Depends entirely on your group and how often the breaks are. I know one of my groups regularly goes 6 weeks over the December/January period due to illness, holidays and Christmas but we're fine with that and quickly fall back into every two weeks. I know of other games that only play once a month but that's what they expect while other groups I know fell apart after a two week break
Moving back on topic, you have to do it be feel. As CS says, sometimes it can go a month or two without being much of an issue - my last campaign had a hiatus of 6 weeks during the summer due to holidays and whatnot. We finished the campaign just a week ago today. On the other hand, even a single missed session can be a campaign's doom.
You have to judge based on several factors:
Has the campaign had breaks previously and survived?
Have the various people that have been pulling out been giving good reasons and plenty of notice (in light of their reasons) or have the reasons been lame and they've dawdled in letting you know?
How frequently do you meet? If you meet weekly, having a long gap can be lethal to the campaign. On the other hand, while meeting fortnightly might survive longer gaps, it tends to be more sensitive to missed sessions.
Has the campaign been largely consistent?
Do you have fixed dates for when the sessions can start again?
Has the campaign been fun and engaging so far?
Is there chatter outside of the sessions?
Are people approaching you (rather than you them) about continuing?
How long has the campaign been running for?
Is there any money invested in it?
Is everyone friends?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My group TRIES to meet every two weeks. Sometimes we end up meeting every three weeks instead. Because there are only four of us, if someone has to miss, we don't play. So any time someone is sick, out of town, busy, or otherwise cannot make it, we miss a session. The longest break we've had was almost three months.
It's annoying, but we all want to continue the campaigns we've been playing, so try to take notes and pick up where we left off!
I think the only limit is how long are you willing to put up with to play with the same group of people?
My group plays weekly. 1 time a week. If we have less then 4 players show up then we call the session off and do something else as a group.
( No need to waste a day with friends)
Then if after about 4 weeks of that then we stop. It's better for everyone to commit to the game. If you can't commit don't start. It saves time and a lot of headaches.
Yeah we've had one session in december and the next one is the 30th. One of the players told me that they didn't remember what happened and said we should start over. The other players seem fine with it though. Any thoughts on that?
Yeah we've had one session in december and the next one is the 30th. One of the players told me that they didn't remember what happened and said we should start over. The other players seem fine with it though. Any thoughts on that?
I've got players who can't remember what happened five minutes after it happened lol.
If the majority are ok then I'd just do a recap for the one that can't remember and get on with session 2. Might also be worth being upfront with everyone and double checking if they actually want to play. Gaps aren't a problem but almost three months between session 1 and session 2 looks like at least one of them isn't too fussed about playing and might be holding everyone else up
We try to play every week,. However, we too are busy adults, some with kids so there are interruptions. We have just missed two weeks and will see what happens next week. On the other hand as a group we have been meeting for over 5 years now so we know what to expect from each other. Two of us DM and occasionally we take breaks or start campaigns in other games to see what they are like. Eventually we come back to D&D but how long we are away is highly variable.
It's probably worth noting that the OP is asking about how long between sessions before a campaign should be cancelled or rebooted, rather than the ideal frequency of sessions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah we've had one session in december and the next one is the 30th. One of the players told me that they didn't remember what happened and said we should start over. The other players seem fine with it though. Any thoughts on that?
I'd be reluctant to replay the session. It feels like it would establish a poor precedent that would devalue attendance and paying attention. I do a brief recap at the beginning of each session, about two minutes, to refresh people's memories and catch up those who were absent last time. Doing replays wastes the time of people who attended both and remember what happened, while making cheating easier (or making life much harder for the DM who has to come with a fresh adventure to prevent the cheating).
Recap is a much better way to handle it. I get that the player who doesn't remember wants to remember all their sessions, but maybe this will provide them with a motive to help make sure sessions are more regular.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How long between sessions before we just start over?
Depends entirely on your group and how often the breaks are. I know one of my groups regularly goes 6 weeks over the December/January period due to illness, holidays and Christmas but we're fine with that and quickly fall back into every two weeks. I know of other games that only play once a month but that's what they expect while other groups I know fell apart after a two week break
Moving back on topic, you have to do it be feel. As CS says, sometimes it can go a month or two without being much of an issue - my last campaign had a hiatus of 6 weeks during the summer due to holidays and whatnot. We finished the campaign just a week ago today. On the other hand, even a single missed session can be a campaign's doom.
You have to judge based on several factors:
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My group TRIES to meet every two weeks. Sometimes we end up meeting every three weeks instead. Because there are only four of us, if someone has to miss, we don't play. So any time someone is sick, out of town, busy, or otherwise cannot make it, we miss a session. The longest break we've had was almost three months.
It's annoying, but we all want to continue the campaigns we've been playing, so try to take notes and pick up where we left off!
I think the only limit is how long are you willing to put up with to play with the same group of people?
My group plays weekly. 1 time a week. If we have less then 4 players show up then we call the session off and do something else as a group.
( No need to waste a day with friends)
Then if after about 4 weeks of that then we stop. It's better for everyone to commit to the game. If you can't commit don't start. It saves time and a lot of headaches.
Yeah we've had one session in december and the next one is the 30th. One of the players told me that they didn't remember what happened and said we should start over. The other players seem fine with it though. Any thoughts on that?
I've got players who can't remember what happened five minutes after it happened lol.
If the majority are ok then I'd just do a recap for the one that can't remember and get on with session 2. Might also be worth being upfront with everyone and double checking if they actually want to play. Gaps aren't a problem but almost three months between session 1 and session 2 looks like at least one of them isn't too fussed about playing and might be holding everyone else up
I prefer weekly sessions but being adults with busy lives, we play every other week.
We try to play every week,. However, we too are busy adults, some with kids so there are interruptions. We have just missed two weeks and will see what happens next week. On the other hand as a group we have been meeting for over 5 years now so we know what to expect from each other. Two of us DM and occasionally we take breaks or start campaigns in other games to see what they are like. Eventually we come back to D&D but how long we are away is highly variable.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's probably worth noting that the OP is asking about how long between sessions before a campaign should be cancelled or rebooted, rather than the ideal frequency of sessions.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'd be reluctant to replay the session. It feels like it would establish a poor precedent that would devalue attendance and paying attention. I do a brief recap at the beginning of each session, about two minutes, to refresh people's memories and catch up those who were absent last time. Doing replays wastes the time of people who attended both and remember what happened, while making cheating easier (or making life much harder for the DM who has to come with a fresh adventure to prevent the cheating).
Recap is a much better way to handle it. I get that the player who doesn't remember wants to remember all their sessions, but maybe this will provide them with a motive to help make sure sessions are more regular.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.