Campaigns - specifically the long term style- are intrinsically more valuable to players than short-term gaming.

There are a variety of reasons why I believe this is true:

1) All effort put into a campaign style roleplaying session is "saved". This is true of both players and GMs. If players run across an NPC in adventure session #1, and they decide they want to talk to him again in session #43, they can do that. Even if they never decide to go back, simply knowing that person exists adds value. Likewise every location visited, every single plot that takesp lace.. is saved.

2) In short term games, nothing is ever saved. You have to resestablish continuity with each game session. An unkind way of saying this is that extra effort is wasted. NPCs and plot elements become essentially disposable. Disposability leads to flimsy stories.

3) Characters in campaigns build over time. Even if you aren't using a system that allows for the characters to physically build themselves up with abilities and gear- your'e still building the character constantly. Every bit of history, every NPC they encounter.. is a form of building.
With a short term game, everything becomes disposable. See above what happens when it doesn't matter what happens.

4)  When it comes to actually getting people to show up, the system doesn't actually matter as much as the campaign itself. People don't get together to play Hoyle-rules Poker, they get together to play cards with their friends. Likewise, people don't show up at my house to play "D&D", we get together to play our own characters in our shared campaign. The story of the campaign belongs to all of us.

"Roleplaying" in the general sense is just play-acting, especially if you don't own your character, or you are just using a disposable character for one night. But playing your own character on a regular basis over time advances an idea of ownership and building.

Eric Wujcik wrote a wonderful essay on this, entitled "Love your Character" (or something similar to that).

I've got some more reasons for this.

I consider 4-8 session games (3-5 hour play-periods) to be "short games." Especially if there's only one real "adventure" involved. However, that's still 12-40 hours of play (around a full season of a TV show--maybe two) and I'm not sure how that factors into your analysis: are those "short games"? They're not "campaigns" (with multiple adventures)--but characters do develop (possibly going through a "complete arc") and information does get "saved" from session to session.

I've played 3 to 4-day game sessions where the GM was in town Thursday night and we played literally from then straight through Sunday night with about 6 hr sleep breaks (hey, we're all old and broken down)--those have been some of my most intense roleplaying experiences ever--and they produce darn good "stories" in my experience (and I mean this in terms of a very tight sequence of events with a lot of focus on some specific crisis and its resolution).

However, that's still a good 30 hours of play or something. I mean--that's not exactly "short."

So are you making a distinction between games that more or less comprise a more or less unified "goal" (i.e. the way most movies do--the characters address and resolve a single problem) vs. games that present multiple "main" arcs? Or are you talking about years-long games vs. weeks-long? Or single session vs. multiple session (which I would agree with--single session seems very, very short to me).

-Marco

Ab, I largely agree, so how about some tips for making it happen for those of us who've forgotten how to?

Balbinus: My first suggestion is "three-hour sessions, arranged weekly, same time, same place".

Weekly is important. Anything longer than that and you will lose continuity. I got this idea from watching one of the "sister" campaigns to mine- a player in my weekly group is also running a biweekly rotating game between Champions and Star Wars, and there was reported difficulty keeping up with continuity in both games as a result.

Well, actually I have a bunch of suggestions. Some of which are fairly D&D specific (Allow for levelling to occur whenever and wherever it happens, even if the characters are in the middle of an adventure) but many can be ported over to any game system ("dole out XP at the end of every session-- even if theyre in the middle of an adventure"). This keeps people invested and they keep coming back because they are invested in the building process.

One of my other suggestions is to be permissive whenever possible. I see people talking about how they hate supplements and theyre going to "limit their players" all the time (whether it's from using certain powers, or taking whatever prestige classes, or whatever else). I saw a guy saying he would NEVER allow a player to multiclass into the barbarian class, because it 'didn't make sense".

 Don't do that, unless you absolutly have to. If it's an advanatge-taker than obviously you have to moderate, but in general, if it doesn't hurt, just allow it. Let the players own the characters.

I'll put together something about it. I have no idea how useful it will be, but it's served me well.

Marcus: I suspect we're still talking about the same the campaign model, even if yours is arranged different. Yours is short sessions, compressed over a short period of time. Mine is short sessions, longer period of time. My sessions are more like 3 hours long (seriously- 7:30-10:30 PM on Thursday nights).

By the time we get to 24 hours of gameplay, it might be a "long weekend" for you, but for us it would be playing for 8 weeks. Whether I'm a GM or a player-- I like to come up with new ideas between each sessions, so I like my structure better.  I would have 8 opportunities for the story (or my character) to make a significant change, rather than just 3-4 times, condensed.  

By the way, if anyone has ever wondered why convention games normally aren't that great, and yet Living Greyhawk seems to rule any convention it appears at, it's this right here. People feel like they can build up their LG characters, even if the DM for any given session is flat out bad. There's always the next session, and nothing you achieve with your LG character is ever lost.

How do you think character progression affects your observation?  That is, do systems in which characters don't increase in power over time mechanically require campaigning to be successful?  Are they incapable of driving campaigning?  Or is progression irrelevant?

QuoteHow do you think character progression affects your observation? That is, do systems in which characters don't increase in power over time mechanically require campaigning to be successful? Are they incapable of driving campaigning? Or is progression irrelevant?

I think progression is an important feature for what I'm suggesting. Lacking that feature might be more realistic or more aesthetically pleasing for a lot of gamers (A lot of people hate levelling systems). However, levelling keeps people involved.

Don't just look at D&D as evidence. Look at every popular MMORPG ever created: City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars...

These games are created with replayability and player-investment in mind. Having levels is a concrete way of realizing progress.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDon't just look at D&D as evidence. Look at every popular MMORPG ever created: City of Heroes, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars...

These games are created with replayability and player-investment in mind. Having levels is a concrete way of realizing progress.

I tend to see MMORPGS as the ultimate refinement of the progression system.  When you distill out the idea that reward is best expressed by progression then you can simplify every other aspect of the game to the extent that a computer can GM it.  In other words, I don't see the fact that progression is well adopted by video games as evidence that it's a good idea for face to face games at all.  If anything it seems to dominate and maybe trivialise other more valuable aspects of role-playing games.

Look again at the video games: people are prepared to fight the same world-threatening big bad guy several times a week, defeating him and taking his stuff, over and over and over again without once having their suspension of disbelief remotely threatened in order to achieve progression.  Is that really a direction we want to head in?

I've got a different take. I'll just riff off the points you made with some observations of my own.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCampaigns - specifically the long term style- are intrinsically more valuable to players than short-term gaming.

There are a variety of reasons why I believe this is true:

1) All effort put into a campaign style roleplaying session is "saved". This is true of both players and GMs. If players run across an NPC in adventure session #1, and they decide they want to talk to him again in session #43, they can do that. Even if they never decide to go back, simply knowing that person exists adds value. Likewise every location visited, every single plot that takesp lace.. is saved.

This may be an advantage to long term campaigns but it really is not valuable in and of itself. A fully realized and engaging NPC whether in a short or long term campaign is what makes the "adventure" valuable to players, IME, locations etc although memorable are secondary to the events that players find themselves part of. Again it really does not matter if it's a long or short term game.

Quote2) In short term games, nothing is ever saved. You have to resestablish continuity with each game session. An unkind way of saying this is that extra effort is wasted. NPCs and plot elements become essentially disposable. Disposability leads to flimsy stories.

IMO players who are not invested in the game/characters leads to filmsy stories. Granted what's filmsy depends on taste, but I don't think the duration of a campaign directly contributes to filmsy stories...what contributes to it is player/GM apathy.

Quote3) Characters in campaigns build over time. Even if you aren't using a system that allows for the characters to physically build themselves up with abilities and gear- your'e still building the character constantly. Every bit of history, every NPC they encounter.. is a form of building.

Well here I think that players need a couple of sessions to "get" into character. I don't think that it's necessary for characters to development over time.

What I do think is needed is that the campaign has a beginning and end. The character starts out one way and may change by the end of the campaign.

QuoteWith a short term game, everything becomes disposable. See above what happens when it doesn't matter what happens.

As long as players "care" about what's going on , nothing is ever disposable. it's the "quality" of the play experience not how long you are playing

Quote4)  When it comes to actually getting people to show up, the system doesn't actually matter as much as the campaign itself. People don't get together to play Hoyle-rules Poker, they get together to play cards with their friends. Likewise, people don't show up at my house to play "D&D", we get together to play our own characters in our shared campaign. The story of the campaign belongs to all of us.

*shrug* I remember having this discusiioon with you before. My views have not really changed

Quote"Roleplaying" in the general sense is just play-acting, especially if you don't own your character, or you are just using a disposable character for one night. But playing your own character on a regular basis over time advances an idea of ownership and building.

Again my experience is different. My approach to roleplaying is that it happens when players are confronted with conflicts and they react in a way they think their characters would do. So it really does not matter if it's short or long term.

Long term campaigns have the advanatge of creating interesting arcs for their charcters or it could be that the players lose interest in their characters...it just so depends.

Regards,
David R

I don't have the time or energy for weekly play.  I find running every other week to be quite adequate, as long as the sessions themselves are fairly episodic in format.

I agree with David R (surprise).

Both long term and short term games have a variety of advantages and disadvantages.  Two things make me gravitate more towards short term games.

1. People are always getting new jobs, moving, having kids, and otherwise undergoing change such that it's tough to keep a group of five or so people together through a lengthy campaign.  Shorter games eliminate this problem.

2. Shorter games mean I get to play a greater variety of games.  This is very valuable to me and I love learning a new game and sharing it with my friends.

Quote from: jrientsI don't have the time or energy for weekly play.  I find running every other week to be quite adequate, as long as the sessions themselves are fairly episodic in format.

I'm not sure I would have the time for weekly play also...Jeff, since you play biweekly?, how long do you play for?

A question to genpop (watching too much Prison Break):

Is  one 3 hour session/week = one 6hr bi-weekly session?

Quote from: HalfjackI tend to see MMORPGS as the ultimate refinement of the progression system.  When you distill out the idea that reward is best expressed by progression then you can simplify every other aspect of the game to the extent that a computer can GM it.  In other words, I don't see the fact that progression is well adopted by video games as evidence that it's a good idea for face to face games at all.  If anything it seems to dominate and maybe trivialise other more valuable aspects of role-playing games.

Look again at the video games: people are prepared to fight the same world-threatening big bad guy several times a week, defeating him and taking his stuff, over and over and over again without once having their suspension of disbelief remotely threatened in order to achieve progression.  Is that really a direction we want to head in?

I say this doesn't apply -- thats another topic entirely, and in any case, isn't true. From my experience with many MMOrpgs, there isn't a lot of quest-replay. (You can do a quest once usually). Even in more competitive systems such as Guild Wars, you only get credit for something once. You can re-run a quest for loot, (or more likely, to help your friends or guildmates).. but thats it.

The fact that quests and missions in an MMO are static is one of the downfalls of MMOs, and should be treated as an opportunity. It's a huge advantage for tabletop gaming.

I've got my long-term games, which I love (and I try to schedule weekly for continuity and involvement), and I quite prefer long-term campaigns in which to develop storylines with my players.  
 
That said, I do have favorite games for one-shots.  Risus Traveller (hell, Risus anything), Paranoia, Squirrel Attack!, and FATE all work pretty well for me to do one-shots and beer n' pretzels-style games.  Engle Matrix games by Hamster Press are a good quick "pre-game" game, and are plugged as such (I really need to finish those reviews I'm working on, btw).  They're a fun mix between an RPG and a murder mystery game, is how I'd put it.

Quote from: David RThis may be an advantage to long term campaigns but it really is not valuable in and of itself. A fully realized and engaging NPC whether in a short or long term campaign is what makes the "adventure" valuable to players, IME, locations etc although memorable are secondary to the events that players find themselves part of. Again it really does not matter if it's a long or short term game.

WRONG! Players are not playing to witness anyones portrayal of "fully realized and engaging NPCs." The value is in having met that NPC person at all. Whether the guy is fully realized or engaging or just bland doesn't make much of a difference-- gaming is not fine wine. Players need to know NPCs as resources first.

QuoteIMO players who are not invested in the game/characters leads to filmsy stories. Granted what's filmsy depends on taste, but I don't think the duration of a campaign directly contributes to filmsy stories...what contributes to it is player/GM apathy.

Ok, I don't normally correct spelling, but in this case, I feel I should because we may be talking about two different things. "Flimsy" not "filmsy". Flimsy as in "disposable". Not "filmsy" as in.. "like a .. film?" Hopefully we were actually talking about the same thing.

In any case... I'm not talking about duration of a campaign in the past tense here. I'm talking about duration in the present tense. If you know a campaign will still be going on every week for the next year, players will have their characters act differently than if they know it's over with at the end of the evening. The difference is investment.

And the whole thing about apathy is the reason for this exact post.

 I have never had my campaign suffer from player apathy. I am not unique, either. Most long-term campaign GMs are like me. Our campaigns run for months and years. Our players show up on time or early, character sheets in hand. When we start a new campaign, we often have to turn away people.  There's a lady near me who had a several-years-long Fudge Deryni campaign that was so overcrowded, you could only join it if you played an existing NPC.

I dunno whether my group is unusual in this regard, but we (almost without exception) play long campaigns and limit one shots to our annual 48 hour rpg extravaganza. We have fun bar-room brawls, one shot adventures and try out new systems then. If we like a system, then we may start a campaign further down the line with it, time willing.

Thing is, we don't take one shots seriously. If it's a one shot (or rarely 2 or 3 sessions), we know our actions will have limited repercussions - short term ones. If it's a one shot, we don't play like we would in a longer campaign, knowing that it's 'superficial'. I use that word reluctantly, because i don't want to piss off people who like short campaigns or one shots - so, a qualifier there is that we see it as superficial. What if Smallville had been 3 episodes long? Heroes? Dr.Who? You could have a satisfying story told, but characterisation and the reasons for that characterisation would be more superficial than those running through, for example, a 22 (or 13) episode run.