I voted based on my previous campaign, which was Rolemaster, 54 sessions. Started at level 4, finished around levels 13 - 17, over around 2.5 years.

However, I didn't read the instructions properly, and I should possibly have voted 6 - 10, based on the current, ongoing Traveller game that we have moved on to.

Edit: I was able to remove my vote, and changed it to 6 - 10.

Anyone else find it weird that nobody has selected 16-20?

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 08, 2021, 03:04:49 AM
Anyone else find it weird that nobody has selected 16-20?

Not really.

First, its a relatively small sample size and you'll get statistical oddities more often the smaller your sample is.

Second, I think the numbers bear out fairly well with certain breakpoints I've experienced myself.

Based on the data, roughly a third of campaigns die is less than a dozen sessions. Based on anecdotal evidence I'd have guess more like half end that quickly, but I'd buy a third of them.

This is basically the "initial buy-in" period. Campaigns fall apart because the players just don't gel or the premise isn't nearly as fun as people were expecting or the scheduling you thought would work just doesn't. Its basically death in "infancy/childhood" for Campaigns.

You then get a pretty sizable jump to 21-30 and that's almost 20% of the total... its basically your "mid-life crisis" of campaigns. Its probably been running every other week for about a year and you've probably reached a natural breaking point in terms of the starting plots and elements having reached natural conclusions (ex. the first Big Bad has finally been dealt with, the kingdom saved from the invasion, etc.).

That's a natural point for people to start thinking about taking a break to try something fresh or just recharge the batteries... and then it never gets picked up again because the game you use to take a break takes off or schedules have shifted enough that it's a hassle to continue now that there's a natural endpoint, etc.

The final bump on the graph is 51+; basically you've survived the initial hiccups and resolved your first major arcs and are still interested in continuing. It'll end at some point, but everyone's invested enough to keep it going until something comes along to seriously disrupt it.

Insightful, Chris.

For what it's worth, I see the same in my gym membership - where the pay for 3 month terms - except there's more at the bottom. That is, lots of people come for a term, but fizzle out with poor attendance. They're just not that interested. And then there's a bunch who've come for years and years. Not many people do it 6 or 9 months then quit.

I'm not quite sure how many sessions my last campaign was, but we played for just over a year on a weekly basis, but missed several due to life things, so I said 41-50.

The one I'm currently running is only three sessions in, and will probably go for a similar amount of time, assuming it doesn't die.

3 sessions for a mini campaign in February of this year. That died because I couldn't deal with VTT gaming any more, with all the extra work it required. (Frankly, over the past 15 months I grew to loathe VTT gaming, which amounted to some of the worst gaming I've experienced in the past 40 years. If I ever, God forbid, go through the same experience again - where I'm locked-down and basically forced to play VTT - I'll just scrap Rpging for the time-being and focus on other hobbies).

My gaming over the past 14 years has varied quite a bit - starting with weekly gaming where campaigns lasted 20-24 sessions; transitioning to twice/month gaming where you'd get 8-12 sessions of a campaign in; and then arriving at monthly gaming, where you struggle to get 4-6 sessions in.

Frequency of play is always the barrier these days. Not initial player buy-in or some failure in campaign premise. If you're playing monthly, there is an unspoken pressure to wrap a campaign in a short number of sessions. To get to the fucking point quickly and hit a resolution. Otherwise, it seems inevitable that players forget WTH is going on; what happened 2 sessions ago; and a natural disconnect occurs after 6 or 7 months go by.

Greetings!

I selected 51+ for my current campaign duration. Two different campaigns, every week, or every other week for one of them on occasion. I've been fortunate to have enthusiastic, dedicated players. Most campaigns I have run have endured for years.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: K Peterson on July 08, 2021, 11:29:58 PMover the past 15 months I grew to loathe VTT gaming, which amounted to some of the worst gaming I've experienced in the past 40 years.

What made it so awful?

One of my campaigns has been running about once a week for well over 8 years now.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 09, 2021, 01:10:41 AMWhat made it so awful?

There are a number of factors, both on the player and GM side of the experience.

• Acquiring and maintaining attention and involvement is more difficult over VTT than in face-to-face gaming, where you can use eye contact to keep people focused and engaged with the session. If the GM has a bad day; or there are delays waiting your turn for initiative; or you're playing a system with higher complexity, players can drift off. And with your PC or laptop at your disposal during the slow periods of play that it's even easier to find something to be distracted by. You can employ some methods as a GM to keep players on-task and involved - like music, or map effects, but that's more work for the GM you're adding to his work.


• Some benefits of VTTs is integration between online character sheets and play, the ability to buy off-the-shelf modules and run them, and having specific tokens for specific games. But if you don't run a popular, supported game system the workload is on you, as the GM, to build out and develop the experience. You don't have to go to this extent, but it can possibly speed up gameplay. It is all added work, though, whether you front-load or back-load(?) it into the session.


• I'm not a fan of online work meetings in general, and VTT play can often feel like a really long work meeting. Wearing headphones w/ mic for 5 or 6 hours (otherwise the sound can get shitty); someone not muting themselves when they have background noise; people talking over one another; eye-strain looking at your desktop/laptop for 5 to 6 hours; technical troubles that prevent a player from joining, or having them drop out mid-session. In one session, I had a player fall asleep the last 1/2 hour of the session, while he was still on camera and unmuted (I've not experienced that with a work meeting, fortunately).

All of these factors are not awful individually. But when you add them all up together - and they're present for nearly every session - it becomes exhausting, frustrating, and more of a PITA than it's worth to play over VTT. At least in my experience.

I put quite a lot of time into prepping my campaigns. Developing NPCs, defining encounters, thinking about cause and effect, putting together maps, writing up player aids. Sometimes I might have a campaign concept around for 6 months, that I tinker with, before it reaches the gaming table. VTT play adds an extra layer of work on top of that - and it feels like it's work enough just running Rpgs. So, when I have to work harder to present the same 'level' of experience I start to resent and loathe it.

My current 5e campaign has been running for about 15 months so I did 20-24 sessions. It is on Roll20, we only play for about 2 hours at a time. I find I tire much quicker DMing/playing VTT. But we do play 3 to 4 times a month. We will be wrapping up around September of this year. Then doing a 5e Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, with new PCs.

I just started a ftf 2e Brithright campaign with my old gaming group, we are 2 sessions in playing twice a month. Back in the 90s we did a 2e Forgotten Realms campaign that lasted about 3 years and we played 2 or 3 times a week. The PCs made to around 18th level. Those were the days!

I am also playing as a PC in another 5e VTT Foundry campaign that is been going for about 2 years now. It started as a FTF then covid moved it to Roll20 and then Foundry.

Now I just need a DCC game and I will be set.

Quote from: K Peterson on July 09, 2021, 10:21:55 AM
There are a number of factors, both on the player and GM side of the experience.

Thanks, very interesting, and I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience. It seems to me a lot of what you mentioned could be mitigated by shorter sessions. Because of work and family commitments, both our in-person and online sessions in the last few years have tended to be shorter - like Wednesdays 1900-2200, that sort of thing. As well, having an open game table means people aren't all bosom buddies, so they tend to focus on the game a bit more - you get more gaming action in 3 hours with a mix of friends and strangers than you do in 6 hours with friends.

In-person will always be better than online, of course.