The Future of Campaign Games – Stonemaier Games

The Future of Campaign Games

I’m currently 18 games into a campaign of My City, and I’ll soon start a Betrayal Legacy campaign. I’m looking forward to receiving my preordered copies of Roll Player Adventures, Sleepy Hollow, Now or Never, The Emerald Flame, The 7th Citadel, and Soul Raiders. Meanwhile on various crowdfunding platforms there are several amazing-looking campaign games, including Earthborne Rangers, Arydia, Divinus, and Lands of Galzyr.

As excited as I am about the epic scope and design achievements of these games, I’m feeling a bit squeezed in terms of time required to fully experience campaign games, and it’s impacting my purchasing decisions. As a result, it’s also making me wonder if we’re starting to see a decline in the appeal of campaign games (or of certain types of campaign games).

If you want to skip to the conclusion for this article, the data suggests that campaign games will continue to be a popular genre, though consumers may become more selective about which campaign games they buy and how often they buy them.

***

Today I’m going to examine this topic with fresh data in hand from a survey I sent out to Stonemaier Ambassadors over the weekend. There’s also a version of the survey available here for the general public to answer (the results will display at the end of the survey and could differ dramatically from the Ambassador results below; I’ve also updated this post to share any instances of significant differences between the ambassador and reader surveys).

Just so we’re clear on the topic at hand, let’s define what a campaign tabletop game is:

A campaign game, by my account, is a game designed specifically to be played over multiple sessions with some connecting narrative and persistent elements from game to game. Most campaign games have both micro endings (i.e., you pause at specific times, typically to clean up that episode and set up the next) and macro endings (i.e., some overarching goal you’re trying to reach).

A lot of the data I’ll share below is opinion driven, but the following two questions are more objective:

So it looks like people are averaging around 2 campaign games per year. I probably could have asked how many non-campaign games they played, though aside from the most diligent of us, I think that would be a rough estimate at best. I’m guessing the average ratio of non-campaign to campaign games played each year is around 30:1.

UPDATE: Based on the reader responses, the only significant difference here is that more readers–20% compared to 13%–played at least 5 campaign games in the last year.

People are averaging closer to 3 campaign games that are waiting to be played. From my perspective, the more unplayed campaign games on a shelf (or incoming soon), the less likely someone is to buy another campaign game. But that’s a pretty big assumption, so let’s dig deeper first.

***

This was my initial question, largely informed by my recent hesitations to buy yet even more campaign games when I have so many in the queue. While there are some people like me, it seems that peoples’ excitement for games is largely dependent on the game itself (theme, mechanisms, etc), not the inclusion of a campaign itself.

From a marketing perspective, this “exit poll” question is fascinating to me, especially next to the previous query. Most people have started a campaign game and haven’t finished, and a full 30% of them have a sense of regret and disappointment as a result. At some point–if it hasn’t already–those feelings may impact their desire to buy another campaign game.

UPDATE: Based on the reader responses, the only significant difference here is that more readers–29% compared to 21%–have completed every campaign game they’ve ever started. Impressive!

I’m not sure if I asked this question the right way, as it’s possible the answer may be more indicative of many gamers’ distaste for long games. That said, I fully expected the opposite of these results–I even added my bias to the response by reminding people that 3-4 separate games would require setup and cleanup for each game!

***

I think the data above suggests that people are already becoming more selective about the campaign games they buy, but there will continue to be a significant market for them. So if you’re planning to design or publish a campaign game, what are people looking for?

Player count: A whopping 91% of people said that they play campaign games at either 2, 3, or 4 players. The most surprising part of these results is that only 6% of people are playing campaign games solo. With self-isolation combined with the lack of schedule coordination with other players required to get a solo game to the table, I would have thought this percentage would be higher. I still view it as a necessity to include solo play, though.

UPDATE: Based on the reader responses, the significant differences here are that more readers–20% compared to 6%–primarily play campaign games solo and fewer readers–31% compared to 38%–play 4-player campaign games.

Campaign length: Nearly 80% of people are looking for campaigns that require 6-20 games (3-8 sessions), so an average of around 12-13 games per campaign. I don’t think this needs to stop designers from pursuing epic games with massive replayability, but breaking it into smaller chunks may provide the most appealing marketing.

Price and scope: This was one of the most illuminating questions on the survey, as 77% of respondents are most likely to buy a $50-$70 campaign game advertising 20-30 hours of gameplay (opposed to a longer/pricier campaign or a shorter/cheaper campaign).

Game length: 84% of people are looking for games that aren’t too short or too long (30-90 minutes). So 1 hour is the sweet spot for games within a campaign.

Genre: People could select as many of the above options as they wished. Of all the questions, this is probably the most skewed by those to whom I asked these questions, Stonemaier Ambassadors. Even within that context, it’s notable that cooperative games–a genre we have yet to publish–are far more popular for campaigns than competitive games. It also seems that people prefer their campaign games as a single purchase instead of the ongoing commitment of an LCG (living card game).

UPDATE: Based on the reader responses, the significant differences here are that more readers like dungeon crawler (55%) and cooperative campaign games (71%), and fewer readers like village/city/empire building (51%) and non-legacy campaign games (20%).

To summarize, if you’re looking to design, publish, or market a campaign game, the above data indicates that consumers may continue to become more selective about the campaign games they purchase, so your chances of success may increase if you aim for the following:

  • 1-4 players
  • 1 hour per game
  • 12 games per campaign
  • 25 hours of total gameplay (potentially multiple campaigns)
  • $60 MSRP
  • cooperative and single-purchase format

***

I’ve created a fresh version of the survey for anyone to answer, and you can see the results after you fill it out. I’d love to see your thoughts there and read them in the comments below!

Also, here are my videos about campaign games:

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!

12 Comments on “The Future of Campaign Games

Leave a Comment

If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.

Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.

  1. […] campaign length (number of sessions to complete; see related article) […]

  2. […] maybe Marvel Champions has a campaign in the core box?). I discuss campaign games in detail on another recent post., and I think the biggest reason they’re not here is (on some level) a lack of interest in […]

  3. […] care about the replayability of campaign games? I didn’t even consider replayability in my recent post about the future of campaign games, as it’s simply something that doesn’t cross my mind. I’d never ask a grocery […]

  4. My answers would depend a lot on whether I take the past year, or go by what I would have been playing if we hadn’t had a global pandemic. In the year before Covid, I played 5-6 campaigns across 4-5 games (I have two separate Gloomhaven campaigns that have been on hold for almost 18 months now) and would expect to play at least 4 games in the next year as things continue to get back to something more normal, but all my boardgaming has suffered over the past while.

    I also struggle with the length question. I’d be happy to have 3-4 different campaign games active at once – 1 or 2 very long ones (Gloomhaven) and up to two that run ~12 sessions of 1-2 hours each (Pandemic Legacy, Charterstone, Rise of Fenris, Betrayal Legacy, etc). So I’d want the 18-hour campaigns to outnumber the 100+ hour ones maybe 6:1, but I wouldn’t want to go entirely without the occasional monster.

    The corollary to all this is that I’m going to be a lot less selective about the shorter campaigns that represent less of a commitment. Though I’m not convinced I’d want to go as short as The Crew.

  5. If I can offer my own garbled thoughts…

    I think Legacy vs campaign is interesting, as I think they’re often thought to be interchangeable, but that’s not always the case. For instance, Risk Legacy – not a campaign, as you potentially switch faction every round…

    Are campaign games nearly always co-operative? That’s become an important point for me. I think competitive legacy/campaign games are a much tougher design challenge, and one in which a robust catch-up mechanism is critical. If you’re getting hammered every game, and the leader keeps getting stronger, why would you stay interested over a period of 10+ games?

    Player number spread is also really important for me – we’re a family of five, so it’s really tough to find something that fits, and I’ll buy a campaign game for five almost by default. Charterstone (1st one we ever played), Risk Legacy – tick. Gloomhaven, Pandemic, Pathfinder – frowny face. I have to play those with my gamer group, and that’s much more subject to fluctuating numbers – I’ve started a second Charterstone game with them (4 players), and had three games in quick succession, but has been weeks since we last played, as we haven’t had the same group back together. King’s Dilemma is high on my wish list!

    I’m still not sure whether I like the idea of campaign games more than the reality though. My middle son suffers burnout quite quickly, so I’d prefer closer to the 10-game mark than 15. Post campaign is never that much of a concern – if you’ve played a game 10, 20 times by playing through the campaign once or twice, that’s probably more than most games in my collection, so I’d have had good value from it. It costs as much (if note more) as a campaign/legacy game to take my family to the cinema once!

    That being said, I definitely think designing a way to “recharge” the campaign and do it again is the way forward, at least you’ve got the option then!

  6. I do not think campaign games are going away anytime soon. They may see their popularity reduced due to the “Legacy” concept being associated with campaigns and now legacy games being on a bit of a burnout, but there were campaign games far before the first legacy game showed up.

    Most of these games were tabletop RPGs in the vein of Descent or Imperial Assault and I do not think that those games are going to disappear. Players that enjoy those games will continue buying and playing them, although I am not sure that the current trend to pair this kind of games with apps is going to help at all. I always saw these games like a more structured RPG, but having all the stuff visible and tactile was an important part of the experience.

  7. My only problem with campaign games (especially Legacy games) is the post-campaign period. Once you are donw with the campaign… then what? Do you toss the game? Seems a waste.

    This is one of the many reasons why I liked Charterstone. The post campaign is there. Granted, as published, it lacks some elements post campaign… which is why my wife and I wrote the expansion we did.

    I would say that gameplay is more important than format. If the game is engaging, the idea of one-off vs. campaign, legacy vs. non-legacy becomes a non-issue. The idea should be to create a great gaming experience first. If a campaign can add to that experience, then sure. If legacy elements can add to that experience, then sure. Otherwise, leave it alone.

  8. Maybe consider changing your question about tear down.

    Might I suggest. Would you rather play shorter scenarios that require tear down and setup (Gloomhaven) or would you rather play longer scenarios that you can just leave set up (I don’t have a great example here maybe Arena the contest).

    I would rather have a dedicated room I could leave my miniatures games setup for longer scenarios but who has the space for that?

      1. I play Gloomhaven just about every weekend with my wife (with a friend joining occasionally). Each scenario takes about an hour for us, including set-up and tear-down, and we average 4-6 scenarios each session.

        I honestly read the question about “Which of the following would you rather play?” as an option between one very long game with one setup (something like Nemesis) to 3-4 sessions of Gloomhaven. In that case, I would generally prefer to play something like Gloomhaven or Rise of Fenris (the same group that I play Gloomhaven played all of RoF in one marathon session, 12 hours. Granted, we completely missed the early game end triggers, so played 8 full games).

        1. What, 1 hour I including setup and teardown? I feel like just getting the box out, removing the components and setting up the first scenario takes 20 minutes for us, and each scenario takes at least 2 hours. The main reason we’ve stopped playing for awhile is so much overhead. I mean just finding the monsters for the scenario, laying out their decks and pieces, and setting up the map takes 10 minutes or so. How do you possibly play so fast?

  9. Interesting results.
    If you look at the stats you summarize in the end I immediately thougt of Pandemic Legacy and why it maybe was so populair with so many different people. Of course the popularity of the game overall largely contributed to that even more, but I think it is completely within those parameters you stated. If you look at other games that take much longer or are more expensive to buy it seems they are less populair or sold less.

See All Comments

Discover more from Stonemaier Games

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading