This is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

Is it the fact that attributes, skills, abilities should have lots of room to increase? Is it the richness of the world? Rules for domain play? Do people get bored with a system when there's not enough mechanical character growth?

When you're evaluating a game, what in your mind causes you to say, yeah this would be good/bad for campaign play?

Minimal scaling bloat, i.e. leveling up concerning: hitpoints, damage, spell effects, feat balance, et cet. et cet. et cet. ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I don't fault anyone for needing spreadsheets with certain editions, hours spent teasing out a party's guaranteed victory to defeat a specific combat, yet plucking at your abacus per se is not unrhythmic if you can get some solid insights out of it.

However, it seems like a lot of work for what should be a game, and many of you seem to spend more time with non-Euclidian quantum calculus for the sake of "game balance" than making any direct adjudications as a human being.

All of this because players didn't realize that they could just run away from a tough looking fight mid-battle altogether, and rolling new sheets is not supposed to be a big deal if the DM doesn't otherwise figure out a magical or planar explanation for the TPK. "Many have failed, before you came!" "It was all just a dream..." what have you.

Edit:
I'm guessing that this is the consequence of changing experience rewards to focus on fights and not just gathering treasure. The argument in favour of learning on the job should be irrelevant too, as sometimes you can just get lucky with a sword swing mid-combat, so you'd need to ask a trainer what really happened and why it worked later. It's even more ridiculous for attributes than for skills; you don't get stronger by infrequently swinging a warhammer, you get stronger by lifting weights in a habitual and systematic manner. You might keep your strength on the field, but you don't grow it.

QuoteThis is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

I think PBTA games generally do not have modules, because they assume eveything should emerge from gameplay.

QuoteIs it the fact that attributes, skills, abilities should have lots of room to increase? Is it the richness of the world? Rules for domain play? Do people get bored with a system when there's not enough mechanical character growth?

I think sense of mechanical advancement is generally good, but most important is - how much is there to do for players. That's first and foremost. I not necessarily has to be domain play - but sense of achievement.

For me, a great campaign combines some kind of meaningful scaling that will be felt at the table with scarcity.  Doesn't mean the scaling has to be rapid or significant, necessarily, but it needs to be felt. You can get this in a lot of strange ways, too:

- AD&D from 1st to 3rd level is mainly about the hit point gain.  You can start getting attached to a character that can take more than 1 or 2 hits and still live.  Sure, you start to edge into the mechanical gains that are more characteristic of the 3rd to 7th level range, but you need to survive to get there first.  It's grueling to make some progress, mixed with an occasional great treasure haul that makes you feel like you really scored.  There's similar scaling in BEMCI/RC D&D, though the progression somehow felt different, even though the XP scales are similar up to name level.  Maybe it's knowing what happens after name level that changes the feel?

- Fantasy Hero, you might start with 150 point characters (counting disadvantages), and only gain 2 to 3 points per session when play starts.  You are already competent but chances are there are about 20-30 points you had to shave somewhere to make the character work.  So those first several sessions is about gradually filling out the character you envisioned.  Then when you finally do, it's about saving up points for the next big thing--or finding that you really wanted another 20 odds points on top of all that, but just didn't know it until now. 

- Dragon Quest starts off with characters more competent that starting D&D characters. OTOH, the game is brutal.  You need ridiculous amounts of XP past the early abilities. OTOH, if you push and have successful adventures, you get it in chunks.  So there's this yo-yo dynamic where the players try to find the sweet spot between making progress and not taking too many chances.  Then you can lose XP in abilities, or even abilities entirely, if you don't practice them, and many practices require funds.  In fact, you've got hero to stronger hero scaling running parallel with a rat race just to stay where you are.  This is part of what makes DQ only enjoyable in campaign, not short adventures.  Or rather, you aren't really playing DQ when its short adventures, because so much of the game is built around using the money and time that you have.

Then consider something like Toon.  I love Toon, but it sucks at campaign play.  It's not designed for it.  There is some minor character scaling, but if you played it long enough to meaningful scale, you'd run out of room.  Half the fun of Toon is all the stuff that happens to your character when you fail.  A marginally smarter or craftier Sylvester the cat can still make for some great "shorts".  Take it too far, and he's not even the same character anymore.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 09, 2023, 10:58:44 AM
This is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

Is it the fact that attributes, skills, abilities should have lots of room to increase? Is it the richness of the world? Rules for domain play? Do people get bored with a system when there's not enough mechanical character growth?

When you're evaluating a game, what in your mind causes you to say, yeah this would be good/bad for campaign play?

I'm going to try to thread the needle here, since you bring up modules, and I primarily sandbox. I think they can absolutely work hand-in-hand at least in a nested fashion.

Sandboxing requires you build an actual sandbox, so effectively I'm always doing what you're asking when I start a campaign. My goal is *always* for maximum length. But this is dependent on variables like genre, scope, and theme of the game (ideally from the start), and what system I'm going to use to execute this game. Lastly - the sandbox has to be built with the possibility it can expand. To where? Who knows, since it's a sandbox... the point being you *might* have some possible ideas on what you're willing to do if the players get to the edge of the sandbox.

At the start of a campaign - I keep it tight and focused *for the players*.

The First Layer
So let's pretend, for example, I'm starting a Pirate Campaign. The first thing I do is start building out the starting area (so for example my version of Tortuga). I populate it with NPC's, factions, places of interest, and jam pack it with as much detail as I think will be cool. I figure out all the interconnected sinew - between factions, NPC motivations and goals etc. All the things that the PC's can interact with directly. This is the first immediate tier. It exists without anything expressly required other than the PC's being there. In other words, it's a self-contained "Village of Hommlet" that the PC's could wander around on their own and even adventure there. It can be as expansive as you need it to be, but it should scale based on the PC's actions involving whatever content you've created there to express that location to the hilt. This assumes that the PC's are going to be based there for some period... (and wherever they're going to be based, I build that location out exactly the same way with the new location's issues being customized to the circumstances).

The Second Layer
Behind the scenes I consider the "economy" of the place - basically if there are Pirates, that means I need to know the means about how they go about pirating, handle loot (plugged into factions and NPC's) - effectively I build a basic map of who, what, where, when, how the place operates. This means outlining WHO are the people being potentially pirated. Nations? City-states? Other pirates? Free Traders?  The PC's don't need to know any of this. The point is this is the next layer. These are the possible interactions that can occur where the PC's leave their home-base and *do* things out there, that could possibly affect things in the First Layer. In fact - it SHOULD affect things in the First Layer.

So let's say the PC's set out from Tortuga, and start pirating and they keep hitting these ships along a certain trade-route... and for the most part their victims are from a particular City-State/Nation. AT MINIMUM they return to Tortuga with increased rep, and booty. This *should* change elements of the First Layer to represent that. Anything from certain NPC's being pro/con the PC's actions. Factions reacting to the PC's endeavors etc. This is pretty basic - you can ramp it up with some complexity - the PC's hit a convoy and they get a treasure map/information that would directly effect the "economy" of Tortuga. The map could lead to a module, or a dungeon, and/or secrets that would disrupt the First Layer greatly. It could be the discovery of actual *power* (magic items, spells, gear, whatever) that can either propel the PC's out of this layer, or to become major players in the First Layer. All of this becomes fodder for creating a potential Third Layer.

Third Layer
The Third Layer is what exists expressly outside of the ecosystem of the first two layers. These are Ports o' Call beyond the "Pirate Game concept". So the PC's get caught in a storm that brings them to some other land... the world expands. The question becomes do the players stay here? If so, then you rinse/repeat what you do in the First/Second Layer - only you do it in this new locale. What happens now, is you're creating a much more expansive game - new issues, new interactions all working together based on the actions of the PC's.

In terms of scaling "power" - that's entirely dependent on what the constraints of your setting allows (and what you want to deal with). In our make-believe game here - I may have started in the First Layer with magic being "low powered"... but in the Second Layer they may have risen to prominence where the discovery of something else where that status quo may change. They might discover a spellbook for instance where now greater magic is allowed to filter in. OR they end up on an adventure that takes them into the Third Layer and that location has an entirely difference status-quo on power... perhaps the PC's bring that back to the First Layer after a brief layover in the Third? Or maybe they STAY there... and soak it up and assimilate.

The key is to consider this as early as possible before you pull the trigger on it. These constraints should be bolstered by the system you choose to run. Some systems don't handle "high-power" well. And it might not require it. Again it depends on the constraints. You'll note here at no point do I talk specifically about "Domain Play", or "Modules" etc. Because it all has its place depending on your bandwidth as a GM.

As a sandbox GM - player agency is a top priority for me. For other GM's they might not like wrestling with all those variables, but the way I build out layers in my campaigns as above is a model for inexperienced sandbox GM's to get a mental handhold on it because if you build it out right, it *almost* runs itself. You just have to learn how to use carrot/stick tactics to keep the PC's moving and doing stuff and let the world react to their actions and reactions.

The campaigns proceeds until it comes to some natural resolution. I've had games last a month, years, TPK's on session 3... heh, it happens. My part is to do all I can to give the PC's the playground to go crazy. It ends where it ends.

Depends a lot on your players and GM's style. I mean, if they are expecting to advance a lot then you're going to need a robust system that can handle that progression. Although, you could be looking at a significant power creep.

I tend to use a building outward approach that is I'll either come up with new stuff generally linked in some way to the player's actions and the previous scenario. I'll also latch on to what players say, and then use it for ideas relevant to their characters, etc. I suppose it's a bit of a sandbox approach so the world is nearly 'living' and changing. That said, I'll always have an arc of some kind as well and then thread that in and out if there are any slumps in the game.

The game / system for a campaign is FAR less important than a table of players who are committed to staying with a campaign.

I could run RISUS for a year with a group committed to that campaign.

Quote from: Spinachcat on February 10, 2023, 06:23:18 PM
The game / system for a campaign is FAR less important than a table of players who are committed to staying with a campaign.

I could run RISUS for a year with a group committed to that campaign.

This is exactly it. If the players and GM are totally committed to the game then advancing stats is not that important. I've played and run many a game with very little character advancement for months, as long as there was plot advancement everyone was happy.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 10, 2023, 06:45:13 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on February 10, 2023, 06:23:18 PM
The game / system for a campaign is FAR less important than a table of players who are committed to staying with a campaign.

I could run RISUS for a year with a group committed to that campaign.

This is exactly it. If the players and GM are totally committed to the game then advancing stats is not that important. I've played and run many a game with very little character advancement for months, as long as there was plot advancement everyone was happy.

Agreed. It's pretty trivial to slow the XP system down if the campaign material is what players are into. My friend Janyce ran a series of Call of Cthulhu campaigns for decades all in the same setting, progressing since Call of Cthulhu first came out in the mid 1980s. There were PCs who had been around for over 20 years. She just ditched the regular skill progression rules.

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 10, 2023, 06:06:25 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 09, 2023, 10:58:44 AM
This is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

I think PBTA games generally do not have modules, because they assume eveything should emerge from gameplay.

By default, most PBTA games have pretty fast advancement, where you can gain several new abilities in one session. Players get to the end of the advancement track in 10 to 12 sessions at most, and it starts to get unwieldy before then. Of course, advancement could be slowed down trivially by just upping the number of checks for an advance.

Also, I agree that most PBTA games don't have modules. The only exceptions I know of are Monster of the Week and Bluebeard's Bride - which have general supplements including mini-scenarios and/or encounters. However, those aren't traditional modules.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 09, 2023, 10:58:44 AM
This is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

Is it the fact that attributes, skills, abilities should have lots of room to increase? Is it the richness of the world? Rules for domain play? Do people get bored with a system when there's not enough mechanical character growth?

When you're evaluating a game, what in your mind causes you to say, yeah this would be good/bad for campaign play?

1: Lighter systems tend to be geared to one-offs and have a harder time now at sustaining interest as there is some manner of advancement cut-off. But that was not always the case and players used to be fine with that cut-off and just had fun adventuring or doing stuff.

2: Defined advancement seems a modern point of contention as noted above. The increasing bitching about there being "nothing to dooooooo!" at certain level ups where you do not get anything more than some HP and maybe hit better now. The incessant bitching about the Fighter being so booooring is one example.

3: I do not evaluate any RPG for campaign play because every RPG can sustain campaign play if the players arent Attention Deficit wanna-bes.

My criteria is "Does this look fun to DM?" and "Can I get anyone to try it?" Yes+No? I may get it anyhow. No+No? Then pass. Campaign play is not even a waste of an afterthought.

Room for character growth of mechanical consequence. This could be an increase or a decrease in mechanical advantage, but static characters do not make for compelling long stories and mechanically locked characters become static when they cannot reflect character change.

A rules lite system with a shtick is only good for running a character through that shtick once. More play requires stating over or putting the character though more of the same like they have learned nothing at all. Character progression, whether beefing up or making fiends, needs to affect the gameplay, and the character's capabilities reflect the time put into their development.

I'm in agreement that it's really about the players and their dedication to the game.  The two best campaigns I've ever run were a MERP campaign back in the 90s, where even after 3 years the PCs were still only 5th level or so, and a BECMI campaign that topped out in the low 30s of PC level.  Both combined original and published material, but it was the player engagement that was key.  Incidentally, in both campaigns we had a guy who kept a running campaign journal chronicling the party's exploits, tracking villains, etc.  That helped keep people focused and contributed greatly to the continuity.

I totally get where you're coming from. In my experience, what makes a game great for a campaign is a mix of character growth, a rich and engaging world, and flexible rules. Players love seeing their characters evolve, so room for improvement is key. A vibrant setting keeps things interesting, and rules for domain play add depth. That's why I love League of legends; I also play it using the league of legends script. It's really handy.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 09, 2023, 10:58:44 AM
This is a statement I see from time to time, usually concerning lighter systems like PbtA or what have you: "Not good for a long campaign." Even DCC attracts this comment sometimes. Yet, DCC has a metric crap tonne of modules over a range of levels, and I'm sure there are PbtA games that do, too.

Is it the fact that attributes, skills, abilities should have lots of room to increase? Is it the richness of the world? Rules for domain play? Do people get bored with a system when there's not enough mechanical character growth?

When you're evaluating a game, what in your mind causes you to say, yeah this would be good/bad for campaign play?

I can have a good time playing Monopoly. If I come back to play next week and have to start over, without my houses and hotels, it's not a campaign. There's no continuity. Even if I still get the play the shoe, the continuity is not there. I wouldn't need to have a "Real Estate" stat that I build up or anything like that. I just need to be able to carry over whatever I've earned or lost. The question is, if I win Monopoly this week, even if we give all the losers a fresh start, if I still own most of the land on the board, is next week's game viable? Do the other players even have any kind of real chance at that point?

So it's not just a campaign game has to have certain features. It also has to be repeatable without degenerating. Which is almost contradictory to those necessary features. We have to somehow simultaneously reset for balance while maintaining continuity.

You can do this badly but reliably with the power treadmill. Every week, the PC's are 10% tougher, but so are the monsters. Tastes may vary, but that strikes me as shallow. Weirdly enough, I find games that are NOT designed to scale so perfectly are better suited to campaign play. The asymmetries of design as the play scales means even if you do implement the power treadmill maintaining a semblance of balance and fairness and challenge, the "shape" of the game changes. And that keeps my interest in the game from degenerating.

So for long-term campaigns, I look for games with interesting asymmetries.

Diminishing returns is one thing I look for. And I'm not talking about the stuff game designers do intentionally. Diminishing returns is an unavoidable fact. And it's where it's not designed for that is a good place to look to see if a game breaks or is interesting at scale. Here's an example. The ACs of monsters in the original Monster Manual don't really correlate to power level. It's strongly centered around AC 5. So when you're fighter is advancing through the levels, once you get to the point where you can hit AC 5 on a 2 (which if you account for magic items accumulated and attribute bonuses is likely to happen at or before name level) you don't get any better at hitting 70% of the monsters in the game. And with each improvement beyond that point, the list of monsters for which it matters gets smaller and smaller. Even though hit table improvements continue to improve in linear fashion.

Once you get to that point, what do you do? A lot of old-schoolers will tell you they always just retired their characters at that point. And why not? Going from level 1 to 9 is a hell of a journey and makes for a fine campaign. The books push the idea of building castles. Later supplements added more monsters with lower ACs to keep the treadmill going. Even in the original MM the monsters with the best ACs were extra-planar creatures. So maybe you go the route of plane travel. You've got a lot of options, but the shape of the campaign evolves at that point. I think that's cool.

"What makes a game good for campaign play?"

The GM.