More and more often I've come to realize the reason that I like shorter campaigns. As someone who's run a good few, I have always felt that longer campaigns feel empty. That they tend to fizzle out rather than end.
This is due to player engagement, and story development. I've always hated games that fizzle out. My games only thrive as long as players enjoy them, and when players stop wanting to play, the game stops functioning.
I believe that this is true for everyone to an extent. Most players run games for the enjoyment of their group, not to, as they claim "tell a story". The latter is true for some, but frankly, I wouldn't want to be at the table with them in the end.
Here's the realization I've had: a truly good game consists of a series of interconnected, but ideally self-contained stories.
Plot hooks can be thrown out, threads can be unresolved. In the end, the players will not care if they don't fully explore every aspect of the story. The aspects they didn't explore can be the core for another.
Your players might want to explore all of the plot hooks right away. This means the players are enjoying the story, and are willing to stay for it. The moment they start to lose interest in the plot hooks you throw at them, is a sign that they are probably going to start enjoying the campaign less and less.
This is typically a sign to change campaigns, game systems, or something else to freshen things up. Heck, making new characters might be something as well!
Either way, it's something to consider, that I think others should also consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment