TheRPGSite

Aha, now that you've read my needlessly provacative title,  your'e here to make your points! I hope...

Here's my position:

The long-term recurrent campaign is a default expectation for many gaming groups, but it gets a lot of negative press lately.

I'm not sure why! But hey, I'm sure I'll hear soon.

In the meantime, I'll talk about the merits of the awesomeness of the long term campaign vice the lameness of the one-shot or short term game.

My main one:

A long term campaign offers a way to manage a gaming group.

You see, I believe people don't actually get together to "play Gurps" or "play Vampire" or "Play (whatever)". They get together to play "JimBob's campaign" or "Peter's Aedorea campaign" or even "I am looking forward to playing my sorcerer guy" (or whatever).

If it were a revolving series of games or even (wince) one of those deals where some enterprising guy just pulls a game out at random once people start arriving, you have very little way to manage this gathering.  

Here are the benefits of a long term campaign regarding group cohesion:
* Nobody has to make a decision to what game is going to be played. Everyone knows. They knew before they showed up! They knew last week! They've already been talking about in email!

* Everyone has a role. The GM knows he is going to be the GM. The players know they are going to be players, and each player has roles within the playing group.

* The group that plays together, stays together: In Cheetoism (sorry Kyle!), this means the Forming, Storming and Norming parts are worked out and established ONCE. After a few sessions, if everything else checks out in the game (and between the people involved): you get something magical.

* Ees Not A Gang, Ees a Club!: There's a million different ways to have friends. I have musician friends, and I have online "Livejournal" friends. I have neighbor friends. I have friends at work. The guys that come to my place to game every Thursday night are special. They are what I call club friends. Even though we haven't established our gaming group as a club, we have a very clublike camaraderie. We're sportsmen. We hold group values of fairness and sportsmanship. And although I do occaisionally run into these guys outside of the game, I don't feel obligated to. We have established these bonds over time and reinforced them due to regularly taking part in an activity together. We are not unlike a bowling team or a softball team.

Whereas: Short term games can also do the above.. maybe? But don't really facilitate it. Except for special cases, I believe they facilitate a "drift in and drift out" kind of thing. Because who is in charge when a leadership decision has to be made? And what game is going to be played from week to week? Whose house? And do we have to spend the first couple of hours familiarizing or re-learning the rules before we play because we change games constantly?

With the short term group: everytime you switch an activity, you have to go through that arduous forming and storming part.

Further, there's group cohesion. You don't get that "Club friends" thing going on, because you have a much more generalized dynamic. Instead of being like a bowling team or a softball team, you end up like a group of guys that gets together to play softball, or bowl, or play paintball..or something else... depending on how the vote goes that week.

Finally:

I understand and accept that there is legitimate short term gaming and "one-shots" and what have you. But I truly believe that many times when groups are switching around systems like a smorgasbord, they are really DEMOing, or PLAYTESTING or TRYING OUT games, (often with a critical bent) rather than seriously playing them. A longterm campaign is like a weekly meal, like something you do with regularity. But a short term game that switches around often is more like a series of snacks, nibbled for taste.

I won't get into continuitous storylines just yet.

Ok, go ahead. Start yelling at me!

Campaigns are Adventure Gaming at it´s best.

All else is methadone.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn the meantime, I'll talk about the merits of the awesomeness of the long term campaign

Oh good!  Positivity.  I love positivity.  Long-term campaigns are, indeed, awesome in many ways.

Quote from: Abyssal Mawvice the lameness of the one-shot or short term game.

This?  Eh.  Doesn't seem anywhere near as strong.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWith the short term group: everytime you switch an activity, you have to go through that arduous forming and storming part.

Really?  That hasn't been my experience.  When people already have a solid social foundation, playing a different game may fail to suit the way they relate, but it's unlikely to force them to start their relationships over from scratch.  But maybe this is just a difference in our experiences.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut I truly believe that many times when groups are switching around systems like a smorgasbord, they are really DEMOing, or PLAYTESTING or TRYING OUT games, (often with a critical bent) rather than seriously playing them.

Why do you think those things are in opposition?  When I've tried out games, I've always tried to seriously play them.  I mean ... how else do you find out about the game?

Quote from: TonyLBhow else do you find out about the game?

Well, that's my point. You only really find out about the game through playing it. The first couple of times is playing the game in order to be finding out about the game.

You don't actually getting around to playing the game for the purpose of enjoying it until later.

You have to master the game first.

PS, I'm full of positivity!

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou don't actually getting around to playing the game for the purpose of enjoying it until later.

You have to master the game first.

So ... I didn't actually have fun in the short-run games I thought I was having fun in?  Wierd.  It seemed so real at the time.

Tony, why don't you describe what's great about short term games instead of trying to defend them against AM's opinion? There's an important difference between the two approaches to discussion.

And second, doesn't each approach (even if you prefer it) have pitfalls? What are they? How do you deal with them?

E.g. all else being equal, I posit that the unhappy player can be a bigger problem for longterm play, because if you want to change something as a player, you actually have to discuss it. Whereas in short-term play, the "gaming contract" is reset after a few sessions--and at that point, it's easier to drop out, propose a different game, or look for a chance to GM (so you can demonstrate how you like games to be run).

Obviously in long term play you need to be able to discuss if you're not happy with the game--seems kind of obvious, and not really that hard, but it's something to remember. And I still think that switching things up occasionally with different games or GMs can be a good idea.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... I didn't actually have fun in the short-run games I thought I was having fun in?  Wierd.  It seemed so real at the time.

Oh I am fully willing to concede you had fun. This ain't story-games.

What I am saying is: You had fun, playing that demo.

Update: Elliot's on to me!

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd second, doesn't each approach (even if you prefer it) have pitfalls? What are they? How do you deal with them?

Absolutely true! Of course, I am brawling here, so I cleverly omitted the bad points of my preferred style. But since you asked, I'll admit them.

And the big one is the one you say: the longterm campaign is indeed a pitfall for the unhappy player. If you don't fit into the group, the long term campaign is your gaming death sentence!

 but I suspect your'e just a bit wrong:

QuoteE.g. all else being equal, I posit that the unhappy player can be a bigger problem for longterm play, because if you want to change something as a player, you actually have to discuss it. Whereas in short-term play, the "gaming contract" is reset after a few sessions--and at that point, it's easier to drop out, propose a different game, or look for a chance to GM (so you can demonstrate how you like games to be run).

You have entered the realm of the griefer!

The griefer is the unhappy player who doesn't fit in, and thinks everyone else is doing it wrong, no matter what the other group's enjoyment level is. He often likes to sabotage other people's gaming, because he is at heart, a selfish piece of crap. I would characterize most forgies as griefers. This is (obviously) based on my completely unfair bias against them, but also because of anecdotal evidence. There's a profile, and many of them do fit. They can admit it or not.

So unhappy gamer: he's in the game that everyone else loves and he can't stand. Sound familiar?

Ok, pretend he's a normal guy.

I think it's more likely for an unhappy "normal guy" player to completely drop out of an otherwise functional group. Normal guy goes on and forms another group or joins another group. Bam, he's still in. Or maybe he finds out he can't be happy anywhere and quits gaming altogether. Whatever. The guy is meaningless at that point. For some people, gaming is just a phase, anyhow. Oh yeah, I totally did this in February 2006. I got to the point where I was unhappy driving 30 minutes to the game and not getting much sorcerery  and trickery in. The GM made some rules mistakes I thought were kinda boneheaded and questionable. But I didn't try to ruin the game. I quietly put out feelers for new players and an alternate game night. I still keep in touch with the old group. I even have a player that straddles both groups. See? No prob. Because I'm a regular joe and I have no interest in ruining anyone else's good time even if my experience wasn't "perfect".

Nor do I feel traumatized or psychologically damaged by my experience.

Also, of note, I didn't wait until the end of campaign to drop out. I wrote a nice email, made my friendly excuses for leaving, and offered guaranteed slots to anyone who really wanted to play in my campaign on the alternate night. I think I made it clear I wasn't trying to steal players (and I truthfully wasn't). I didn't expect anyone to want to play in two games a week, but I was surprised when one of the players joined my group (and stayed in the old group) anyhow.  

But the griefer! The griefer doesn't play that way. The griefer sticks around and starts trying to convert the group or sabotage it. His good time is the most important. He's the quintessential (dare I say it? haha) date rape advocate. He starts screwing with other players, or screwing with the group's ability to accomplish .. whatever it is that the rest of the group is trying to accomplish. He's looking for PC vs PC conflicts all the time. He demands his "fun" even if he has to take advantage of other people in the process.

Quote from: Elliot WilenTony, why don't you describe what's great about short term games instead of trying to defend them against AM's opinion? There's an important difference between the two approaches to discussion.

Cool, can do!

A short-run game has low commitment, so you can drag just about anybody in:  Folks who wouldn't join on for a campaign can easily be sold on something that runs just a few evenings (or, even more appealing, one evening).  This means I get to play with all sorts of friends, not just the dedicated gamers.

A short-run game gives a more palpable sense of freedom to burn down the world, if that's where the story leads:  So we loot the destroy the bridge from the material world to the spirit plain, irrevocably cutting off all shamans from the source of their power?  COOL!  Wasn't like we were going to be getting any better use out of it down the road than the fun we're having with it now.

A diet of short-run games lets your group relate to each other through many filters in short succession.  Like looking at a sculpture from many angles, I've found that this can help me to come to know my friends better.

More stuff as I think of it! :D

I like long term campaigns for the following reasons:

1. Players get to discover /create their character over a longer period of time. Also, IME the interaction between the various pcs changes over time. The dynamics morph into something nobody really imagined. Good stuff.

2. As a GM, I get to slowly introduce interesting concepts - plot point, themes, characters - into the game that adds to the verisimilitude of the whole experience. I find this extremely difficult to do, in short term camapigns.

3. There's a lot of scope in terms of what the players can do, in long terms campaigns. They can take their time discovering things. They can wonder about the setting, without any real goals. They can interact a lot, with the setting, which only makes the campaign more real.

4. As a GM I get time to discover what the players like about the setting. What interest them. I can modify the campaign wih the feedback I get.

5.Long term campaigns are easier for me, because I can learn/apply all the rule stuff during the course of the campaign. The good thing about long term play IME is that I could get the opportunity to use every aspect of the rules. This makes it easier the next time I use the system.

6. Players can switch characters if they feel that their present character is not what they want to play. All they have to do is roll up a new character and I(we) can fit them into the story.

That's about all I got so far. Next, what I like about short term campaigns :D (Yeah, I'm greedy)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBA short-run game gives a more palpable sense of freedom to burn down the world, if that's where the story leads: So we loot the destroy the bridge from the material world to the spirit plain, irrevocably cutting off all shamans from the source of their power? COOL! Wasn't like we were going to be getting any better use out of it down the road than the fun we're having with it now.

I consider this a weakness... Your'e talking about the tendency of short term games to treat characters and storyline elements as disposable.

A short story isn't inferior to a novel. A two-hour film isn't inferior to a ten-year soap opera.

Having run my own twenty-year soap opera, I know whereof I speak, I think.

What is 'long', anyway? There was a time when I thought of a six-month game as short.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI consider this a weakness... Your'e talking about the tendency of short term games to treat characters and storyline elements as disposable.

Okay.  I don't see why that would be a weakness.  The characters and storyline elements are there for us to have fun with.  If that involves burning them to a crispy-crisp then cool!  It's not like they're going to complain.  They're imaginary.

Mind you, I do this when coming to the end of long campaigns, too ... once you're at the point where the whole thing only has to hold together another few sessions, it's remarkably freeing, whether you took years to get there or hours.  Short-term games just give me more of that particular flaring incandescence.

i 100% agree with AM, and also dig it for the same reasons David R. mentioned.  

:DHAPPINESS:D

I like short term campaigns for the following reasons:

1. The players know what the goals are upfront. Galactus is coming, do something :eek: . Rob a loan shark to settle debts :cool:

2. I as the GM spend less time, on campaign prep.

3. The players seem to have more in the zone moments. What are these? Moments of pure concentrated roleplaying esp player vs player drama. Without having to be mindful of long term relationships or getting along together for the sake of the party, players are free to act in the moment. Roleplay by instinct. Sounds kind of dodgy, right? I suppose it is.

4. Also with regards to 3, the players have told me, that because they don't have to worry about long term character development, they are more reckless, in their heroism. They try things, because they realize that this is a short term campaign with specific goals, so why not play, as though one has nothin' to lose.

5. Short term campaigns allows the group to try out different types of games.

6. Short term campaigns allow us, to explore a specific theme within a specified time frame and then move on to other things.

That's about it.

Regards,
David R

I just want to add that in my current situation, I'm trying to mix short-term games with a longer-term group. For a while we were doing purely ad hoc stuff (see who arrives, decide then and there on what pickup game we're playing) which was good but we didn't just that sort of experience. No answers yet - it's still a work in progress.

But I think that's an interesting point: some of the things AMaw talks about are true of long-term groups (if not necessarily long-term campaigns) and are totally vital.

I also find that that every time you change rules, you need to go through a bit of the storming/norming process again, at least a little bit - especially if people are in different roles for the game. (But long-term forming still helps - if you've played enough games together, you can more quickly walk each other through that norming/forming process.)

I dig strategy.
Strategy is nigh impossible in short running RPG sessions.

I like both. In fact, I like mid-length campaigns - three to six months long - best. I ran one of those legendary 20 year AD&D campaigns, and to tell the truth, I began to burn out on Fantasy after the fifteenth year or so. For years I had been asking my group to try different games, which they would occasionally - grudgingly - do, but after the first session of a new game I began getting "When are we going backto the real campaign?" from the players. After fifteen years of this, my game started to stagnate. I found it harder and harder to do anything interesting fantasy-wise. After twenty years, I broke the group up - we're still friends, but no longer play together - and formed a new one with the express intent of playing many different games in many different styles. It was a balm to my mind. I'm still burned out on fantasy, but if I had been doing this all along, I wouldn't be.

I still run long campaigns, and my players and I love them, but now I break them up into seasons. We go away and do something else, run some one shots or return to another long campaing on hiatus, or run a short or mid-length campaign, then come back refreshed and energized. Each type of campaign length has good and bad things about it. If you know that going in, and you switch around, you can keep that fresh feeling going forever.

-clash

"...I began to burn out on Fantasy after the fifteenth year or so."

I like this, because by long term I'm basically talking 5-6 months+, played weekly. I cannot imagine running a game for 15 years. I think that's awesome. (I can imagine running in the same established campaign world for that long of course. By those standards, my Aedorea campaign is just a bit older than 3.0 D&D itself, having been established as a setting for the Window).

Played weekly is an important feature. My friends and I came to the conclusion that in order to really establish continuity, you have to be running weekly.

(The rest is specific to D&D)

If played weekly, D&D characters under the current rules system tend to ride a fairly regular level progression of ~10 levels in 6 months*. (This is my average over the last 6 years).  The current campaign has hit level 13 in just 11 months, which is a bit slower than average for me.

But that's really ok, as I see it. I think we either get to the end of the current campaign plotline and wrap up, or we take a vote and go all the way to 20.  (Many of the players have expressed interest in going all the way to 20 "just to see what its like".)  There's simply no good point to go very far past 20 under the current rules system.


*Faster at start, slower at the end

I'm definitely a long-term guy. For me, what I call a "mini-campaign" is something that goes between two-four months of weekly play (ie. 6-20 game sessions of 6 hours per session).

My long-term games go on for years. Lately (ie. since moving to Uruguay) I would say I've actually been running "shorter" campaigns. My longest campaign since I moved here is only a year and a half old. But at the moment I'm running at least three campaigns that could reasonably end up playing for 3-4 years each (interestingly enough, each one having their own definitive end-point forseen; I don't tend to run "open-ended" campaigns).

The "mini-campaigns" are ok, but these kinds of long-term games are what truly rocks.

RPGPundit

And I just handle this by running short stories instead of endless campaigns.

What's the point of these endless, no goal-in-sight long games?  To hit max level?  Sorry, I don't play games with levels, or classes for that matter.  To do stuff?  I do plenty of stuff in short games, and I have a job to fulfill my need for tedium.  Killing my one millionth goblin is not fun.

What's the reason for these short, one-shot games?  Everyone has to spend hours making characters for just one session.  There's no bond to any NPCs, situations, or characters, because you'll never have to worry about them later.  Getting killed for a cause I don't believe in is no fun.

So I run arcs.  Three to seven games is an optimal number, enough time to tell a story, not so long that players whose committments change end up dropping before the end of the story.  Also, if an arc is really boring someone, it will all be over soon.  

After an arc completes, you ask everyone if they'd like to shelve the game for now and play something else, or run another story with those characters.  It's the idea of running a game like a movie, but a movie with sequals in mind.

EDIT: Didn't notice the comments earlier, but... If your long term campaign DOES have end goals, congratuations, you are a more focused gamer than I.  I don't even know what I'll be doing in real life in 2 years, let alone what I'll be playing.  To a large degree, being in my 20's and in college does not allow for long games.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm definitely a long-term guy. For me, what I call a "mini-campaign" is something that goes between two-four months of weekly play (ie. 6-20 game sessions of 6 hours per session).

My long-term games go on for years. Lately (ie. since moving to Uruguay) I would say I've actually been running "shorter" campaigns. My longest campaign since I moved here is only a year and a half old. But at the moment I'm running at least three campaigns that could reasonably end up playing for 3-4 years each (interestingly enough, each one having their own definitive end-point forseen; I don't tend to run "open-ended" campaigns).

The "mini-campaigns" are ok, but these kinds of long-term games are what truly rocks.

RPGPundit

QFT -- mini campaigns can be quite fun too, however.

My group tends toward the long-term, mostly due to a bunch of circumstantial factors rather than any kind of intent or preference.

First, we're very large. The group started fairly hefty when I joined it,like 8 including the GM, and while it's lost members over the years, it's also gained, and overall has grown. It's a classic case of "Oh, Person X would be so fun to game with too!" or "Hey my friend really wants to game and has no group, can he come?" And then of course nobody wants to kick anybody out. A couple of times, a person just didn't work out (due to assholery or time commitment or some other reason), but overall, we've got everyone who wants to be there.

So for that reason, it's a rather slow process to get anything done, whether that something is combat, or everyone wandering through town, or. . .whatever.

On top of that, we're splitting time between several campaigns. Our "main" (de facto, not appointed or anything) GM has three campaigns, I've got one, and another guy has one. For a long time we were doing "whatever everyone feels like doing tonight" and it was pretty haphazard. Now we've got a tidy rotation in place; three sessions of the main GM (whichever of her campaigns she/we want to or are ready for), and three sessions of mine, and in between each "shift," one session of the other guy's (since it's not meant to be a really dedicated campaign, just a minor diversion). But any way you slice it, if you look at, say, a year of gaming (we've been doing it, some of us, for like, 8), not much is happening for any given game.

And there's also efficiency with in the session issues, some springing from the amount of people, some from, I dunno, this alchemy of all our bad habits. Lateness, distracting off-tipic digressions, etc. It all adds up to a very slow progression of any game we play.

For this reason, as well as others,  I'm intensely attracted to a more short-term model of play, with fewer players. I've been moonlighting from the main group a bit to get this. I'd love to try this stuff with some of the guys from our grou, but our regular game night is taxed to the brink; I'd have to find an alternate night that everyone who was playing could make it on. No easy task.



On another note, I find it interesting that Abyssal maw and the Pundit come from two very opposite perspectives on the short term/long term divide. The longest AM is interested in playing anything is to the Pundit a "mini-campaign." I wonder if this sort of misunderstanding is very widespread in discussions of this issue? I had always assumed that "long-term play" meant at least, oh, a year, maybe two. Six months by comparison sounds delightfully focused and self-contained.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: CodexArcanumAnd I just handle this by running short stories instead of endless campaigns.

What's the point of these endless, no goal-in-sight long games?  To hit max level?  Sorry, I don't play games with levels, or classes for that matter.  To do stuff?  I do plenty of stuff in short games, and I have a job to fulfill my need for tedium.  Killing my one millionth goblin is not fun.

(snip)

EDIT: Didn't notice the comments earlier, but... If your long term campaign DOES have end goals, congratuations, you are a more focused gamer than I.  I don't even know what I'll be doing in real life in 2 years, let alone what I'll be playing.  To a large degree, being in my 20's and in college does not allow for long games.

Yes, I do almost always have a definite end point to my campaigns. Its usually the middle part that is not overly well-defined. The beginning and then end are.  That, in my experience, is what makes for the best campaigns.

As to the reasons for a lengthy campaign, your analysis of it is wrong. You speak, obviously, as someone who's never played a campaign that's run for more than a couple of months.

The point isn't that you run a long campaign to level up to maximum level. Hell, in campaigns of that length I usually have to take particular measures to make characters advance more slowly; in my Legion campaign, the PCs are gaining xp at a snail's pace, so that they wouldn't all be max level long before the campaign came to an end; in my Roman campaign I have made it extremely difficult to level up; in my Three Kingdoms campaign characters gain xp at a relatively regular pace, but since each adventure has a one-year in-game gap between them, the current crop of characters will all die of old age long before the campaign is over; and the players will end up playing several generations of characters.

The point, grasshopper, is that after you've been playing in a campaign for about six months, the world takes on a whole life of its own, a depth that is utterly impossible to create artificially in any shorter amount of time.  Your character too, will develop a depth of life that can only come from this kind of lengthy connection.

Its easy to tell the difference between players/GMs who have actually experienced this, and those who haven't.

RPGPundit

I'm not proud of it or anything, but I agree with the Pundit person. After a while you hit a critical point, and the setting becomes three-dimensional. It used to be a Potemkin village, but now it's a world.

QuoteIts easy to tell the difference between players/GMs who have actually experienced this, and those who haven't.

Definitely true.

Two things really hold me back from making my own longterm campaign work for me.  My wandering eye tends to draw me towards new systems.  I haven't been so bad about this lately, but for a while I seemed to be on a constant quest to find the perfect system.  And I've still got games from that search that I would like to play.  And then there's the organization part.  I've made several attempts and my notes just don't cohere.  Some days I think I should just get the Wilderlands boxed set or maybe the new setting for the Dungeon Crawl Classics line.

I vastly prefer long term campaigns because of the basic idea of emotional investment.  You may have intense passion and lust/love for someone when you first meet them--but intensity of emotion, is not the same as depth.


This goes for long term campaigns. Something can be fun, and brief. But, it takes time to build the relationships in game to be something real to the player, this is simply an aspect of human nature. By spending time creating the in game relationships and interacting with them, they become valuable. If you present "Inn Keeper Bob" and he's murdered the same game session, the impact will be minimal. If Inn Keeper Bob on the other hand is someone the players see after every "adventure", get to know the person, his five daughters and two ex wives---then when he is murdered it becomes a very powerful change to the player characters. There is no shorthand way to create that depth, that long term familiarity that makes the loss or gains (say being invited to Inn Keeper Bob's third wedding..) valuable.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm not proud of it or anything, but I agree with the Pundit person. After a while you hit a critical point, and the setting becomes three-dimensional. It used to be a Potemkin village, but now it's a world.

Bingo. Sometimes it's fun to rip up the potemkin village, but I really like making a three dimensional world with my players. It's a different kind of reward.

-clash

Long-term campaigning for the win, Wink.

I see merits in both types of games. Said that, my own games usually last for at least 6 month - 1 year, unless we're playing a published campaign or such, in which case the game may be shorter.

Doing both the mid-term (6+ months, played weekly, 4hrs/session) and the short-run (3-5 sessions) ... and some pretty intense 3-day non-stop play ... I think they all have different strengths.

The long-game has low-key plot threads that start slowly and then develop over time. This has the effect of making for a very rich experience where the PCs actions (and other events) can have surprising long-term consequences because there is a long term.

The short-game is very cool because it's condensed. There is a great satisfaction for me (as either GM or player) at the wrap-up. It's a whole, complete experience that I can reflect on, analyze, etc. It's a story that ends (with the long games, people come an go, enthausiam waxes and waines, etc.)

The non-stop (3-day) short game is an intense experience. We've done horror games that way and there's something about the continual experience that seems to compound the intensity. Some of my most intense, immersive experiences have been had this way.

-Marco

Quote from: jrientsTwo things really hold me back from making my own longterm campaign work for me.  My wandering eye tends to draw me towards new systems.  I haven't been so bad about this lately, but for a while I seemed to be on a constant quest to find the perfect system.  And I've still got games from that search that I would like to play.  And then there's the organization part.  I've made several attempts and my notes just don't cohere.  Some days I think I should just get the Wilderlands boxed set or maybe the new setting for the Dungeon Crawl Classics line.

Yeah, that's pretty much my problem too.  I did run a fairly good 5 month Nobilis game, I was really enjoying that one.  Then half the players quit because "schoolwork was getting too much for them."  Actually, one player quit for that, one moved, and then another dropped out because since everyone else was leaving, it seemed a good time to bail out of the weekly commitment.

Fucking college kids got no spine.  Maybe the Wild Talents mecha game will last for a while. I'm pretty enamored with the ORE system, and everyone loves robots.

So rather than calling me a noob for not doing long-term, how about some advice for keeping a game steady and keeping the world details straight for that long?