I've been a DM for decades and a project manager (PM) for just a year now and both have philosophies that blend in well with one another. Thinking about my campaigns as a PM helps alot because you approach it in a much better way. For example, scope creep is the devil in the PM world, so to prevent it, we create a charter (a campaign charter if you will) on what you expect the current campaign is going to take. As an example, I set the scope of one campaign I had to "end" at level 6 but its built to go beyond that so I catch myself any time I find myself plotting too far ahead cause we all know the party will throw things off anyway. I have a story charter that tells me what I'm trying to get my party to accomplish in the long run unless they go haywire, which lets me pace leveling and loot. Another thing to keep in mind as a PM is that every single thing touches another, as we all know when we give the "wrong magic item" so its helpful to take all this into consideration while planning.
I can promise you. Between my friends’ changing work schedules, their children’s cheerleader practice, football practice, golf practice, archery practice, church events, dates with wives’, homework for continued education, taking care of ailing parents - it 100% is scheduling.
Something I've started focusing on, despite having a dedicated RPG group, is making story arcs self-contained and lasting only about 3-4 sessions. It keeps the players engaged and active, because things move quickly. These smaller arcs can still fit into a larger one, but it keeps that scope down to something reasonable. An epic story can still be told over 6-8 months if you cut out the chaff! Cool channel, glad I stumbled upon it! Looking forward to seeing more from you 🤠
One thing I think that has helped us is we play 3 weeks and then have 1 off, this way hopefully we can schedule things on the off week, and it leads to less burnout
I don't think most people would assess their life bullshit at 0 when the campaign starts. And there's no reason to think life bullshit always goes up. I think a lot of times people are saying that life bullshit makes it difficult to continue when they're really just not enjoying the game anymore. I do think you're pushing us in the right direction -- away from grand climaxes far in the future and toward periodic climaxes.
Your observation matches mine rather well. Of course players do think they have the time for the campaign at the start even with some baseline life interference. But my take here is that player motivation tends to naturally (and often artificially) decline. Since players don't tend to invest as much regular work into games compared to many GMs there if not that much burnout and people wouldn't easily admit a drop in motivation. So scheduling is the perfect way of blaming external forces for internal problems. Changing the scope is helpful but it does work under the false assumption that scope is the only major issue to blame in the first place. Large scope will make reaching a conclusion a lot harder. But life bullshit contains a hefty dose of player motivation. Life bullshit will detract from motivation but it is just one of many things which will do so.
I agree somewhat agree but it is true that as a campaign becomes longer and longer, it just runs up the chances that other things will take priority in people's lives.
I don't think his argument was that the amount of bullshit in people's life always increases, I think he's making the argument that the bullshit that impacts the game adds up over time, if everyone only has 1 day a week to play games, but basically never misses, their campaign will likely finish, but if someone's fridge goes out and they have to spend gameday replacing it and/or dealing with it, and then someone else has to pick up a kid after a failed sleepover, and then someone else needs to pick someone up from the airport on gameday, that's suddenly 3 missed sessions and will definitely start to drag the game down, even if that sort of thing isn't necessarily uncommon for the player or group, you can only miss or be stressed from other things so much before you start missing things in session because you weren't there for it, or everyone starts to forget what happened, or w/e and it drags down the game.
Excellent analysis involving crucial insights from your DMing experiences. Thank you for this video, I’m totally saving & sharing this with all DM’s I know.
This was a very informative video. I did not expect to see such a small channel pop into my feed and then proceed to absolutely school me on D&D. Well done. 👏
yes, same This was *extremely* educational and helpful, and it regards a topic that I don't see or hear a lot of other people covering, and especially not doing so with the explanations you gave. Thanks a ton, Weeping Stag! I sincerely hope this channel grows as much as you ever want it to. I'll do my part by not only leaving this comment but also subscribing to the channel and liking the video.
I find the best solution to edit a campaign's length and scope, is to employ time skips. We could play out these 3 months before the big prophesized event at the heart of our story, or I as DM could just ask the players how each of them prepare, and cut to a couple days , or even a few second before we get to that scene.
@@dashua1735 Therein lies a trick that most people don't seem to do. Just let the players use the same characters. Now when I say that, I should emphasize that using the same character doesn't strictly mean the same character "sheet" needs to carry over. Equipment can always get lost, sold, stolen, etc. between one-shots so you don't need to worry much about accidentally giving busted magic items. But if you encourage people to keep the same character personalities, then they will start each subsequent one-shot already having a rapport with each other. And of course if someone plays a character and doesn't like them, they have an easy way to swap without having to coordinate with the DM to write their character out. You can always say that each one-shot is set at different points in a grand timeline (allowing a wide range of possible character levels) or in alternative universes (allowing a character to have the same personality, but a different class)
I love it that you mentioned episodic play are used to run a risk game episodically based on the 1960s TV show combat made it work great nobody ever got past first level but it didn’t matter if you showed up to every session or not the scope of the game was focused completely on one session at a time
This was a much needed reality check for me. I have yet to complete a single campaign (one shots excluded) in 10 years of being a player and a DM, and looking back, scope creep and CR style adventures burned almost all of them out. Obviously some life bullshit is unavoidable, but scaling back has made the prospect of a longer campaign coming to fruition feel more possible for both me and the players i DM for.
I love the chart at the beginning. It's interesting that this video focuses on the x-axis (green line) and I don't have a lot to add to it. Scope management is a great perspective, considering that most people would be focused on the y-axis (pink line). Since I'm most people, I'm going to talk about it a little bit. My games tend to be successful because I push the pink line higher. People are willing to schedule around my games. I accomplish this by communicating with my players and adjusting my plans, NPCs, scope, and everything else based on feedback. I'd be interested in seeing a companion video to this one addressing the y-axis from your perspective!
My table is still excited about the campaign, but scheduling is still the main issue. I help this problem in two ways: One, if you can't make it, _tell me when you can_ so others can reschedule around that. Two, run more sessions that can write certain characters out of the story at different times, and only run "main arc" stories when everyone is present. It might take longer to get to the tentpole story beats, but it gets people more consistently involved.
I run a FFG Star Wars game semi-regularly (usually once a year), and I just wanted to share my method for scope creep: I break my campaign up into chunks of ten sessions. My GMing style with Star Wars usually includes camera movements and cuts, so I refer to the chunks as seasons and the individual sessions as episodes. Breaking it up like this cuts my own writing down tremendously; I can't afford to include every little plot line I want to throw at my players, so I have to focus on the party's main goal (and backstories when they arise, thanks to a fun mechanic built into the system) and help them chase that goal. I've found that it usually works out to being eight sessions of build up, one session where the climax of the season happens, and that leaves one session to wrap the season up and see how we're feeling. Not only has it helped keep my campaigns running, but it allows for my players (and myself) to be fluid when it comes to life bullshit. If life is getting in the way for a player, they're able to easily bow out after a season. If I need to take a break, I can do so after a season and we can return to it later. I've found this method to work for me, but your mileage may vary. :)
>me after finishing keep on the Borderlands with our party >"I learned it from you!!!" Probably wouldn't have finished that campaign had you not GMd for me before that, tbh
Thank you for the west marches explanation! Idk why, but everytime i heard "west marches" I imagine soldiers going to war. Something about the wording gives me imagery of a massive world spanning war campaign that involves several nations and political navigation. Too much! Basically, it's the opposite of its meaning. This video did a great job explaining what it actually is. I've looked it up before, but never got a satisfactory answer.
It's because the sound of the word changed drastically over the ages. March in this sense would originally have had the ch sound that you see in the name Chris. It's related to the word "mark" and meant boundary or border, especially against a forest.
This puts a lot of the onus on the GM. The threshold you're talking about is also the responsibility of the players and is not just changing based on unavoidable life BS but also time management skills, number of players, prioritization, assumptions or expectations of scope (lack of awareness, voluntary or not), and mutual respect for each others time. A lot of this can be solved simply by finding players with a higher "threshold", also known as people who are actually capable of playing your game. Commitment-hostile people do exist, and many of them often wind up writing checks you as the GM can't cash. That being said, these are some good ideas, nice video. Cheers!
Some great insight into why some of my games have fallen apart and why I've felt unsatisfied in a meandering game that didn't seem to be going anywhere/make sense.
For us I think it was a triple hit of: Scheduling, trying to add another person and it destabilized the vibe of the group, and the DM over scheduled themselves because they got RL folks into a second campaign and they can nag in-person so we, the original group on Discord just got left in the dirt. Two years of weekly sessions, getting fantastic character development and worldbuilding, just down the drain since March of this year. The last time we actually had a session (and yet still getting a carrot dangled in the chat every month or so...).
Good info. Thanks for the video. The "campaign books" for 5e that runs characters from level 1 to 20 and ends is a bit of a foreign concept to me. As a DM/GM for over 35 years, our campaigns frequently ran over one year. Two years was not uncommon amongst high school friends playing in the same group. Campaigns weren't necessarily playing a character from level 1 to 20 and done. Campaigns were about exploration, traveling the campaign setting/world and often encompassed multiple characters per player. Good times!
Historically, I think first level had a natural scope. Something like, "Oh no, three goblins trying to kill me!" and "Yay! Some gold coins! I can replace all my arrows and maybe get better armor!" Second level got a little bigger. Etc. And this absolutely doesn't mean you can't have interesting stories. But they're stories about a town and a blacksmith and the old guy who is the lord of the local manor.
One of my first TTRPG experiences was taking part in a year long West Marches campaign. I have mixed feelings about how it was executed. But my biggest problem was that my character didn't feel important enough. I attended the final battle with the BBEG(s) simply out of curiosity, whether my character was there or not didn't matter at all. Overall it was a pool of 15-20 players but only about 6 of them would be allowed into the session at a time. First come, first serve. With some exceptions for players who hadn't played yet during that month, they could reserve a spot beforehand. This lead to some player characters feeling a lot more important (and powerful) than others. And because of that the GM was more willing to listen to the wishes of those players.
I think this is a problem that many people deal with that should be managed. I also think that this is part of the constant "Be a good DM and everything will work" mentality seen online. Sometimes it's the players. Sometimes it's their level of commitment.
Let's talk about running a group that start's out at Level Zero. This, of course, requires a bit of homebrewing, but it's actually simpler than one thinks. Using the 3.5 edition since I'm more familiar with it then new editions. You'll note that 1st level starts at 0 XP. Adjust this in one of two ways. Bump all progression up one. i.e., it takes 1,000 XP to reach Level 1 (or) Assigned a negative number, say, -500 XP. In either case, adjust Class Skill Max to 2 instead of 4 and for Feats, None. Feats come with training. Save's start with 0 bonuses. Skill's work the same way. Since we are starting out with literally nothing, skills need to be practiced. No bonuses (or) assign a -1 if you wish. Now spells: Consider that there are, zero level spells. The PHB shows this as Cantrips. Cantrips, my friends, are zero level spells. We simply start with no cantrips as we have yet to learn them. I figure that these would be part of the 'testing stages' that would be wizards usually go through. Cleric's follow a similar path, with their version of cantrips Level 0 .. Create Water; Cure Light Wounds, etc. If we turn to page 108 within the GM's Guide, we find NPC entries for Aristocrat, Commoner, Warrior, etc. They have a leveling system just as the PC's do. So, if we consider these as additional classes open for play (not just for use for NPCs), they give us that opening/starting point. Consider the Fighter and all it's sub-classes and special classes. How did Cara of the Sword become a great fighter in the first place? She wasn't born one, though she may have been born into a family with a long martial tradition, thus started early. For the majority however, we don't start 'specializing' until we're of a certain age. What makes a Warrior different from a Fighter? It is my opinion, that the difference is formal training. Warriors learn to fight, often lack finesse, and while able to hold their own, are no match, one on one, with a professional Fighter, which this class would be. One 'learns' the Fighter Trade, and then chooses to specialize. Warrior's never do that. Most 'Peasant Levy's are made up of Warriors, in that they spend most of their time farming or something else, whereas a Fighter focuses mainly on being a better fighter. I have ran more than a few campaigns where part of the adventure in the early levels is to actually gain the class the player's want to play. Have them choose a 'family class' from page 108, from which the player's will earn X number of levels (In Merchant or Warrior or Adept), before gaining access to the formal training 'real' classes require to join. This also helps to explain how a character's backstory might speak of deeds, actions, and experiences that don't jive with a 1st level anything. Now, I am not suggesting that you try this with newb's. It'd only confuse them, but experienced players? Veteran gamers? They may be open to the challenges of playing on this level. For the untrained, wannabe Fighter, 'ALL' weapons come with a disadvantage. That -4 for example that comes with using an unfamiliar weapon. It doesn't go away just because Ham of Pram kills his first goblin. It's a challenge. Which is part of the point of the exercise ...in my opinion.
Scope definitely leads me to stop wanting to schedule games. Past a certain point, it feels harder and harder to deliver something that seems satisfying to me - like a long-running anime trying to constantly one-up itself, I run out of ideas to make the game more engaging and end up too anxious to even prep. At least in my experience, that's what kills the vast majority of my games. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a single game I've run that ended because of scheduling conflicts. It always either ends naturally or gets too big for me to handle.
I would like to see your next video on deviations of the Westmarches campaign. Like Star Trek, but you are on a ship? Like Ptolus (city campaign) but you are at the guard house or on patrol? So, episodes are better to keep moving forward - because the scope is too big and the mega plot BBEG is not a strong enough worm to keep people on the hook. But a series of two session events are much more likely to happen. Am I reading you correctly?
Great video, I subscribed! I enjoyed the insights on the life BS threshold. 😄I'm working on an RPG that attempts to address issues of scope and scheduling in its design. It's inspired by West Marches (and its progenitors). It's also meant to be run with the help of a Discord server (or Slack, or similar platform), where there is a division between in-session Excursion play -- the time where everyone gets together (in person or on voice/video) and participates in the "action" -- and Away-from-Table play, where the Excursions are planned, and the setting "lives and breathes" as the world turns. Excursion play is strictly for dungeon delving, monster slaying, and climactic events, with everything else happening Away-from-Table in a more community-driven manner, and featuring a stable of characters that don't necessarily belong to any one player, blurring the line a little between PC and NPC. Anyway, if you're available I'd love to pick your brain or hear your thoughts some time. Is there a good way to get ahold of you? I'm "ruskerdax" pretty much everywhere if you're inclined!
great stuff. i discovered this approach a while back to keep every session contained and independend that way the game was way more resitant to people cancelling. it also has reduces my stress level in a different way. i realized that finishing the story is way more important to me then it is to my players. so when a session would leave things open i couldnt stop thinking about the conclusion in between sessions. so now i always ensure that a session reaches a conclusion. then wenn a new session looks like its about to happen i prep for about 1 to 3 hours and run that. that way i dont spend to much time thinking about game whitout getting to play it
credentials: "professionally unemployed". I was worried to get BS advice, but seeing the state of your employment I relieved. No person with a 9 to 5 schedule can also be a legendary GM with actually good advice.
Great video! Everything you said makes sense and puts it into perspective exactly how I'm feeling 16 sessions into a complicated world, for me, as a dm.
The West Marches sounds like it is more of a sandbox style with very little roleplaying. I would prefer talking to people and finding interesting things to do to get closer to a specific goal than just a sandbox.
Yay-scope creep! So many other PMs chiming in, so I’ll give my two cents about dealing with scope creep in my campaigns. 1) I schedule the game time, not the players. I have free time on Sunday afternoons, so Sunday afternoons are my game time. I don’t change that time, but any players I gather in will also have that as free time. I can run games with just one player or even do solo games by myself (several good ones in Call of Cthulhu), so I never have to worry about accommodating others’ schedules. 2) I follow Shadowdark’s rule that the game happens in real time at the table. That means that players who don’t end a session by getting back out of the dungeon to a safe place or town are going to be stuck in the dungeon for a week without resources. This means that my players have a week to prepare out of game for in-game time, so any magic items or gear is bought in a chat function like discord during the week, not at the table. 3) Like the West Marches, I don’t have many overarching plots. Episodic TV was what raised me, so I liberally reuse plots like Monster of the Week or Investigate this Weirdness to give players a sense of continuity in their characters, not the world. Players will make jokes and have stories of their characters, not the campaign-so I privilege character actions rather than story actions. Partly this is done through giving everyone growing faction ties-players are part of a magical school or law enforcement group that goes out and investigates things. Bad things happen, players stop it. Sometimes there’s a big bad out there, but usually it’s a far off issue that players may or may not deal with. But the current day’s mission is given by higher ups and completing it nets rewards and levels. So that’s about it-episodic short form narratives in a weekly session (same bat time, same bat channel) with easily expressed rewards earned through real-time table play. Either XP for gold or milestone leveling is fine, so long as the faction is the one who gives rewards and only on successful completions.
I have discovered that you can organically smooth out level progression by just having the players vote on whether they want to level up at the end of each session. Majority rule. Player's want more power, obviously, but they want it at a pace they can get used to it, and they also understand that the campaign will draw to a close once they get high enough in level. It gives players control over the pacing, and works beautifully.
This is extremely gold advice! I'm sure this doesn't solve 100% of scheduling issues, but it helps how to actually prep homebrew without GM burnout and to keep the game exciting for players. GMs who do scope creep should just write books. Scope creep ends in railroads.
20 sessions is a lot for a campaign? That feels rather wrong; most of my campaigns have run for something like 50-200 sessions, weekly game with a few weeks skipped each year due to vacations and such... but as a caveat, I pretty much never run pre-written campaigns; I favor running narrative campaigns in simulationist worlds - the world plods along in the background with various schemes and events happening in the background, but the story is just what the players choose to interact with - if the party crosses paths with a background plot and decide it's not interesting to look into, then that background plot carries on in the background, and might or might not rear its head again... but the world exists independant of the PCs until and unless a world-ending plot crops up. Currently running a campaign where the party is beginning to find their way in a world wherein the lich Emperor just disappeared, and the empire is facing an imminent crisis which the momentum of the bureaucracy *might* actually weather without the head of state... I have no idea which way things will go five sessions from now, because that depends a lot on what the players choose to interact with. I know roughly how big-picture things will go *without* the party intervening, but the world model, as it were, will respond and adapt to any changes induced by the players. Not bragging here, but noting that different DM styles have different strengths and weaknesses, and that having a campaign planned out from start to finish like a book where the players ad-lib the predetermined plot points is... not a very strong foundation for a long-term campaign.
While I initially fell prey to scope creep, I will be the first to admit that I got overwhelmed and ended up turning into a "should have just written a book" Dungeon Master. I alleviated that by writing a book haha. Either way, thank you for this. It was very informative and nice to put a name to what I had been feeling. I also think that I had a hard time because a few of my players had gotten really into actual play content. I noticed that Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matthew Mercer were coming up a lot more, and that made me feel like I needed to step up my game.
It's always weird to see people coming up with the same ideas all around the world without any prior contact. Great Video man. Deserves a subscribe. hmmm... you could also try Open group player style in which you can even have more than one dm without things getting out of hnd which is my preference. it's a style common in my country, iran where people are just busy all the time, even teenagers. this style allows an upward of 8 players for an inexperienced dm. I myself ran a campaign for 18 players along my co-dungeon master that lasted 2 years. only 12 of the players remained till the end, but it ended really nice and easy. though I have to say that it is unfortunately incompatible with D&D...
I have a lot of players be surprised when I quote them an estimated campaign time measured in months for a campaign, but short campaigns are the way that I can guarantee that a campaign will reach an ending.
Yeah I usually measure campaigns in estimated sessions, and for most campaigns I run like 10-15 sessions. People ask why and I'm always like "They actually finish that way."
Dunno man. I had a session last Saturday, the first in 3 months. It was great. Scheduling is the #1 killer, but the #2 killer is half of my group is NOT invested in the gameplay. They are here to hang out with friends. I accommodate them.
I run an open world. (not calling it a sandbox because it has limitations) the campaign has been running for a year and there is no discernable end. the campaign parameters allows any players to join or miss sessions and it doesn't prevent the game from continuing. as a golden rule - a player that is not present, the character may be present, but cannot contribute. the character 'chooses' to hold themselves in reserve. the scope of the game is the sword coast from waterdeep to icewind and everything in between. the year is set in DR 25. that's centuries earlier than current FR setting. basically, remove most of the current known cities. the game itself has a regular schedule of every other Monday. as long as two players are present, we play. I've had as many as ten show up, but prefer six.
So here is my two cents as someone who has been both a player and a GM for over 10 years; manage your own expectations as a GM and do not even begin attempting to do a long campaign until you have a few years of experience with campaigns that only go 3 to 10 games. Play settings your group is passionate about, as their excitement about their characters and setting is extremely important to success. If you are a group that wants 0 story and maximum sim and crunch, take West March style and run your campaigns as "you are here or you're not, we are playing as long as we have X players at the board." If you want a narrative experience, start with short campaigns for multiple reasons. 1. You prevent scope expansion from devouring your campaign. My own campaign that is presently going on over 2 years was in danger of scope expansion until my wife had a solid talk with me about how much was going to be implied by the length of time required to run this campaign. I am excited about trying out new systems and settings, and want to retire my home brew world while I work on it in the background and refurbish things, so I had to cut back on some things because the expansion of the scope and the time required to complete all of the material in a satisfying way would go too long. We are at the age when people have children, loved ones get sick, and Lord knows what other possible distractions. 2. It disciplines you as a GM to pace yourself properly and prevent aimless downtime which results in wheel spinning. My one buddy who we are training as a GM is learning this step the hard way. I gave him 15 games to tell his own story for our B campaign while our main one is on hiatus. We had a moment in a recent game where we got completely bogged down in wheel spinning with NPCs placing themselves in front of the party for idle chatter, and we had to push back and tell him we are trying to move on to the next objective. Newbie GM's running long campaigns often result in people assuming they have infinite time for self-indulgence, or that they can have lazy games where they prep nothing and just want to advance a single plot point in their story. If you are forced to finish the narrative in 3 to 10 games you learn to get to your point and let your players make some interesting decisions, fight some cool battles, and engage in satisfying investigations. 3. You learn to conceive of any narrative you have as a complete whole with an endpoint. Remember, you are totally allowed to have your ending in mind, and in fact should do so. You are not a fucking master improv artist, do not listen to some people who try to tell you that your whole game must be off the cuff. I have played in games like this, and they are universally bad after 2 games. The reason being that people improv by pulling from things they have already done that have worked. Because there is no forethought in the campaign structure, they result in wheel spinning. You can only come up with so many things off the top of your head. I would additionally tell GM's to come up with a rough outline of your campaign, and read a few modules to get an idea as to how RPG campaigns are supposed to be written. If you have a story, you should know roughly where the branches are by developing 3 to 5 solid paths that can accommodate multiple kinds of decisions. Leave it open enough so your party can suggest additions as you play. Your narrative should be able to accommodate chicanery and tom foolery, and you should honestly work alongside one or two of your better players to develop your plan. Hell, doing it this way can even provide you with the fun of passing it on to your players after the campaign is done. If you did a good job, one of your players may even want to take your module and run it for you down the line. Then you get the GM Dream of playing in your own campaign! Just a thought. If you are running a published mod for your first campaign, try to avoid deviating from the text too much for the first run. Let your players do the deviating, then find out what they like and what they ignore, and find your niche there.
While I don't disagree with this overall, it's not why I leave. I leave because every time I'm promised that it'll be a roleplay-heavy game and EVERY time it's a battle every week. This not only doesn't hold my interest (why spend so much time imagining fighting monsters mechanically when I could just play a video game?), but it also incentivizes players to focus their leveling on min-maxing for battle effectiveness instead of considering how character growth would affect their leveling (there ends up being very little growth because of the DM's battle focus). Every time I bring up this problem someone chimes in, "Sounds like you've had bad DMs." The last two times this happened I joined the campaign of a person who said that (or the same DM for a new campaign). So, clearly there is a disconnect between what different people think "story/RP heavy" means. And, somehow a lot of people think it's "monster of the week." 😵 The only thing I can figure is it's because of DMs/players' history of TTRPGs. That people think their D&D sessions are story heavy because they haven't actually played any co-storyteller type TTRPGs. /rant
I left a campaign because of bad pacing. The traveling parts where not needed. We got the artifact and wanted to return it but rolling survival every time was not fun. To be honest most players want to flush out their characters and could care less about what story the DM is telling
My smaller scope table is the one falling apart and not the large scale dimension hopping multi arc story. All that you have claimed in this video has not been my experience. Been playing and DMing since the 90's and scheduling has been the most pernicious issue. Also consider that small scope, minor story stuff might not be interesting enough for player to Prioritize it over anything. Video had some useful info, but i feel like the premise of "58% of those surveyed are secretly wrong, here is the REAL culprit!" to be a little too presumptuous.
....."58% of those surveyed are secretly wrong, here is the REAL culprit!" to be a little too presumptuous. You're right on this. I probably should have been more clear that I still think scheduling can still be someone's problem, and that I don't believe that you NEED a small scope. Small scope is just the easiest way to think about this, because it takes practice to adjust. I still do think that there is a sizable amount of GM's out there who think their problem is scheduling, when it's actually scope. Hell, I'm still happy when someone comments and says "my problem is definitely scheduling" because it means the video helped them (in some small way) to determine that.
I kinda hate that on one hand I do realize that I should plan for either shorter games or more episodic ones to make them more "resilient" to scheduling etc. But on the other, I don't like short or episodic games with changing cast, west marches games are among my absolute worst RPG experiences, most one-off adventures were completely forgettable and 10-12 session campaigns I ran were... at most ok. They worked, but felt more like a chore that I knew how to do, but couldn't afford to lean into things I actually cared for, like long term politics and downtime So frankly I have no clue what to run even
The constant sound effects in the first few minutes were a bit obnoxious tbh. I liked your video and I subscribed but I hope you'll reign that in a bit as it doesn't really add anything and just makes the audio experience more annoying.
Saying scope is the problem and not scheduling is a weird way of thinking about it... It would be more accurate to say that large scope games are more vulnerable to scheduling problems.
First thing i ever played was a lvl3 1 shot. And i picked it up just fine. I think the whole level 3 is too much for beginners is a myth. Alot of the concepts that take a lot to learn aren't level based.
In 5th edition specifically, most certainly. I think if more people accepted that the game is really only playable from Level 3 to 10 then it would definitely help with scope issues.
I want to start by granting the hypothetical concession that you're right. Now, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but I'm not interested in arguing that yet, I'll just grant that you're right, for the sake of argument. Now, accepting that large scope is objectively bad (for the sake of argument), what if I have autism and ADHD, and my mind is a storm of ideas at all times, and trying to go "small scope", for me, for the way my mind works, is like trying to fill a shot glass by leaning into Niagara Falls. What if I can't do it, what if my mind just doesn't work like that, and even if I go in with the best of intentions of small scope, my mind will open a million tabs on every possible hook, and they will explode in fractal expansion? What if I'm just not inspired by small scope? What if I'm just going through the motions, but it doesn't ignite a fire for me or stoke my passions? If I'm only impassioned by large scope narratives, with huge political landscapes and hundreds of fleshed out NPCs and thousands of years of political background for each nation, and an extensive cosmology of outer planes and realms to explore beyond the astral and ethereal, just waiting out there to be explored when the players level up to that point, when they find out that the earthly Big Bad was actually just a pawn of some extraplanner otherworldly power, well what then? Do I just not get to play or create settings or run games or engage in worldbuilding? If you were right, that's incredibly demoralizing to me, and it makes me feel like there's no point, and I should pick a different hobby or something. I'm just not impassioned or inspired by small setting. It doesn't excite me. It doesn't animate me with ideas at 3:30AM when I wake up to use the bathroom, but have to eagerly and enthusiastically write down twenty minutes of ideas that came to mind, full of passion and excitement for how I'm going to incorporate them, weave them into my existing tapestry of grand scale narrative. I don't experience any excitement of the sort with small scale. What is there for me, if you are right?
There are alot of issues like this that simply don't exist among non 5E groups. For as much as normies violently refuse to do so, if it's a matter of your group sputtering out or not, you should expand your interests beyond the mcdonalds of RPG systems. The drift toward story gaming, no gm support, overwrought and painfully slow combat crunch, and complete lack of real danger to characters will always lead to waning interest. It's not complicated. Literally just try a better game.
@@user-wu5vs3xx6f I already know just from your use of the word normie that you have NO BITCHES. People like you are the main reason most people (including me) don't ever wanna go near other systems with a 20 foot pole.
My family and I were having fun for a few years, meeting monthly for D&D. Then, I got inspired by Terraria's Blood Moon event, and distracted myself with trying to incorporate that into the setting. After a while, everyone's Life Bullshit caught up with us, and we had to stop playing. The last session I ran, I had an eldritch tentacle monster hatch from that moon, and devour the world. I don't think I can ever pick the game up again.
IDK if this helps, but I think the best way long campaigns happen is, "Write a book, play chapters." Have a few weeks break between each chapter. It gives people time to catch up on other life stuff-and "absence makes the heart grow fonder." But, schedule that next chapter's first session before the break. It's just like when people used to set aside time to watch a weekly TV series, or when their favourite streamer is scheduled to come on. The break also gives people a good place to jump in or out without artificially breaking the flow of what's going on. Joining an in progress campaign can often be like: "So, you're walking along the road and you see... describe yourself." "Oh, hey, we're going to such-and-such. Wanna join?" This feels artificial and doesn't give characters a chance to get to know each other in the way they were able to at the beginning. But, when a chapter is ending, a DM can plan ahead for a place for others to join & leave whether or not anyone actually does. Natural break points. Sorry for typing so much 😅 There's so much more to say, TBH.
Worldbuilding is great. You just have to recognize that a whole world should be able to house thousands of adventures. You take a lot of time to build the setting so you can better think on the fly or plan a session quickly. It's akin the ukiyo-e artist who studied his entire lifetime to be able to make a masterpiece in seconds. Know your world well. No one else needs to other than what's pertinent to their backstory. The problem is trying to share the worldbuilding through the vehicle of storytelling. No one cares and it's bad storytelling. You have to start with small things that make them curious, so they want to care more about finding out than you care about telling them. How much worse would LotR been if it started at the forming of the fellowship? Or in Return of the King!? Everything up to that point is an entire campaign with many, many multiple "chapters." Even then, the journey from Hobbiton wasn't Tolkien's first story. Not comparing yourself to greatness (he mentioned Critical Role & Dimension 20; I'd also add Legends of Avantris in there) doesn't mean you can't achieve greatness. It's because you haven't seen the thousands of hours of play those groups did before recording. People learn through play, so play more. One group going on break or indefinite hiatus doesn't mean you can't bring others into your world. If some of those people know each other, they might talk about little things they've learned and people start putting together bigger picture pieces that bring them back to playing again. The main point is, if you love worldbuilding, do it. But, nowhere in that process is monologuing about history, magic systems, deities, etc a good idea. Consider what NPCs would actually know. Consider that people misunderstand the real world all the time. Characters aren't going to know how it all fits together and should sometimes be wrong. But you might need to know to do that effectively-not your players.
Sorry, I tried, this is unwatchable. The answer is 2-fold 1) Incompatibility. (conflicting play styles, DM and players) 2) Inflexibility. (unwilling to mutually compromise) How do I know?- 47 years of experience.
I've been a DM for decades and a project manager (PM) for just a year now and both have philosophies that blend in well with one another. Thinking about my campaigns as a PM helps alot because you approach it in a much better way. For example, scope creep is the devil in the PM world, so to prevent it, we create a charter (a campaign charter if you will) on what you expect the current campaign is going to take.
As an example, I set the scope of one campaign I had to "end" at level 6 but its built to go beyond that so I catch myself any time I find myself plotting too far ahead cause we all know the party will throw things off anyway. I have a story charter that tells me what I'm trying to get my party to accomplish in the long run unless they go haywire, which lets me pace leveling and loot.
Another thing to keep in mind as a PM is that every single thing touches another, as we all know when we give the "wrong magic item" so its helpful to take all this into consideration while planning.
Lots to unpack here. I think more people need to read this, so it's pinned.
I can promise you. Between my friends’ changing work schedules, their children’s cheerleader practice, football practice, golf practice, archery practice, church events, dates with wives’, homework for continued education, taking care of ailing parents - it 100% is scheduling.
completely fair!
Something I've started focusing on, despite having a dedicated RPG group, is making story arcs self-contained and lasting only about 3-4 sessions. It keeps the players engaged and active, because things move quickly. These smaller arcs can still fit into a larger one, but it keeps that scope down to something reasonable. An epic story can still be told over 6-8 months if you cut out the chaff!
Cool channel, glad I stumbled upon it! Looking forward to seeing more from you 🤠
Thanks! I loved your video on hitpoints, I literally just watched it two days ago.
@@TheWeepingStag Oh no way? That's awesome! I appreciate it 🤠
Good video. I am 23 sessions into running my West Marches campaign and it works really well for me and my busy group of players.
I'm jealous! Keep kicking butt!
One thing I think that has helped us is we play 3 weeks and then have 1 off, this way hopefully we can schedule things on the off week, and it leads to less burnout
We do similarly, 2 weeks on, one week off.
I don't think most people would assess their life bullshit at 0 when the campaign starts. And there's no reason to think life bullshit always goes up.
I think a lot of times people are saying that life bullshit makes it difficult to continue when they're really just not enjoying the game anymore.
I do think you're pushing us in the right direction -- away from grand climaxes far in the future and toward periodic climaxes.
Your observation matches mine rather well. Of course players do think they have the time for the campaign at the start even with some baseline life interference. But my take here is that player motivation tends to naturally (and often artificially) decline. Since players don't tend to invest as much regular work into games compared to many GMs there if not that much burnout and people wouldn't easily admit a drop in motivation. So scheduling is the perfect way of blaming external forces for internal problems.
Changing the scope is helpful but it does work under the false assumption that scope is the only major issue to blame in the first place. Large scope will make reaching a conclusion a lot harder. But life bullshit contains a hefty dose of player motivation. Life bullshit will detract from motivation but it is just one of many things which will do so.
I agree somewhat agree but it is true that as a campaign becomes longer and longer, it just runs up the chances that other things will take priority in people's lives.
I don't think his argument was that the amount of bullshit in people's life always increases, I think he's making the argument that the bullshit that impacts the game adds up over time, if everyone only has 1 day a week to play games, but basically never misses, their campaign will likely finish, but if someone's fridge goes out and they have to spend gameday replacing it and/or dealing with it, and then someone else has to pick up a kid after a failed sleepover, and then someone else needs to pick someone up from the airport on gameday, that's suddenly 3 missed sessions and will definitely start to drag the game down, even if that sort of thing isn't necessarily uncommon for the player or group, you can only miss or be stressed from other things so much before you start missing things in session because you weren't there for it, or everyone starts to forget what happened, or w/e and it drags down the game.
well, don't forget many games actually add to people's life bullshit not subtract from it
Excellent analysis involving crucial insights from your DMing experiences. Thank you for this video, I’m totally saving & sharing this with all DM’s I know.
Thanks for the lovely comment!
This was a very informative video. I did not expect to see such a small channel pop into my feed and then proceed to absolutely school me on D&D.
Well done. 👏
Thank you
yes, same
This was *extremely* educational and helpful, and it regards a topic that I don't see or hear a lot of other people covering, and especially not doing so with the explanations you gave. Thanks a ton, Weeping Stag! I sincerely hope this channel grows as much as you ever want it to. I'll do my part by not only leaving this comment but also subscribing to the channel and liking the video.
@@erichanson3369 thanks :)
I find the best solution to edit a campaign's length and scope, is to employ time skips. We could play out these 3 months before the big prophesized event at the heart of our story, or I as DM could just ask the players how each of them prepare, and cut to a couple days , or even a few second before we get to that scene.
such an eloquent and valuable video. perfect timing too, been feeling a looming weariness over the scope of my next campaign
As a DM I am honestly burned out on trying to schedule games. People keep prioritizing other stuff.
Maybe switch to one-shots or trilogies. They can be super fun because of the brevity.
@@elifrancis1093 I try, but even that is hard to organize.
@@elifrancis1093Players will get burnt out of having to create new characters all the time
@@dashua1735 Therein lies a trick that most people don't seem to do. Just let the players use the same characters. Now when I say that, I should emphasize that using the same character doesn't strictly mean the same character "sheet" needs to carry over. Equipment can always get lost, sold, stolen, etc. between one-shots so you don't need to worry much about accidentally giving busted magic items. But if you encourage people to keep the same character personalities, then they will start each subsequent one-shot already having a rapport with each other. And of course if someone plays a character and doesn't like them, they have an easy way to swap without having to coordinate with the DM to write their character out.
You can always say that each one-shot is set at different points in a grand timeline (allowing a wide range of possible character levels) or in alternative universes (allowing a character to have the same personality, but a different class)
I love it that you mentioned episodic play are used to run a risk game episodically based on the 1960s TV show combat made it work great nobody ever got past first level but it didn’t matter if you showed up to every session or not the scope of the game was focused completely on one session at a time
This was a much needed reality check for me. I have yet to complete a single campaign (one shots excluded) in 10 years of being a player and a DM, and looking back, scope creep and CR style adventures burned almost all of them out. Obviously some life bullshit is unavoidable, but scaling back has made the prospect of a longer campaign coming to fruition feel more possible for both me and the players i DM for.
You are the person I made this video, and it makes me so happy to hear!
Really great video! Excellent assessment of what's really going on when campaigns fall apart. Good stuff.
It’s the same thing as everything else. It’s priority. The things you prioritize in life you will make time for.
I love the chart at the beginning. It's interesting that this video focuses on the x-axis (green line) and I don't have a lot to add to it. Scope management is a great perspective, considering that most people would be focused on the y-axis (pink line). Since I'm most people, I'm going to talk about it a little bit. My games tend to be successful because I push the pink line higher. People are willing to schedule around my games. I accomplish this by communicating with my players and adjusting my plans, NPCs, scope, and everything else based on feedback. I'd be interested in seeing a companion video to this one addressing the y-axis from your perspective!
Very insightful, hope you make more videos on DMing!
Great insights. Just started a ad&d game and it's definitely an inner battle to cut the fat.
My table is still excited about the campaign, but scheduling is still the main issue. I help this problem in two ways: One, if you can't make it, _tell me when you can_ so others can reschedule around that. Two, run more sessions that can write certain characters out of the story at different times, and only run "main arc" stories when everyone is present. It might take longer to get to the tentpole story beats, but it gets people more consistently involved.
Music is little bit too loud. It makes listening harder
Thanks for the feedback on that, I'll fix that in future stuff.
I run a FFG Star Wars game semi-regularly (usually once a year), and I just wanted to share my method for scope creep: I break my campaign up into chunks of ten sessions. My GMing style with Star Wars usually includes camera movements and cuts, so I refer to the chunks as seasons and the individual sessions as episodes. Breaking it up like this cuts my own writing down tremendously; I can't afford to include every little plot line I want to throw at my players, so I have to focus on the party's main goal (and backstories when they arise, thanks to a fun mechanic built into the system) and help them chase that goal. I've found that it usually works out to being eight sessions of build up, one session where the climax of the season happens, and that leaves one session to wrap the season up and see how we're feeling. Not only has it helped keep my campaigns running, but it allows for my players (and myself) to be fluid when it comes to life bullshit. If life is getting in the way for a player, they're able to easily bow out after a season. If I need to take a break, I can do so after a season and we can return to it later.
I've found this method to work for me, but your mileage may vary. :)
>me after finishing keep on the Borderlands with our party
>"I learned it from you!!!"
Probably wouldn't have finished that campaign had you not GMd for me before that, tbh
I'm glad that we inspire each other with the silly little stories we tell. 💖
Thank you for the west marches explanation!
Idk why, but everytime i heard "west marches" I imagine soldiers going to war. Something about the wording gives me imagery of a massive world spanning war campaign that involves several nations and political navigation. Too much!
Basically, it's the opposite of its meaning.
This video did a great job explaining what it actually is. I've looked it up before, but never got a satisfactory answer.
It's because the sound of the word changed drastically over the ages. March in this sense would originally have had the ch sound that you see in the name Chris. It's related to the word "mark" and meant boundary or border, especially against a forest.
This puts a lot of the onus on the GM. The threshold you're talking about is also the responsibility of the players and is not just changing based on unavoidable life BS but also time management skills, number of players, prioritization, assumptions or expectations of scope (lack of awareness, voluntary or not), and mutual respect for each others time. A lot of this can be solved simply by finding players with a higher "threshold", also known as people who are actually capable of playing your game. Commitment-hostile people do exist, and many of them often wind up writing checks you as the GM can't cash. That being said, these are some good ideas, nice video. Cheers!
Great tips, thanks 🙂
Some great insight into why some of my games have fallen apart and why I've felt unsatisfied in a meandering game that didn't seem to be going anywhere/make sense.
This is such a great video, thank you for sharing your insight! 😄
Thanks!
For us I think it was a triple hit of: Scheduling, trying to add another person and it destabilized the vibe of the group, and the DM over scheduled themselves because they got RL folks into a second campaign and they can nag in-person so we, the original group on Discord just got left in the dirt. Two years of weekly sessions, getting fantastic character development and worldbuilding, just down the drain since March of this year. The last time we actually had a session (and yet still getting a carrot dangled in the chat every month or so...).
Thats crazy, I clicked on this video to listen to while working on my westmarches map
Nice!
Good info. Thanks for the video. The "campaign books" for 5e that runs characters from level 1 to 20 and ends is a bit of a foreign concept to me. As a DM/GM for over 35 years, our campaigns frequently ran over one year. Two years was not uncommon amongst high school friends playing in the same group. Campaigns weren't necessarily playing a character from level 1 to 20 and done. Campaigns were about exploration, traveling the campaign setting/world and often encompassed multiple characters per player. Good times!
Historically, I think first level had a natural scope. Something like, "Oh no, three goblins trying to kill me!" and "Yay! Some gold coins! I can replace all my arrows and maybe get better armor!" Second level got a little bigger. Etc. And this absolutely doesn't mean you can't have interesting stories. But they're stories about a town and a blacksmith and the old guy who is the lord of the local manor.
One of my first TTRPG experiences was taking part in a year long West Marches campaign. I have mixed feelings about how it was executed. But my biggest problem was that my character didn't feel important enough. I attended the final battle with the BBEG(s) simply out of curiosity, whether my character was there or not didn't matter at all.
Overall it was a pool of 15-20 players but only about 6 of them would be allowed into the session at a time. First come, first serve. With some exceptions for players who hadn't played yet during that month, they could reserve a spot beforehand.
This lead to some player characters feeling a lot more important (and powerful) than others. And because of that the GM was more willing to listen to the wishes of those players.
I think this is a problem that many people deal with that should be managed. I also think that this is part of the constant "Be a good DM and everything will work" mentality seen online. Sometimes it's the players. Sometimes it's their level of commitment.
Let's talk about running a group that start's out at Level Zero. This, of course, requires a bit of homebrewing, but it's actually simpler than one thinks. Using the 3.5 edition since I'm more familiar with it then new editions. You'll note that 1st level starts at 0 XP. Adjust this in one of two ways. Bump all progression up one. i.e., it takes 1,000 XP to reach Level 1 (or) Assigned a negative number, say, -500 XP. In either case, adjust Class Skill Max to 2 instead of 4 and for Feats, None. Feats come with training. Save's start with 0 bonuses. Skill's work the same way. Since we are starting out with literally nothing, skills need to be practiced. No bonuses (or) assign a -1 if you wish.
Now spells: Consider that there are, zero level spells. The PHB shows this as Cantrips. Cantrips, my friends, are zero level spells. We simply start with no cantrips as we have yet to learn them. I figure that these would be part of the 'testing stages' that would be wizards usually go through. Cleric's follow a similar path, with their version of cantrips Level 0 .. Create Water; Cure Light Wounds, etc.
If we turn to page 108 within the GM's Guide, we find NPC entries for Aristocrat, Commoner, Warrior, etc. They have a leveling system just as the PC's do. So, if we consider these as additional classes open for play (not just for use for NPCs), they give us that opening/starting point.
Consider the Fighter and all it's sub-classes and special classes. How did Cara of the Sword become a great fighter in the first place? She wasn't born one, though she may have been born into a family with a long martial tradition, thus started early. For the majority however, we don't start 'specializing' until we're of a certain age. What makes a Warrior different from a Fighter? It is my opinion, that the difference is formal training. Warriors learn to fight, often lack finesse, and while able to hold their own, are no match, one on one, with a professional Fighter, which this class would be. One 'learns' the Fighter Trade, and then chooses to specialize. Warrior's never do that. Most 'Peasant Levy's are made up of Warriors, in that they spend most of their time farming or something else, whereas a Fighter focuses mainly on being a better fighter.
I have ran more than a few campaigns where part of the adventure in the early levels is to actually gain the class the player's want to play. Have them choose a 'family class' from page 108, from which the player's will earn X number of levels (In Merchant or Warrior or Adept), before gaining access to the formal training 'real' classes require to join. This also helps to explain how a character's backstory might speak of deeds, actions, and experiences that don't jive with a 1st level anything.
Now, I am not suggesting that you try this with newb's. It'd only confuse them, but experienced players? Veteran gamers? They may be open to the challenges of playing on this level. For the untrained, wannabe Fighter, 'ALL' weapons come with a disadvantage. That -4 for example that comes with using an unfamiliar weapon. It doesn't go away just because Ham of Pram kills his first goblin. It's a challenge.
Which is part of the point of the exercise ...in my opinion.
Scope definitely leads me to stop wanting to schedule games. Past a certain point, it feels harder and harder to deliver something that seems satisfying to me - like a long-running anime trying to constantly one-up itself, I run out of ideas to make the game more engaging and end up too anxious to even prep. At least in my experience, that's what kills the vast majority of my games. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a single game I've run that ended because of scheduling conflicts. It always either ends naturally or gets too big for me to handle.
Agreed, burnout is a much bigger problem for me than scheduling (especially cause I have a killer group ;) )
I try to prep just one session at a time. Doing pretty well so far.
I would like to see your next video on deviations of the Westmarches campaign. Like Star Trek, but you are on a ship? Like Ptolus (city campaign) but you are at the guard house or on patrol? So, episodes are better to keep moving forward - because the scope is too big and the mega plot BBEG is not a strong enough worm to keep people on the hook. But a series of two session events are much more likely to happen. Am I reading you correctly?
Great video, I subscribed! I enjoyed the insights on the life BS threshold. 😄I'm working on an RPG that attempts to address issues of scope and scheduling in its design. It's inspired by West Marches (and its progenitors). It's also meant to be run with the help of a Discord server (or Slack, or similar platform), where there is a division between in-session Excursion play -- the time where everyone gets together (in person or on voice/video) and participates in the "action" -- and Away-from-Table play, where the Excursions are planned, and the setting "lives and breathes" as the world turns. Excursion play is strictly for dungeon delving, monster slaying, and climactic events, with everything else happening Away-from-Table in a more community-driven manner, and featuring a stable of characters that don't necessarily belong to any one player, blurring the line a little between PC and NPC.
Anyway, if you're available I'd love to pick your brain or hear your thoughts some time. Is there a good way to get ahold of you? I'm "ruskerdax" pretty much everywhere if you're inclined!
That's so kind of you
I have a website where I do blog posts, there's a "say hello" page that you can reach me through.
theweepingstag.wordpress.com/
Great vid. Gave me a lot to think about.
great stuff. i discovered this approach a while back to keep every session contained and independend that way the game was way more resitant to people cancelling. it also has reduces my stress level in a different way. i realized that finishing the story is way more important to me then it is to my players. so when a session would leave things open i couldnt stop thinking about the conclusion in between sessions. so now i always ensure that a session reaches a conclusion. then wenn a new session looks like its about to happen i prep for about 1 to 3 hours and run that. that way i dont spend to much time thinking about game whitout getting to play it
credentials: "professionally unemployed". I was worried to get BS advice, but seeing the state of your employment I relieved. No person with a 9 to 5 schedule can also be a legendary GM with actually good advice.
Gave me a chuckle while I was working on job apps today, thanks :)
Great video!
Everything you said makes sense and puts it into perspective exactly how I'm feeling 16 sessions into a complicated world, for me, as a dm.
The West Marches sounds like it is more of a sandbox style with very little roleplaying. I would prefer talking to people and finding interesting things to do to get closer to a specific goal than just a sandbox.
Why does a West Marches campaign sound like it'd have very little roleplaying?
I run shorter campaigns/arcs now. Trying to "complete" a longer campaign is suicide.
Yay-scope creep! So many other PMs chiming in, so I’ll give my two cents about dealing with scope creep in my campaigns.
1) I schedule the game time, not the players. I have free time on Sunday afternoons, so Sunday afternoons are my game time. I don’t change that time, but any players I gather in will also have that as free time. I can run games with just one player or even do solo games by myself (several good ones in Call of Cthulhu), so I never have to worry about accommodating others’ schedules.
2) I follow Shadowdark’s rule that the game happens in real time at the table. That means that players who don’t end a session by getting back out of the dungeon to a safe place or town are going to be stuck in the dungeon for a week without resources. This means that my players have a week to prepare out of game for in-game time, so any magic items or gear is bought in a chat function like discord during the week, not at the table.
3) Like the West Marches, I don’t have many overarching plots. Episodic TV was what raised me, so I liberally reuse plots like Monster of the Week or Investigate this Weirdness to give players a sense of continuity in their characters, not the world. Players will make jokes and have stories of their characters, not the campaign-so I privilege character actions rather than story actions. Partly this is done through giving everyone growing faction ties-players are part of a magical school or law enforcement group that goes out and investigates things. Bad things happen, players stop it. Sometimes there’s a big bad out there, but usually it’s a far off issue that players may or may not deal with. But the current day’s mission is given by higher ups and completing it nets rewards and levels.
So that’s about it-episodic short form narratives in a weekly session (same bat time, same bat channel) with easily expressed rewards earned through real-time table play. Either XP for gold or milestone leveling is fine, so long as the faction is the one who gives rewards and only on successful completions.
I have discovered that you can organically smooth out level progression by just having the players vote on whether they want to level up at the end of each session. Majority rule. Player's want more power, obviously, but they want it at a pace they can get used to it, and they also understand that the campaign will draw to a close once they get high enough in level. It gives players control over the pacing, and works beautifully.
This is extremely gold advice! I'm sure this doesn't solve 100% of scheduling issues, but it helps how to actually prep homebrew without GM burnout and to keep the game exciting for players. GMs who do scope creep should just write books. Scope creep ends in railroads.
Nice video man
Thanks!
20 sessions is a lot for a campaign? That feels rather wrong; most of my campaigns have run for something like 50-200 sessions, weekly game with a few weeks skipped each year due to vacations and such... but as a caveat, I pretty much never run pre-written campaigns; I favor running narrative campaigns in simulationist worlds - the world plods along in the background with various schemes and events happening in the background, but the story is just what the players choose to interact with - if the party crosses paths with a background plot and decide it's not interesting to look into, then that background plot carries on in the background, and might or might not rear its head again... but the world exists independant of the PCs until and unless a world-ending plot crops up.
Currently running a campaign where the party is beginning to find their way in a world wherein the lich Emperor just disappeared, and the empire is facing an imminent crisis which the momentum of the bureaucracy *might* actually weather without the head of state... I have no idea which way things will go five sessions from now, because that depends a lot on what the players choose to interact with. I know roughly how big-picture things will go *without* the party intervening, but the world model, as it were, will respond and adapt to any changes induced by the players.
Not bragging here, but noting that different DM styles have different strengths and weaknesses, and that having a campaign planned out from start to finish like a book where the players ad-lib the predetermined plot points is... not a very strong foundation for a long-term campaign.
While I initially fell prey to scope creep, I will be the first to admit that I got overwhelmed and ended up turning into a "should have just written a book" Dungeon Master. I alleviated that by writing a book haha. Either way, thank you for this. It was very informative and nice to put a name to what I had been feeling. I also think that I had a hard time because a few of my players had gotten really into actual play content. I noticed that Brennan Lee Mulligan and Matthew Mercer were coming up a lot more, and that made me feel like I needed to step up my game.
It's always weird to see people coming up with the same ideas all around the world without any prior contact. Great Video man. Deserves a subscribe. hmmm... you could also try Open group player style in which you can even have more than one dm without things getting out of hnd which is my preference. it's a style common in my country, iran where people are just busy all the time, even teenagers. this style allows an upward of 8 players for an inexperienced dm. I myself ran a campaign for 18 players along my co-dungeon master that lasted 2 years. only 12 of the players remained till the end, but it ended really nice and easy. though I have to say that it is unfortunately incompatible with D&D...
Oh wow, I didn't eve know that D&D was played in Iran! That's so cool :)
I have a lot of players be surprised when I quote them an estimated campaign time measured in months for a campaign, but short campaigns are the way that I can guarantee that a campaign will reach an ending.
Yeah I usually measure campaigns in estimated sessions, and for most campaigns I run like 10-15 sessions. People ask why and I'm always like "They actually finish that way."
Dunno man. I had a session last Saturday, the first in 3 months. It was great. Scheduling is the #1 killer, but the #2 killer is half of my group is NOT invested in the gameplay. They are here to hang out with friends. I accommodate them.
I run an open world. (not calling it a sandbox because it has limitations)
the campaign has been running for a year and there is no discernable end. the campaign parameters allows any players to join or miss sessions and it doesn't prevent the game from continuing.
as a golden rule - a player that is not present, the character may be present, but cannot contribute. the character 'chooses' to hold themselves in reserve.
the scope of the game is the sword coast from waterdeep to icewind and everything in between. the year is set in DR 25. that's centuries earlier than current FR setting. basically, remove most of the current known cities.
the game itself has a regular schedule of every other Monday. as long as two players are present, we play. I've had as many as ten show up, but prefer six.
Great video.
Damn... this is really good advice but also kinda sad because its not relistic to dm the fall of Tyr again...
It's always Steven's fault
If you're aiming for Critical Role, aim for Calamity: it starts high level and is 4 sessions long.
Robbins popularized the return to that style of play, but before Dragonlance that's pretty much how everyone played.
Follow up in case I'm sounding negative: Lots of tremendous advice!
Great content. More lute.
noted
So here is my two cents as someone who has been both a player and a GM for over 10 years; manage your own expectations as a GM and do not even begin attempting to do a long campaign until you have a few years of experience with campaigns that only go 3 to 10 games. Play settings your group is passionate about, as their excitement about their characters and setting is extremely important to success. If you are a group that wants 0 story and maximum sim and crunch, take West March style and run your campaigns as "you are here or you're not, we are playing as long as we have X players at the board."
If you want a narrative experience, start with short campaigns for multiple reasons.
1. You prevent scope expansion from devouring your campaign. My own campaign that is presently going on over 2 years was in danger of scope expansion until my wife had a solid talk with me about how much was going to be implied by the length of time required to run this campaign. I am excited about trying out new systems and settings, and want to retire my home brew world while I work on it in the background and refurbish things, so I had to cut back on some things because the expansion of the scope and the time required to complete all of the material in a satisfying way would go too long. We are at the age when people have children, loved ones get sick, and Lord knows what other possible distractions.
2. It disciplines you as a GM to pace yourself properly and prevent aimless downtime which results in wheel spinning. My one buddy who we are training as a GM is learning this step the hard way. I gave him 15 games to tell his own story for our B campaign while our main one is on hiatus. We had a moment in a recent game where we got completely bogged down in wheel spinning with NPCs placing themselves in front of the party for idle chatter, and we had to push back and tell him we are trying to move on to the next objective. Newbie GM's running long campaigns often result in people assuming they have infinite time for self-indulgence, or that they can have lazy games where they prep nothing and just want to advance a single plot point in their story. If you are forced to finish the narrative in 3 to 10 games you learn to get to your point and let your players make some interesting decisions, fight some cool battles, and engage in satisfying investigations.
3. You learn to conceive of any narrative you have as a complete whole with an endpoint. Remember, you are totally allowed to have your ending in mind, and in fact should do so. You are not a fucking master improv artist, do not listen to some people who try to tell you that your whole game must be off the cuff. I have played in games like this, and they are universally bad after 2 games. The reason being that people improv by pulling from things they have already done that have worked. Because there is no forethought in the campaign structure, they result in wheel spinning. You can only come up with so many things off the top of your head.
I would additionally tell GM's to come up with a rough outline of your campaign, and read a few modules to get an idea as to how RPG campaigns are supposed to be written. If you have a story, you should know roughly where the branches are by developing 3 to 5 solid paths that can accommodate multiple kinds of decisions. Leave it open enough so your party can suggest additions as you play. Your narrative should be able to accommodate chicanery and tom foolery, and you should honestly work alongside one or two of your better players to develop your plan. Hell, doing it this way can even provide you with the fun of passing it on to your players after the campaign is done. If you did a good job, one of your players may even want to take your module and run it for you down the line. Then you get the GM Dream of playing in your own campaign! Just a thought.
If you are running a published mod for your first campaign, try to avoid deviating from the text too much for the first run. Let your players do the deviating, then find out what they like and what they ignore, and find your niche there.
My Elder sent me here.
It is me I am the reason why campaigns die prematurely
is this a filter thing or does this guy have the smoothest face in the world?
Natural beauty~~~
But seriously it might a camera setting I'm unaware of
While I don't disagree with this overall, it's not why I leave.
I leave because every time I'm promised that it'll be a roleplay-heavy game and EVERY time it's a battle every week. This not only doesn't hold my interest (why spend so much time imagining fighting monsters mechanically when I could just play a video game?), but it also incentivizes players to focus their leveling on min-maxing for battle effectiveness instead of considering how character growth would affect their leveling (there ends up being very little growth because of the DM's battle focus).
Every time I bring up this problem someone chimes in, "Sounds like you've had bad DMs." The last two times this happened I joined the campaign of a person who said that (or the same DM for a new campaign). So, clearly there is a disconnect between what different people think "story/RP heavy" means. And, somehow a lot of people think it's "monster of the week." 😵
The only thing I can figure is it's because of DMs/players' history of TTRPGs. That people think their D&D sessions are story heavy because they haven't actually played any co-storyteller type TTRPGs.
/rant
I left a campaign because of bad pacing. The traveling parts where not needed. We got the artifact and wanted to return it but rolling survival every time was not fun. To be honest most players want to flush out their characters and could care less about what story the DM is telling
Even when I care deeply about the story the DM is playing, the traveling parts are boring.
My smaller scope table is the one falling apart and not the large scale dimension hopping multi arc story. All that you have claimed in this video has not been my experience. Been playing and DMing since the 90's and scheduling has been the most pernicious issue.
Also consider that small scope, minor story stuff might not be interesting enough for player to Prioritize it over anything. Video had some useful info, but i feel like the premise of "58% of those surveyed are secretly wrong, here is the REAL culprit!" to be a little too presumptuous.
....."58% of those surveyed are secretly wrong, here is the REAL culprit!" to be a little too presumptuous.
You're right on this. I probably should have been more clear that I still think scheduling can still be someone's problem, and that I don't believe that you NEED a small scope. Small scope is just the easiest way to think about this, because it takes practice to adjust.
I still do think that there is a sizable amount of GM's out there who think their problem is scheduling, when it's actually scope. Hell, I'm still happy when someone comments and says "my problem is definitely scheduling" because it means the video helped them (in some small way) to determine that.
nah, it's scheduling. (or the fact that I'm an asshole 🤔). nope, it's scheduling.
I kinda hate that on one hand I do realize that I should plan for either shorter games or more episodic ones to make them more "resilient" to scheduling etc.
But on the other, I don't like short or episodic games with changing cast, west marches games are among my absolute worst RPG experiences, most one-off adventures were completely forgettable and 10-12 session campaigns I ran were... at most ok. They worked, but felt more like a chore that I knew how to do, but couldn't afford to lean into things I actually cared for, like long term politics and downtime
So frankly I have no clue what to run even
The constant sound effects in the first few minutes were a bit obnoxious tbh. I liked your video and I subscribed but I hope you'll reign that in a bit as it doesn't really add anything and just makes the audio experience more annoying.
Your feedback is noted. I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing here on UA-cam in terms of editing style and all of that
Saying scope is the problem and not scheduling is a weird way of thinking about it... It would be more accurate to say that large scope games are more vulnerable to scheduling problems.
Nice hypothesis, but no.
starting at level 1 sucks
It's great for new players but I'll agree it feels super limiting when you get a feel for anything past 3rd.
First thing i ever played was a lvl3 1 shot. And i picked it up just fine. I think the whole level 3 is too much for beginners is a myth. Alot of the concepts that take a lot to learn aren't level based.
In 5th edition specifically, most certainly. I think if more people accepted that the game is really only playable from Level 3 to 10 then it would definitely help with scope issues.
Wrong it’s just a game not centered around character sheet buttons.
Depends on your situation.
I want to start by granting the hypothetical concession that you're right. Now, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but I'm not interested in arguing that yet, I'll just grant that you're right, for the sake of argument.
Now, accepting that large scope is objectively bad (for the sake of argument), what if I have autism and ADHD, and my mind is a storm of ideas at all times, and trying to go "small scope", for me, for the way my mind works, is like trying to fill a shot glass by leaning into Niagara Falls. What if I can't do it, what if my mind just doesn't work like that, and even if I go in with the best of intentions of small scope, my mind will open a million tabs on every possible hook, and they will explode in fractal expansion? What if I'm just not inspired by small scope? What if I'm just going through the motions, but it doesn't ignite a fire for me or stoke my passions?
If I'm only impassioned by large scope narratives, with huge political landscapes and hundreds of fleshed out NPCs and thousands of years of political background for each nation, and an extensive cosmology of outer planes and realms to explore beyond the astral and ethereal, just waiting out there to be explored when the players level up to that point, when they find out that the earthly Big Bad was actually just a pawn of some extraplanner otherworldly power, well what then? Do I just not get to play or create settings or run games or engage in worldbuilding?
If you were right, that's incredibly demoralizing to me, and it makes me feel like there's no point, and I should pick a different hobby or something. I'm just not impassioned or inspired by small setting. It doesn't excite me. It doesn't animate me with ideas at 3:30AM when I wake up to use the bathroom, but have to eagerly and enthusiastically write down twenty minutes of ideas that came to mind, full of passion and excitement for how I'm going to incorporate them, weave them into my existing tapestry of grand scale narrative. I don't experience any excitement of the sort with small scale. What is there for me, if you are right?
There are alot of issues like this that simply don't exist among non 5E groups. For as much as normies violently refuse to do so, if it's a matter of your group sputtering out or not, you should expand your interests beyond the mcdonalds of RPG systems. The drift toward story gaming, no gm support, overwrought and painfully slow combat crunch, and complete lack of real danger to characters will always lead to waning interest. It's not complicated. Literally just try a better game.
Touch grass I can smell you from here. People like you are why we don't wanna go ANYWHERE NEAR those systems.
@@easiestcc6451 normie vernacular
@@user-wu5vs3xx6f I already know just from your use of the word normie that you have NO BITCHES. People like you are the main reason most people (including me) don't ever wanna go near other systems with a 20 foot pole.
My family and I were having fun for a few years, meeting monthly for D&D. Then, I got inspired by Terraria's Blood Moon event, and distracted myself with trying to incorporate that into the setting. After a while, everyone's Life Bullshit caught up with us, and we had to stop playing. The last session I ran, I had an eldritch tentacle monster hatch from that moon, and devour the world.
I don't think I can ever pick the game up again.
IDK if this helps, but I think the best way long campaigns happen is, "Write a book, play chapters."
Have a few weeks break between each chapter.
It gives people time to catch up on other life stuff-and "absence makes the heart grow fonder." But, schedule that next chapter's first session before the break. It's just like when people used to set aside time to watch a weekly TV series, or when their favourite streamer is scheduled to come on.
The break also gives people a good place to jump in or out without artificially breaking the flow of what's going on. Joining an in progress campaign can often be like:
"So, you're walking along the road and you see... describe yourself."
"Oh, hey, we're going to such-and-such. Wanna join?"
This feels artificial and doesn't give characters a chance to get to know each other in the way they were able to at the beginning. But, when a chapter is ending, a DM can plan ahead for a place for others to join & leave whether or not anyone actually does. Natural break points.
Sorry for typing so much 😅 There's so much more to say, TBH.
Worldbuilding is great. You just have to recognize that a whole world should be able to house thousands of adventures. You take a lot of time to build the setting so you can better think on the fly or plan a session quickly. It's akin the ukiyo-e artist who studied his entire lifetime to be able to make a masterpiece in seconds. Know your world well. No one else needs to other than what's pertinent to their backstory.
The problem is trying to share the worldbuilding through the vehicle of storytelling. No one cares and it's bad storytelling. You have to start with small things that make them curious, so they want to care more about finding out than you care about telling them. How much worse would LotR been if it started at the forming of the fellowship? Or in Return of the King!? Everything up to that point is an entire campaign with many, many multiple "chapters."
Even then, the journey from Hobbiton wasn't Tolkien's first story. Not comparing yourself to greatness (he mentioned Critical Role & Dimension 20; I'd also add Legends of Avantris in there) doesn't mean you can't achieve greatness. It's because you haven't seen the thousands of hours of play those groups did before recording. People learn through play, so play more. One group going on break or indefinite hiatus doesn't mean you can't bring others into your world. If some of those people know each other, they might talk about little things they've learned and people start putting together bigger picture pieces that bring them back to playing again.
The main point is, if you love worldbuilding, do it. But, nowhere in that process is monologuing about history, magic systems, deities, etc a good idea. Consider what NPCs would actually know. Consider that people misunderstand the real world all the time. Characters aren't going to know how it all fits together and should sometimes be wrong. But you might need to know to do that effectively-not your players.
Sorry, I tried, this is unwatchable. The answer is 2-fold 1) Incompatibility. (conflicting play styles, DM and players) 2) Inflexibility. (unwilling to mutually compromise) How do I know?- 47 years of experience.
Thanks for the content!