Campaign too long, holding interest etc?

[Jarmen4u]

Hey gitp, it's been a while. I've been running a campaign for about 4-5 months now, and I recently came into contact with a would-be player/friend who had to drop out when I was about to start running. When I told him I was still running the same campaign, he gave me a hard time about it saying that that's too long and he would have lost interest ages ago.

This made me start thinking, as I play over roll20 and it's sometimes hard to gauge my players' excitement, mood, and enjoyment of the game. I had an epic length story planned out (they started at 5th level, currently 9th almost 10th and I hope to get them to at least 15th if not higher), most likely ending in drama between deities. They have quite a ways to go, as they're only just starting to realize that there's a bigger picture causing all the things they've experienced so far.

I guess my question is, how long is "too long" for a campaign in your opinion? And how can I as a new DM (this is my first real game) gauge interest and try to keep my game immersive and interesting? I've tried the age-old "just ask your players" but I get a lot of generic "yeah I liked it" and "those NPCs were stupid" feedback, nothing that I can really use. I've requested more specific answers, but they don't have any. What to do?

[Belzyk]

Ummm idk but I could easily play every weekend for years on the same game without being bored. But that's me. It would all depend on the group

[Talion]

On the whole, how much time it takes for a campaign to become 'too long' is highly subjective. The group I play with has trouble keeping campaigns together, for one reason or another, but still enjoy prolonged campaigns. I think the longest we had went on for about a year, with at least one meeting a week. Most others (that aren't one-shots) usually last a couple months before something happens and we move into a new campaign. This can be disappointing for some, who were enjoying their characters and the plot, and a good relief for others who weren't as invested. In a way, it lets everyone get a chance to play something they want. Whether they dedicate themselves to that game after it starts is another matter entirely.

If I were invested in a campaign, and my character, I would absolutely love to play in a game that goes on for a year again. However, depending on how things go, I might not want to go too much more beyond that. For me, it comes down to "Has my character been thoroughly explored, had a chance to grow, and participated meaningfully in the plot". I'm willing to retire a character/campaign if I feel my character would retire. In short, I don't care much for stories that never end, but it must also be long enough to satisfy my needs as a player.

[Aegis013]

Do the players show up for all the sessions on time? Do they let you know ahead of time if they won't? Are they roleplaying their characters (for this one, keep in mind each player has a different level of skill in this area) and trying to deal with the situation in the game at hand?

If all of these are yes, your players are still interested.

I've also gotten that same kind of feedback from my players in most of the game sessions I run. Things like "Yeah, I liked it" just means, "Keep up the good work" and "Those NPCs were stupid" means either the player didn't understand why the NPC acted that way (and if it's not going to reveal anything important, it can be a good thing to explain the motivations that caused the NPC to act that way), or it can mean they didn't enjoy dealing with those NPCs, which could mean they're presence was annoying or boring.


As far as too long for me, it's not really about the total length of the game, it's more about the progression rate for the characters. It looks like you're getting a level up every 5 sessions or so. If the story, roleplay, and game are good enough and if there is enough then that's fine, but it can be frustrating to play for a month and have my toolset not expand. This expansion could happen in a number of ways though; through leveling up and gaining new abilities, through completing tasks and gaining influence in the game, or through finding magical items which provide new capabilities (preferable to just more numbers).

[Jarmen4u]

Do the players show up for all the sessions on time? Do they let you know ahead of time if they won't? Are they roleplaying their characters (for this one, keep in mind each player has a different level of skill in this area) and trying to deal with the situation in the game at hand?

If all of these are yes, your players are still interested.

Unless there's an issue, the players always make it, and they give me a heads up if not. Eh, for the most part roleplaying is done. There are a few issues with one player (hence the NPC bashing), but for the most part it's passable. I've had to ban alcohol as a couple players have shown up drunk and made it difficult to play.


I've also gotten that same kind of feedback from my players in most of the game sessions I run. Things like "Yeah, I liked it" just means, "Keep up the good work" and "Those NPCs were stupid" means either the player didn't understand why the NPC acted that way (and if it's not going to reveal anything important, it can be a good thing to explain the motivations that caused the NPC to act that way), or it can mean they didn't enjoy dealing with those NPCs, which could mean they're presence was annoying or boring.

Yeah, like I said above, the guy complaining about the NPCs seemed to take it personally when they don't tell him what he wants to know, or if he gets ignored (in the case of a fervently praying woman and him asking "hey do you have a minute" with no response, immediately replying with "welp she doesn't want to talk, let's leave this is dumb")


As far as too long for me, it's not really about the total length of the game, it's more about the progression rate for the characters. It looks like you're getting a level up every 5 sessions or so. If the story, roleplay, and game are good enough and if there is enough then that's fine, but it can be frustrating to play for a month and have my toolset not expand. This expansion could happen in a number of ways though; through leveling up and gaining new abilities, through completing tasks and gaining influence in the game, or through finding magical items which provide new capabilities (preferable to just more numbers).

Yeah, I agree. I gave each player of the original cast a custom legacy weapon to give them different perks and abilities as they level to complement their characters. (Our monk worships a ferret deity so his legacy quarterstaff can shapeshift into an awakened ferret that speaks Common. He hasn't abused this yet as it's kind of a joke item to him.)

I guess one of my main concerns also is this: we had a player missing a couple weeks ago, but everyone wanted to still play. Since there was an important plot point coming up, I didn't want to play it out while he was absent so I gave them a module sidequest. After the first session, the one player (who often complains about NPCs and other things) said he really enjoyed the structure of the module a lot more than my sessions, which kind of bummed me out. It's hard to figure out what this guy wants. (As an aside, I recall him pulling me aside recently and admitting that he's used to playing with DMs that pander to him and his character and make him feel special. I don't know how to deal with that I guess.)

[Dusk Raven]

Personally, I don't go into a campaign with the expectation that it will take less than a year. Assuming it's actually going to be good, or is not specifically stated to be a oneshot. Campaigns, in my experience, tend to take a while.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever actually finished a non-oneshot campaign, even the good ones, so that may tell you something about my experiences and whether or not to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Other than that problem player (who you seem to be showing more patience than I would), though, I'd say your group is probably... okay? Could have potential.

[Florian]

So far, I've only been in a few campaigns where I'd say "too long". Come to think of it, the make it or break it part was always how quick campaign fatigue sets in and when to whole thing turn from fun to chore.

Some years back, I was player in a more political/conspiracy kind of game and the action didn't move forward, while the relationship map grew and grew. We collectivelly reached the point that we deemed the whole thing to simply take too long, too many fractions to interact with, too many clues and social traps to blunder into. We had a serious talk with the gm about that and had to say "quit" when he explained that after one year of biweekly gaming, we're still at the start of the campaign.

[Magikeeper]

Long ago I ran 52 8 hour-ish weekly sessions, plus a few player-ran sessions playing out backstories and such for when I couldn't make it. The players would have been on board with me running the game indefinitely, as far as I could tell, but I just didn't have the time to DM anymore and the group had reached a good point to shelve that game for the time being (alas, with one player moving far away and another being dead in RL, both of them major plot movers, the game will never be resumed).

I also played in a game that went on for several years, usually meeting once a week for 4-6 hours. We had then paused for a few months, but were going to resume with several players being excited about it. Unfortunately, the DM died :(. (DM same as the aformentioned player)

I've heard of groups playing the same game for over a decade, and others that switch games every few weeks. It really depends on your play group.

----

I'd note, though, that my game was fast-paced plot wise and the other multi-year game had things progressing (albiet kinda slowly). Actually accomplishing things, moving the plot forward, etc is important and games that don't meet as often really need to get more done each session.

[charcoalninja]

Hey gitp, it's been a while. I've been running a campaign for about 4-5 months now, and I recently came into contact with a would-be player/friend who had to drop out when I was about to start running. When I told him I was still running the same campaign, he gave me a hard time about it saying that that's too long and he would have lost interest ages ago.

This made me start thinking, as I play over roll20 and it's sometimes hard to gauge my players' excitement, mood, and enjoyment of the game. I had an epic length story planned out (they started at 5th level, currently 9th almost 10th and I hope to get them to at least 15th if not higher), most likely ending in drama between deities. They have quite a ways to go, as they're only just starting to realize that there's a bigger picture causing all the things they've experienced so far.

I guess my question is, how long is "too long" for a campaign in your opinion? And how can I as a new DM (this is my first real game) gauge interest and try to keep my game immersive and interesting? I've tried the age-old "just ask your players" but I get a lot of generic "yeah I liked it" and "those NPCs were stupid" feedback, nothing that I can really use. I've requested more specific answers, but they don't have any. What to do?

No such thing as too long. I've ran campaigns spanning years (my current PF one is in year 4. The characters have gone from level 1 to 7 / Mythic 1, on a story based advancement slowed schedule so they didn't outlevel the story too fast) and only end games when the story stops or real life screws it up.

Edit: to add advice, you can gage by how much rp you're seeing occur with supporting characters and how into winning the combats they are. Essentially, how much do they play the game. If they ask about this character or that, make plans to expand their relationships and partnerships with NPCs and the world then all is well.

[Magikeeper]

Edit: to add advice, you can gage by how much rp you're seeing occur with supporting characters and how into winning the combats they are. Essentially, how much do they play the game. If they ask about this character or that, make plans to expand their relationships and partnerships with NPCs and the world then all is well.

Oh yeah, this is good advice. I'd throw in "making long-term IC plans in general" as another sign of interest. I'll also note a lack of one or more of those things is not necessarily a sign of disinterest. Although if a player is at all interested in your campaign (as opposed to just playing any campaign) they should care about something going on in the game.

[Broken Crown]

Hey gitp, it's been a while. I've been running a campaign for about 4-5 months now, and I recently came into contact with a would-be player/friend who had to drop out when I was about to start running. When I told him I was still running the same campaign, he gave me a hard time about it saying that that's too long and he would have lost interest ages ago.

So, the players who are actually in your campaign are still attending consistently and enthusiastically? Meanwhile, this one guy who's never played in your campaign is complaining that it's gone on too long?

Who, in your opinion, is better equipped to make an educated judgement on that question?

As others have said, campaigns don't have a fixed expiry date. Some can last for decades. Others die out after a few sessions. If yours is still going strong, by all means keep it going until you feel it's done.

Personally, in campaigns that I left because I lost interest, it happened almost immediately: I figured out pretty quickly that it wasn't a game I was enjoying. If you've been running regularly for five months and your players are still eager to play, it sounds as though your game is still a success.

[Jarmen4u]

Hey all, I just got off work, and I really appreciate the feedback. To address a few points, I'm working on trying to get the players to immerse themselves a bit more in their characters, as a lot of the roleplay turns into rehashed running jokes and little else. A couple of the characters have in-game goals (the monk is on a quest to complete 100 good deeds on behalf of his ferret god in order to meet him one day, for example), which I appreciate and adds to the game world. I understand the bits about plot moving a bit slow as well; I noticed that a few weeks ago, and plan on speeding things up a little since they're running low on leads. Time to drop the first main plot-bomb.

[Aegis013]

....Yeah, like I said above, the guy complaining about the NPCs seemed to take it personally when they don't tell him what he wants to know, or if he gets ignored (in the case of a fervently praying woman and him asking "hey do you have a minute" with no response, immediately replying with "welp she doesn't want to talk, let's leave this is dumb")

Ah, this first one could be what a friend of mine dubbed "man with bag on head dilemma", which has a better name, but I forget what it is. The issue is where the DM is describing a normal hamlet, and then briefly mentions a hobo with a bag on his head sitting in an alley during the description. Since the hobo with the bag on his head is the most interesting thing in the description, the players latch onto it and begin asking the hobo questions and trying to figure out how he's important. The thing is, he never was important; the DM mentioned him to add flavor, so now the DM has to wing it, and try to make this something interesting, or just have the hobo give rather boring responses until the players catch on that he isn't important. That second option can be a disappointing experience for players. It could've been the player thought the praying woman might be a cleric or some other church figure who could provide information or aid.

Alternatively, it could be the "NPCs are never useful" dilemma I've encountered in specific games, where you quickly reach a point where you think speaking to NPCs is a waste of time because they either know nothing (including about the thing in which they're supposed to be skilled) and can't possibly help, or they're actively trying to sabotage you (even when that's entirely contrary to their own interests). When this happened to me, it was after numerous attempts to get information from NPCs, e.g. trying to slickly gather intel on a facility we were trying to infiltrate by using social skills to convince ranking workers from the facility to let me buy them drinks, getting them drunk, and trying to get info out of them. I had run my plan by the party, asked if anybody had better ideas, so the DM had at least 10-15 minutes of us discussing this course of action, followed by 10-15 minutes of me following through on my plan. The result? 30 minutes wasted, all checks successful, but NPC knew nothing about his own job or workplace. I went ahead and let the DM know if the plan is doomed to fail because the NPC knows nothing, please just let me know up front so we can save the half hour we wasted in the future.


Yeah, I agree. I gave each player of the original cast a custom legacy weapon to give them different perks and abilities as they level to complement their characters. (Our monk worships a ferret deity so his legacy quarterstaff can shapeshift into an awakened ferret that speaks Common. He hasn't abused this yet as it's kind of a joke item to him.)

That can work, but personally, I'd think it's better to have it attached to character development or milestones they achieve other than levels. When you level up, you tend to get new class features, or feats, which expand the toolset already. That's just my personal opinion though, and if the players seem happy with it more power to you.


I guess one of my main concerns also is this: we had a player missing a couple weeks ago, but everyone wanted to still play. Since there was an important plot point coming up, I didn't want to play it out while he was absent so I gave them a module sidequest. After the first session, the one player (who often complains about NPCs and other things) said he really enjoyed the structure of the module a lot more than my sessions, which kind of bummed me out. It's hard to figure out what this guy wants. (As an aside, I recall him pulling me aside recently and admitting that he's used to playing with DMs that pander to him and his character and make him feel special. I don't know how to deal with that I guess.)

It's not bad to make him feel special or pander to players to a degree, as long as it's done roughly evenly among all players. After all, a lot of us play to be the big damn heroes. We want to feel like our characters are special and important.

The easiest step to find out what the player wants would be to ask the player what he wants, or at least what about the module particularly was more enjoyable.
If he can't provide a clear answer the best bet is consider what might have been the difference between the module and your normal sessions. Was the goal more straightforward? Were the treasures more interesting? Was there more hack'n'slash and less intrigue? Vice versa? Was it merely easier? Did he feel like he actually impacted the game world in a more meaningful way? (where maybe in the normal sessions he may have only uncovered more about the plot rather than impacting/changing/directing it)

[Harlot]

I am quite new as a DM too, currently preparing my second campaig. My first campaign was very long, running about a year.There were no complaints from any of the players.
As a player I appreciate the effort. I'd rather play a loooong, complex, evolving campaign that playing short dungeoncrawls.
Also, as stated by others in this thread, if the players show up for every session and actively participate, thats a good sign. And the player who decided to opt out might be a player who explicitly does not like longer stretches of playing D&D.

If I were you I'd simply tell the remaining players directly that I'd planned a campaign to lvl. 15 ish, and ask them if they have anything against that. If they don't, play on. If they do, change plans.

[NichG]

The signs of a campaign going too long are when things stop being meaningful and the players start to become jaded and meta. There's some point where sessions become sort of filler, rather than making progress towards a goal that everyone at the table at least understands. Once you lose sight of how each session can contribute towards reaching that goal, it makes sense to either end the campaign or to have a sort of gap or delimiter to make the separation between the previous plotline and the next plotline more clear.

For example, the PCs have just foiled the villain that has been plaguing them for 30 games, but the villain escaped and starts yet another scheme. If this happens over and over, it's going to start to feel like the PCs can't actually make progress towards the goal of changing the status quo in the situation, even if they have victories along the way. One way to help with that feeling is to make a clean break - once the PCs foil the villain, you don't immediately say 'okay, now its the day after you foiled him, what do you do/a messenger arrives about a city in trouble/etc' - instead, you have a 5 year break or something, and then have the circumstances afterwards be very fresh and different than what the players had just been doing; almost like you ended the campaign and started a new one with the same characters.

Even that will get old at some point of course.

[Yahzi]

too long
For a good sandbox campaign, there is no such thing as too long.

For a railroady DM's clever plot adventure, there is no such thing as too short...

For campaigns in-between (as most are), just average the two results.

Seriously, what I can tell you is that player engagement is about emotional engagement. The secret to making them care about their characters and your world is making them care about NPCs in your world. You do this by ignoring the advice found in the original D&D books which told you to make every NPC an adversary or competitor; instead, give your players NPC family, friends, partners, dependents, and bosses.


I've tried the age-old "just ask your players" but I get a lot of generic "yeah I liked it" and "those NPCs were stupid" feedback, nothing that I can really use
Major corporations spend a lot of time and money trying to get customer feedback, and they get pretty much the same response. Consumers just don't think it's their job to tell you how to improve your product. Ungrateful wretches!

As long as your players show up on time and are engaged in the game, you're doing fine. As for improving, just think about what you liked when you were a player. Also, lots of trial and error.

[Florian]

I think there's something to what NichG wrote.

In a certain sense, 4Es three tier approach does exactly that. You complete one story arc, then ramp on the odds when you progress to the next tier.
So, setting clear goals with a trackable progress to reqch them keeps the game going and the motivation up.

Example: Ok, we beat the Orc invasion. Now we know that the Giants are behind that and there's a nebulous Drow connection. Let's celebrate the victory a bit and then move on to confront the greater threat.

It gives a sense of accomplishment and relevance of actions and choices.

@Yahzi:

I do enjoy a little hex crawling now and then, but I have to disagree with you a bit (yes, sophistry). Even in the most wide open sandbox, if a player formulates a goal and wants to see it through, you'll switch to "story mode" and then stuff can be too long when you don't accomplish anything.

The classic example would be a Paladin who sets out to find a holy avenger.

[NapazTrix]

For a good sandbox campaign, there is no such thing as too long.

For a railroady DM's clever plot adventure, there is no such thing as too short...

For campaigns in-between (as most are), just average the two results.



I am currently running a "Sandbox" / "Open World" / "Map you can do whatevs in" where there is an overarching story, plot points and an impending war where the players are foreigners and can interact whatever way they like, going for 20 weeks now with 1 session per week. Players have pretty much stuck with it and no complaints really, I've gotten several responses saying they loved the campaign and no mention about length.

I also had a more rail-roaded campaign set in an online world with offline world interaction (Persona meets .Hack) that lasted 34 weeks with 1 session per week, with no complaints to time or anything.

If you make it interesting, throw in new enemies and ideas I think the party will stick with it. I have lost players in the past but they normally have to leave due to real world problems, new work, moving etc so I think length can come into play when people need to go back to school, or change work times.
For example my players were talking about this meme Moonmoon, a wolf or something, so when a spell failed on a summoned wolf it turned into a Gnoll that became a cohort by the name of MoonMarn, who also brought out a guitar whenever the Bard played music above 30, the Elasmosaurus the druid had also brought out a piano.


If you think you're doing something wrong or think the players didn't like something, set up a Google Form or online survey, put in questions like "Do you like the NPCs" "Do you like the setting" "Do you like the length of the game so far" etc to get feedback, maybe offer some xp if they fill it in. I've done it several times and I've had some advice that helped improve the game several times like more varied traps/puzzles or balancing out one of the party members.

[hymer]

I guess my question is, how long is "too long" for a campaign in your opinion?

If it seems to me a campaign is too long, it wouldn't be because of the actual duration. It'd be one or more other issues making me wish the campaign would end. The longer the campaign lasts, the more you've got invested in it and the characters, the better, IMO.

[prufock]

I've been running the same campaign for quite a while. The players are still enjoying their character, the setting, and the plot. It's gone from level 1 to 16, and I plan to end it at level 21. It's been almost 4 years off and on.

I think the key to it's success is the off and on bit. We take breaks to do something else every few months. This way you can create the plot in stages, with a different arc each time. I find that 10-20 sessions is enough for an arc, depending on how things go.

End the "episode" at a logical place where the players accomplish something big, but are aware of something even bigger on the horizon. For example, when I ended part 3, the players had managed to defeat some main baddies, stop some planar anomalies, and recover their robot friend to get repaired. They had won the battle.

However, they also were informed of more planar anomalies and an impending war coming to their kingdom. We took a break for several months, but the players wanted to come back because there was more to do.

So take a break, OP. Let the players have a big win, give them information that lets them know there's something else big in the offing, and go do something else. If you love something, set it free; if they want to continue the game, they'll want to come back to it.

Another bit of advice: don't plan games for such a long term. Have smaller goals that can connect later to part of a bigger plan.