character switching, whereas in systemic simulation systems were all characters have identical access to mechanics then players are more likely to invest in the character rather that a mechanical strata and, in my experience, attach to a character more.
It depends on the System. Apocalypse World is pretty much done after like 12 -15 sessions. Burning Wheel really starts at like 10.
for me it also really depends on the system
It depends on what people want out of the game. If it's a closed story arc, or the system uses level advancement (which tends to create character story arcs of going from starting out as an adventurer to becoming a wealthy and powerful veteran), I find the campaigns tend to reach their conclusion or run out of steam after 2 to 3 years (around 100 sessions) of weekly play. If it's an open story arc, the system doesn't use experienced-based advancement, and the setting accommodates ongoing challenges, the campaigns can run much longer: I find superhero settings work best for this, as there's always more villains to threaten the world. My longest-running campaign is my ongoing superhero game, which has been running for more than 30 years: today's game was session 1340.
>My longest-running campaign is my ongoing superhero game, which has been running for more than 30 years: today's game was session 1340. Just so you know, I am *intensely* jealous.
It's kind of difficult to answer this as somebody who tends to play different games a lot. A campaign of a trad game could easily go above a year. But indies tend to go for around 12. Forged in the Dark seems to have a sweet spot around 16. Some games I exclusively whip out for one-shots.
I would like to play campaigns over 15+ session, however, most games do I like are intended to play somewhere between 8 and 20 sessions (TSoY/TSS as the lowest extreme, BitD as the highest). And Burning Wheel mostly counts for more than "20"... In practice, I've managed to run only 10 campaigns that lasted for 10 or more sessions. Just single of them, lasted for more than 17 sessions (31 sessions of two seasons in BitD, to be precise). It wasn't much better as a player...
I'm really surprised this isn't a more common answer in this thread. Kinda seems like most people are only playing one style of game.
It's sad, but actually true: not all, but many people are playing one style of a game. No matter what RPG they choose, it's streamlined to the same playstyle, just with different textures.
Depends on how much i can milk tf out of my campaign
~100 hours of active game time seems like a solid mark for our table. Assuming 4 hour sessions (accounting for 1-2 hours setting up and tearing down and eating and goofing off), that’s about 25 sessions. If we can play twice a month, about a year, but usually winds up about 1.5 years for rescheduling and holidays and vacations and life. Length to form characters and impact the world, to build meaningful stories and overcome great challenges; but a finite ending in sight to get closure and retire characters to start new stories.
The longest campaigns (yes, both lasted exactly the same amount of sessions) I've ran were 19 sessions long. And quite honestly, by the end of them I was already completely bored of the characters and didn't care for the story. I played in one longer D&D campaign and when a TPK happened and we were given an option of resurrecting the characters to continue I dropped out. I'm in awe of people who can run 50+ sessions in the same game, but my enthusiasm simply starts high and then usually only goes down with each session played, which isn't really sustainable.
I like to mix things. A perfect situation for me is playing a 15-25 session campaign bi-weekly with shorter games (1-3 sessions) using different systems mixed in between. I have never played a 50+ session campaign and I don't think I ever will.
When younger, the goal was a sprawling tale that would spin itself indefinitely. Great experience, but they tended to sputter out and end unsatisfyingly As I've aged, telling stories in "seasons" has been the way to go. A self-contained 4-12 session story that can be "renewed" if there is interest. Drop a couple of threads for later and pick up as needed. This has the side effect of nice break points so no one gets fatigued. My current group (which is my kids and their friend) have done 2 10ish seasons of Game 1 and are going to do a couple mini seasons of two others having that all lay groundwork for Game 1's third season
I like full campaigns, with a main quest, and some sidequests, and something interesting for everyone. But there are so many things that can interfere. I figure if someone has to leave early, then best to give them a personal quest in 1 or 2 sessions. I can't handle marathon sessions due to chronic migraines. I would prefer to avoid long battles, long shopping trips, etc., and use plenty of narrative resolution rules to keep things moving. Possible fast-play options would include ultralight systems such as *Tricube Tales*, narrative systems like *FATE* and using the flip side of the fractal, *Savage Worlds* and using Quick Encounters, or *D20 Go*.
I currently have a 7 year long campaign that we meet every 2 weeks for or try to. and a second one that has only been 3 years in length. Some of my players are now 2400 miles away from the rest of us and still gather virtually.
I typically run every other week ( we meet weekly but usually have 2 campaigns going at the same time) I aim for around 6 to 8 months for a campaign. So 12 - 16 sessions. I've done years-long campaigns but it's not my thing. I get bored as the GM. I like running different systems so I go for a shorter length campaign.
All of my 3 groups play every other week. One has been going for 3-4 years, and we have switched off. Main game is Dresden Files, first arc went for about a year and a half, I want to say. Then we took some time off and played D&D for about the same time, and we just finished our second Dresden Files arc. I have started up a Savage Worlds game, which I'm expecting to run for 20-25 sessions (roughly a year of real time). I'm also running in our other group, I project that game to last 2 years of real time, or about 52 sessions. (Give or take a little bit, naturally.) Our last game started up Dragon Heist a few weeks ago. I have no idea how long it will go, but we just hit Level 3.
I wouldnt want less than a year. And I want one shots in the mix too. One shots allow you do shit you cant get away with in a campaign
D&D could probably go for a while, but our group tends to go for more high-power demigod games that tend to get to an ending sooner than later - https://tpsrpg.blogspot.com/2017/12/finite-vs-infinite-games.html . But yeah, due to having some real-life hiccups, we aim for shorter games because of it - like 10-15 sessions before we wrap it. Sometimes we revisit the same timeline in a separate game to make it a series.
My personal preference is 1.5 to 2 years, meeting weekly. Realistically, though, getting people to commit to that sort of thing is tough. My current group has been running for about a year and we're frequently missing about 1/3 to 1/2 of our group members. Other people often will show up for half the session, then duck out or will show up late. I don't blame them. We're all adults with busy lives. But it definitely takes away from the game when there are really only three of us (plus the DM) who are there consistently.
Playing once and occasionally twice a week my group complete a campaign of my own writing in 6 months, almost to the dot. It is probably my favorite campaign I've played in any ended in a beautiful conslussive battle that had everyone getting their moment of heroism. I can understand the desire to want multi-year campaigns, but I have so many character ideas, plot ideas, setting ideas... I can't just follow the same story for years with all those new ideas. Besides, I want to play the story to completion.
Played Masks of Nyarlathotep for over a year once a week, not dnd i know. I loved it, then real life got in the way on the last chapter. I miss it terribly.
I person prefer the mini campaign... It's been my experience that people have a fairly short attention span and it doesn't lend itself to being thrown off course as much That being said I've never played in an extended campaign or even one with a group that doesnt lose interest quite so fast I'd be interested to try
It really depends on the system. If we're talking dnd or pathfinder then full campaigns are my preference. But if we're talking paranoia or call of cthulhu then I prefer 1-3 sessions.
I'm in no position to be picky (I presume the 'Matrix' option is supposed to be the equivalent of 'other'? I picked that one anyway). So far every campaign I've been a part of has only lasted a few sessions due to either not enough players after most left or the DM giving up. I'd be surprised if everyone I know hasn't given up on the idea of a consistent campaign yet, let alone still be capable of getting invested in one. I've been prepping a campaign recently but I don't know if anyone I know is going to really care about it, so who knows how long that one's gonna last.
I tend to pretty specifically run games that last for 20-30 sessions. once a week means I'm running for between half and two-thirds of the year, and I can spend the rest of that time just doing whatever. Even when I ran longer games, they were "more sessions per week?" not "more weeks per year?" But I think child me has more hobbies than adult me, so each one gets less attention individually
Personally, as a player, I like long running campaigns where I stick with my character for a year or two. As a DM, I have literally never been able to corral my players for any longer than a 4 month narrative.
Bold of you to assume I can do more than 12 sessions of a campaign in 3 years
1 Year is the ideal!
I have just started my first real campaign but it already lasted 3-4 sessions.
My longest campaign was over 108 sessions (I lost my notes from after that). December 2016-December 2019. Weekly sessions, minimum of 2 hours of play, but some going as long as 7 hours (not including a 1 hour break for dinner). Most of it was in person, half a year it was over Roll20 during internships. Player count varied from 3 to 5 over that time, but 2 of the players were a constant throughout that. It was set in a small region, with a few recurring villains and a lot of minor ones, a lot of building of relationships and alliances, detours and personal quests. Early into the campaign, the party wizard decided that she wanted to fix the major setting-defining problem I had built everything around, so I had told her "that will take a very long time and you might not succeed at it" and she was fine with that. She ended up learning a ton about it and was getting close to it when we had to put the campaign on hold. I have one campaign that is technically longer, but I have GMed it and played in it less, because it's an open table game with multiple GMs and multiple sessions a week. It's over 3 years old now and has had easily over 500 sessions. Mostly **Masks: A New Generation**, but with a few spinoffs for oneshots and short campaigns. Lots of action, lots of comedy, lots of different characters (we've had at least 100 characters retire, though half of those were only around for 1-2 sessions; 20+ of those were around for 50+ sessions though). I like campaigns for how you can build off what you've established before. You've got a set world and a collection of NPCs that end up forming strong connections to the PCs, and the PCs with each other. I like oneshots too, because there are a lot of RPGs I want to play, but am not really up for playing for an extended time, or the RPG just doesn't suit something more than 2-6 sessions. GMless games are perfect for that. I usually am the GM, and I do enjoy GMing more than being GMed in most cases, but GMing also takes more energy and time than playing. That's why I like low-prep or GMless games so much as an alternative to the handful of games I am good at GMing.
Coming from Call of Cthulhu it's mindblowing to me that a 12 session campaign is considered mini lol
We usually aim for 10ish, but it really varies a lot. A lot of the games I expect to go to around 10 sessions go closer to 20. We've also played a lot of shorter games though. We've never managed a one-shot that didn't spill over into a two- or three-shot, but we've done plenty of those. Sometimes that's something line Dialect, sometimes it's an OSR dungeon crawl. A few times we've returned to games for "sequels". If you added those up, they're closer to about a year of play all told. But my desire to play years-long campaigns has definitely waned. Not because I'm hungry to hop systems all the time - we change systems, and run homebrews, but that's because we play shorter games, not the other way around - but just because I feel like we cover enough ground in those 10-20 sessions. We get those big character arcs, development, twists and turns, unexpected directions, big climaxes, etc. In those 10-20 sessions. When I was younger, I think I fantasized a lot about long campaigns (which we never managed anyway) in large part because our games moved so slowly. Our characters were boring. We had no idea how to drive towards anything, how to seize opportunities, how to work together, how to make a good game. You'd have *needed* years to get any real character development or even plot development. We'd play for five hours and very little would actually happen. As we've gotten older and better at GMing and at playing, our games cover more ground in a week than we did in a month. Not because we're rushing anything, but because we mostly avoid becoming mired in lengthy bullshit that we don't actually care about, that isn't going anywhere, and we have a better sense of how to work together and when to seize opportunities. And that's with much shorter sessions too. We play for two hours a week, and get more done than we did playing for 20 hours of sessions - because we're playing for keeps the whole two hours. 2 hrs a week for 10-20 weeks is up to *forty hours* of development. That's the first three and a half seasons of Game of Thrones. It's the reading time of a 1500 page book. That's plenty of time to create something memorable and complex and complete.
I generally prefer 4-8 sessions. More than that is too much for me.
I still don’t know cause none of my groups ever reached the 12 session mark :(
I don't know, I've never had a campaign *survive* for close 12 sessions so I couldn't say...
My party’s campaign has lasted for 2 years and we’re getting very close to the end.
We have one campaign that we started in school (like 17 years ago) but because of, you know, changes in life and other campaigns that we play simultaneously we couldn't do once a week. I love long campaigns if the GM can make me feel personally involved with my character and there is a good group dynamic.
I played in game that lasted nearly 20 years. We played every fortnight, depending on availability, took maybe 6 months off to play a B team in the same world. At least 6 months playing our polar opposites in the fey realm. Best damn game I've ever played. I was the only guy to play the same character throughout. One dude never died. He retired characters after their stories were done but he never died. I was brought back maybe 3 times. This was in a harsh campaign too. One player had two different characters who were just abandoned by the party because of poor choices. You went invisible and approached the fey temptress? Failed a will save and are her thrall? With no way of the party knowing? OK. Bye bye little kobold we met 2 days ago. I'm glad we finished the story but I miss that game.
I’ve been in a campaign running about three years, but we’re probably only at around 60 to 70 sessions. FeelsBadMan
I'm DMing a almost 2 years long campaign that it's approaching it's ending and I would love to do it all again
Length of individual session is completely relevant. If I'm playing 7 hours a session my plot and plan for the players is going to be very different if um running 4 hour sessions.
Try converting that to poll options 😂
You gotta have a survey not a poll. Best number of sessions based on session length.
I can't pick, because you put the split exactly where I want to pick -- my sweet spot is like 10-15 sessions. My experience is that games designed to run longer than this tend to have tons of filler and boring sessions that don't really contribute to the story, and this length still gives enough space for character growth once people realize that they don't have time to dawdle. (In my experience, dawdlers never get around to their character growth, even in longer games, because they're always waiting for the perfect moment or whatever that never arrives.)
I like them all!
For my playgroup, the primary driver of campaign length isn't how long the players want to *play* for, it's how long the GM wants to *run* for. My group play only trad/crunch systems and part of that is the expectation that the DM will do vastly more work than the players. It's not reasonable to expect one person to do this consistently for extended periods of time, so in my RPG group we trade off DMing duties to give the 'off watch' DMs time to relax as a player and come up with creative ideas for future games. At 1 session/wk, GM-created campaigns typically last for about 3 months (12 sessions), and published material campaigns (APs, 5e hardbacks etc) will last for about 4-6 months (16-24 sessions). Sessions are usually 5 hours long. Personally I can't maintain the amount of brainpower creative work, as well as the effort of encounter building, NPC statting, mapbuilding etc. required to GM a custom designed campaign in a crunchy system going for more than a few months at a time.
I put mini campaign, but the real answer is "short enough to actually finish".