How do you stop a DM from starting NEW campaigns all the time?

[Henry]

I do let my players know ahead of time about how long I intend a given campaign to take and where it should end on their character sheets.

If a DM doesn't do this, however, to me it's a sign of DM burnout, or more precisely sign of a DM who doesn't INTEND on running a brief campaign. In such cases, if the players as a whole want something longer, but the DM won't or can't oblige, then switching up DM's can resolve the problem. At the least, the players have the option of switching between long-term and "one-shots."

 

[S'mon]

Re PCs all wanting to do different things, I think Henry's idea about fast-forwarding to an event that brings them all back together again is brilliant, and very swords & sorcery.

Burnout - this definitely does happen, I was very much burnt out at the end of my last campaign and thinking of lots of different ideas for new games without much enthusiasm, but a few months with no GMing & suddenly lots of ideas works wonders in getting the urge again.

 

[Brain]

One of the DM's I play with has this problem. More specifically he tends to stop his campaigns all of a sudden with no warning in the middle of an adventure (usually by cancelling the game a few weeks in a row) and then talking about his new campaign idea and getting us to make new characters for it. I get annoyed by the lack of closure. I'd be much more understanding about it if we could finish the adventure we were on before switching campaigns.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Small suggestion, don't know if you've tried it:

--Advance the campaign a few months, after the PCs have "broken up." This one's on said "mad quest," that one is doing his thing after separating from House Tharashk. (invite the player to tell you what his character's goals would be the next few months, and create some off-camera history.) The artificer has been making magic items and has made some lucrative money, the Power-attacker has been hunting demons in the Demon Wastes, etc.

THEN, have an overarcing idea that brings them all back together....
THEN, hit them with an overpowering evil (a rakshasa, a daelkyr-spawn, a mad noble seeking power, a Dragon cult, etc.) that only they can stop. If they don't, then something they value and prize (like their lives) is forfeit.

Great idea. I'm already restructuring to move totally away from House Tharashk and use the dragon prophecy to move things along. I really like your idea. I will suggest the party break up since they have so many seperate desires and see how the PCs react. Then I can offer bringing them back together.

Thanks!

 

[Mystery Man]

You start your own damn campaign, and keep running it for three years.

-- N

Amen brother.

 

[Acid_crash]

As a GM with this problem sometimes I can explain why I am like this...definately not due to ADD though.

For me, it comes down to two things: One) There are so many fricken cool games that are made today and I come up with cool ideas for many of them and want to try them that it's hard to pinpoint what I want to run down to one game, and Two) When I propose my ideas to my friends who could be players I wait till I get a reaction from them.

What normally happens in my group is this: If it's not d20, I tend to get only one or two people willing to give it a shot (that sucks to me because I think there is a whole lot more to gaming than just D&D) so those ideas get shot down. If it is d20, I get about half willing to try. The other half simply state: "If it's not D&D, I don't want to try." (I really dislike this kind of thinking because it is sooooooo damn limiting, but that's my opinion).

So, I am stuck with D&D if I want a decent sized group, in which I am at my best.

Then I can come up with a lot of ideas for D&D, and my problem is that I do have a lot of ideas and it is hard to limit them to one.

Another problem for me is that when I usually start my games, I tell them that I require backgrounds, character goals, interactive characters with the world and my goal in starting the game is to run it so the players invest in the world, the characters get invested into the world (and the players) and that without backgrounds it's just hard for me to get their characters to interact with the world. I'm a Give and Take GM...the players give me something to take, and I give back to them. What pisses me off is that most of these people I tend to game with simply argue with me about backgrounds, about alignments, about everything, even before I begin.

So, I tend to give up and try something different.

This bothers me even more when I ask them what kind of game they want to play before we even begin talking about the world and campaign, and all of them say, "I want to play in a game that will give me that deep roleplaying feel where I can immerse my character with the world. I don't want to just fight all the time." I think Great, its about time I found some people who can think outside the hack and slash box. but all they really want to do is play hack and slash.

That's why I tend to start and stop so often, because I simply don't get what I want from the players. I've tried getting new players, finding new groups. For some reason, whenever I make a decision on what I want, and what house rules I use, or what guidelines I come up with for making characters, I always get the players who just argue with me.

Sometimes GMing these games can be really frustrating.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

As a GM with this problem sometimes I can explain why I am like this...definately not due to ADD though.

Another problem for me is that when I usually start my games, I tell them that I require backgrounds, character goals, interactive characters with the world and my goal in starting the game is to run it so the players invest in the world, the characters get invested into the world (and the players) and that without backgrounds it's just hard for me to get their characters to interact with the world. I'm a Give and Take GM...the players give me something to take, and I give back to them. What pisses me off is that most of these people I tend to game with simply argue with me about backgrounds, about alignments, about everything, even before I begin.

So, I tend to give up and try something different.

That's why I tend to start and stop so often, because I simply don't get what I want from the players. I've tried getting new players, finding new groups. For some reason, whenever I make a decision on what I want, and what house rules I use, or what guidelines I come up with for making characters, I always get the players who just argue with me.

Sometimes GMing these games can be really frustrating.

This sounds so selfish to players I think, but it is spot on. We are here to enjoy the game as well. Arguments about rules or campaign background or the price of Elven coffee and the like just seem to take the life out of what we have created.

We should game together... but we would probably end up arguing.

DM

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can empathise with this DM. I have the same problem, and face it every day with novels, stories, game products, electronic games, etc. If something takes more than two weeks, I'm naturally inclined to get bored with it and want to do something different. Obviously, this doesn't work as a GM, so I do force myself to stick with campaigns.

However, I like to get multiple campaigns going at the same time (and to have at least one of them be a Spelljammer campaign) when possible.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

It's been my experience that most players are more interested in their characters than the game world. And, GM's are more interested in their game worlds than the characters. When there is a lack of growth on either part there is an element of anger, indignation, and/or wish to try something else.

I was astounded the other night when I asked my players what their character's hometown was and only two out of six responded without reference. The same went for me when one of the offending players asked, "What colour is my character's eyes or hair or tunic?" 'Course I copped out with a: "well I run the rest of the world," bull-line to try to save face. But, there it is in a nutshell.

I suggest that players make more of an effort to further the world as much as GM's make an effort to help further the characters--perhaps there will be less boredom.

Please don't pin this solely on the DM.

 

[Morpheus]

There are plenty of ideas as to what the players should do, but what about the DM? I have a very transient group and it makes continuity very difficult when players come and go (or don't show for months on end). It can be very frustrating for the DM to try to keep something going when it doesn't seem that the players have the same level of commitment. And don't get me started on what happened last week with dice rolls...