What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
Good players committed to a lengthy campaign.
And it is a commitment. A casual crew who miss sessions, bounce in and out, etc aren't good for long campaigns.
A long campaign needs players who say "yes, I will show up X sessions per month for the next year or two and play this one game every time."
Location, location, location! A setting that everyone likes, wants to develop and use. One that makes whatever system being used less of a concern.
I don't know that there is a one-size fits all, but these two stand out for me:
I think an important thing is that the GM know how to adapt to developments that could shorten the length of the campaign. Those could be plot elements but also they could be on the player end (i.e. changes in the player line-up, changes in player interests and attitudes, etc). Being able to react to that is important.
Organization is also really easy to overlook, but a very basic step in keeping things going for a long haul campaign. If you don't know which NPCs are dead or alive, for example, that can be a big problem. So tracking your NPCs, events and political changes in the setting, etc.
A DM that can keep track and keep the energy going week after week. And as I said in the other thread engagewith what the players bring.
I can be the commited player. I run out of steam after about a month of DMing. Its a great month but after that the energy of planning the event, plotting the adventure, and playing the damn thing, wear me out, I'm still having fun, but its just not as good. Some times I forget things. Sometimes I don't wrangle my players in time and we never get together.
I work with in my limitations and I am trying to expand them. But a DM with the focus and commitment is essicential.
After that 1 committed player (more is obviously better.)
Then compatible scheadules.
Then a place to play.
Simple physical stuff.
My generic high-level answer is it's whether there are players who are eager to play that campaign with that GM, enough that they choose to keep showing up for it despite the other things (whether other games or non-game stuff) they could spend their time/energy on.
I'm opposite SpinachCat. I need players that are willing to deal with the reality shifts and compromises that results when people inevitably miss. My schedule will never allow for a set thing.
For all my practical purposes, a system that allows some mechanical character growth is a must. I can see how with the right set of players, that's not necessary, but I think I'm too set in my ways now to change on that front. When I play a game with characters that stay much the same, I generally want it to be short. (Though it need not be a lot of growth, just some. A high level Fantasy Hero game where a point gained here or there hardly made a difference is still fine.) More generally, I would state that as: "Use a system that supports mechanical growth OR have players that don't care about mechanical growth."
The players need to get along, and not just in the "we are here to game for two hours, set aside out differences" mode, either. It needs to be either genuine group chemistry or a firm, enforced desire to keep it all focused on the game instead of personalities.
The GM needs mental stamina. There are a 100 ways for the GM to give out, and all of them have to be either managed or not relevant to this group.
Commitment on the part of all involved is absolutely essential, yes.
Players.
Everything else is just a plus. You can have everything else but without committed players the campaing will not go very far.
People
Snacks
Setting
System
(and Time - a regular schedule is essential)
Off the top of my head,
In Game:
Motivation for the characters
Consequences for their actions
A fear of actual loss or death
A sense of mystery
Balance of in-character dialog with action
Outside the game:
Players allowing their characters to suffer adversity
Abandonment of electronic devices whilst playing
Dedicated attendence
Trusting the GM
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
- Players and GM enjoy the game
- GM who is flexible with plots, events and scenarios
- Players who buy into keeping the campaign going
- Several distinct/interconnecting plot lines
- NPCs who regularly interact with PCs
- PC Goals being part of the campaign
- PC/Campaign Goals that can be reached
- Actions have consequences
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
Motivated players + a system and campaign world I dont get bored by after 3 sessions. Generally some IP that I can fully be fully immersed in through other media like litterature, comics, video games etc to keep my interest and motivation going.
Referee
Player group (playing with whoever comes is possible)
Setting that is actually fun and engaging
A system that doesn't suck when used over and over
Dice
Snacks
Beverages.
Beyond committed players, I think the GM needs to have a broad vision of what he wants his campaign to be.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007468Beyond committed players, I think the GM needs to have a broad vision of what he wants his campaign to be.
Can you give an example, perhaps using your Dark Albion campaign?
What was your vision, and how turned it out - did the players (in-game or out-of-game) actions change "what the campaign was to be"?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
Players that role-play. Not act. Not story-tell. Not larp. Not voice-act. Just role-play. Anything less that that at the table means suck-ass game sessions.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;1007496Can you give an example, perhaps using your Dark Albion campaign?
What was your vision, and how turned it out - did the players (in-game or out-of-game) actions change "what the campaign was to be"?
Sure. With the example of Dark Albion, I had an initial vision of playing out a fantasy version of the War of the Roses, that would start in 1454 and end in 1485. Adventures would vary between more standard adventuring and high-politics RP-centric (plus mass combat) events.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
I seriously doubt it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007142Commitment on the part of all involved is absolutely essential, yes.
Nope. That matters in a single group of heroes tried and true setting, but in a whoever shows up on Tuesday night is the group that goes into the dungeon (or whatever) setting, commitment for more than a session or three is not that important.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
Player buy-in and GM enthusiasm are the essential factors. Take those away and you have a STEEP hill to climb, regardless of anything else.
Quote from: Bren;1007879I seriously doubt it.
Nope. That matters in a single group of heroes tried and true setting, but in a whoever shows up on Tuesday night is the group that goes into the dungeon (or whatever) setting, commitment for more than a session or three is not that important.
Indeed. Out of 11 players in my Chinese campaign, only one of the original cast was with us at the end battle.
Quote from: Bren;1007879I seriously doubt it.
Nope. That matters in a single group of heroes tried and true setting, but in a whoever shows up on Tuesday night is the group that goes into the dungeon (or whatever) setting, commitment for more than a session or three is not that important.
You have a certain point there. It is possible to have a casual campaign; my DCC game is like that, where it doesn't matter if people don't always show up. But even those need to have at least a small core of players who need to be consistent.
You need a reasonable number of people who are willing to put the game on their Entertainment "A" List. That way you have both the warm bodies and a general ethic of commitment. Lacking both, you're left doing willy-nilly one shots.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;1007883Player buy-in and GM enthusiasm are the essential factors. Take those away and you have a STEEP hill to climb, regardless of anything else.
Quoted for ever-lovin' truth.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1008221You have a certain point there. It is possible to have a casual campaign; my DCC game is like that, where it doesn't matter if people don't always show up. But even those need to have at least a small core of players who need to be consistent.
No, in my personal experience, there's no need for that, either, though it's nice;).
I'd agree with player buy-in being primary.
After that, I think that rewarding that buy in with meaningful (consequential) choices, in a setting that is bigger than the PCs, but that they can have an effect on, is the way to run a successful RPG.
That's why I don't like story games. They often lack meaningful choices because you're only allowed to choose between two axes on a theme like "Freedom vs. Duty", or something similar. Additionally, a setting that is too nailed down or specific means that you're stuck on a loose railroad or at least fenced in. That's an adventure, at best, not an RPG.
Uh huh. More broad generalizations about 'storygames' that never mention the actual game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1006712What factors, in terms of in-game or outside the game itself, are the requisites for a Long-Term RPG game being successful? Can we define a list of things you MUST have for the campaign to work?
- Desire to play
- Compatible availability
- Participants with compatible playstyles, system interests
- Participants compatible with each other in real life
- Referee comfortable doing the lion's share of the work for a long time
Time, space, and people, same as requirements for theater.
Quote from: Teodrik;1007192Motivated players + a system and campaign world I dont get bored by after 3 sessions. -snip-
This is it for me as well.
Shemek
Quote from: Voros;1008415Uh huh. More broad generalizations about 'storygames' that never mention the actual game.
You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.
Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.
In order of importance:
1. Group
2. GM
3. Scenario
4. Rules
In general anything can make up for a weakness below it but not above it.
Quote from: Piestrio;1008534In order of importance:
1. Group
2. GM
3. Scenario
4. Rules
In general anything can make up for a weakness below it but not above it.
Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.
Quote from: AsenRG;1008824Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.
Piestro is saying that the group can make up for the GM but the GM can't make up for the group. Therefore I assume Piestro separated the two because the same person can perform the GM function for different groups. And while one group will be able to make up for a weakness in their GM a different group may not be able to make up for the weakness in the exact same GM. Merging GM and group loses the ability to differentiate that one group has that ability and the other group does not.
I don't think we can easily distinguish between a situation where the group makes up for the GM and one where the GM makes up for the group. I've certainly seen one or two groups of players who worked fine with an experienced, assertive GM who worked poorly with a inexperience and unassertive GM. As a player I try to play nice with a new GM rather than running roughshod over the newby in a similar way to how, as a GM, I try to be nice to a new player.
So while I agree with you that the group > GM arrangement that Piestro came up with is not always correct, I don't agree that we should ignore the distinction between group and GM.
And before you say it, yes I know that the GM can also be considered part of an RPG group, but the GM and the non-GM members of the group have different roles* so separating the two makes sense in the context of figuring out what matters to a successful campaign and whether it matters more than something else.
* And yes I also know that there are some rules where there isn't a GM. I consider those to be, at best, corner cases in the context of discussing successful RPG campaigns.
Quote from: AsenRG;1008824Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.
In my experience a really great group can get along just fine with a so-so GM but a great GM won't be able to save a bad group.
When I've had a really good group almost nothing could make a game not fun to be in.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;1008492You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.
Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.
Fair enough, I think My Life with Master does fit that description, I think it best to just mention specific games rather than paint a whole subgenre with a broad brush. My Life.. is a very narrowly defined game but other storygames, like say Follow or 2001 Nights, are much less so.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;1008492You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.
Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.
The other day I discovered that this is a thing (https://www.litrpg.com/), with a community and everything. The books do kind of remind me of video games in print form.
Quote from: Bren;1008842Piestro is saying that the group can make up for the GM but the GM can't make up for the group.
Yes, I simply disagree with this premise:). Hence, me thinking they should be on the same level.
QuoteI don't think we can easily distinguish between a situation where the group makes up for the GM and one where the GM makes up for the group. I've certainly seen one or two groups of players who worked fine with an experienced, assertive GM who worked poorly with a inexperience and unassertive GM. As a player I try to play nice with a new GM rather than running roughshod over the newby in a similar way to how, as a GM, I try to be nice to a new player.
And that's exactly why.
QuoteSo while I agree with you that the group > GM arrangement that Piestro came up with is not always correct, I don't agree that we should ignore the distinction between group and GM.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying "if you want to keep the arrangement that you can only cover for items below in the order", you should make the first item "Referee and Players".
QuoteAnd before you say it, yes I know that the GM can also be considered part of an RPG group,
Yes, I tend to believe that, but it wasn't part of my point in this thread
QuoteAnd yes I also know that there are some rules where there isn't a GM. I consider those to be, at best, corner cases in the context of discussing successful RPG campaigns.
So do I. Which is why I didn't say "you should have Referee, Group and System as the first item".
Quote from: Piestrio;1008948In my experience a really great group can get along just fine with a so-so GM but a great GM won't be able to save a bad group.
IMO, a
great GM would be able to do exactly that - though that's more than you demand from the group (you said "great group, so-so GM", not "great group, bad GM").
Please note: I haven't actually seen a great Referee
in person*, so that's just an estimate;). What I know is that I've managed to make a fun game with a definitely so-so group...by outpacing them, and basically pulling simultaneously on almost all (non-illusionist) tricks in the different kinds of games I've played.
But I'm not a great GM, merely passable, in my own estimate. Maybe in another decade or so, I might have a shot at such a title:D!
*Some of the GMs I've played with online could probably qualify. But then they had a bigger pool of players, and simply didn't take the bad players...so I'm not sure whether they could do that.
QuoteWhen I've had a really good group almost nothing could make a game not fun to be in.
I'm pretty sure an actively bad GM could. Been there, seen it happen (though after we gave him a honest chance, we relegated him to player status mid-session, and a player continued the campaign:p).
Quote from: Krimson;1008983The other day I discovered that this is a thing (https://www.litrpg.com/), with a community and everything. The books do kind of remind me of video games in print form.
Oh yes, I'd forgotten all about them (I was on my phone when I found the site). Still not sure what's the difference with gamebooks, myself.
I think I need to check, and thank you for the reminder;)!
For the record, I feel that the logic "storygames are games where only some outcomes are possible" is valid...but it still seems incomplete to me. I just can't put my finger on what is missing:).
Well, I
know what is missing - a means to differentiate between storygames and mission-based campaigns, for example - but I don't know how to express it.
At least, not yet, but I'm considering the matter;).
Quote from: saskganesh;1008240You need a reasonable number of people who are willing to put the game on their Entertainment "A" List. That way you have both the warm bodies and a general ethic of commitment. Lacking both, you're left doing willy-nilly one shots.
Yes, this is my view to. Even in my DCC campaign, which is the most loosey-goosey long term campaign I've ever run in the sense of lasting for four years now while not requiring any player to have to show up for any given session, I still have a core of about four guys who all nearly-always come.