Poor DM/ Game Advice

[Todd Roybark]

I have read multiple times on this board advice to the effect “ if a story line is completed it is ok to end the campaign”.
Which to my mind is liking stoping a play, after a great First Act.
The key to a Long Running campaign is the same as having a long relationship....don’t end it.

It is natural, and sometimes beneficial to flounder a bit. It gives time for tensions to unwind, and for serendipity and inspiration to happen, on both sides of the screen.

It is ok for the second act to have a slow start, or a sudden start from nowhere.

Good games die for so many reasons out of one’s control, moving away, being deployed, births, deaths etc,
it seems a shame to just surrender the chance to have a long run.

Setting aside game killers that are uncontrollable, what is it that stops games at 5th level?
What is causing groups to retire at 12th? etc

(Note: a planned one off, is not what I am referring to.)

 

[Stormonu]

Drinking soured milk doesn't save it from being thrown out.

There is nothing wrong with stopping a game when the players and/or GM feel it has reached a satisfying (or even unsatisfying end). I've got dozens of character ideas, game books and other things that are more worthy of my time than extending a campaign that has lost its freshness - or has become a chore.

 

[Dausuul]

"If a story line is completed it is ok to end the campaign."

This advice is perfectly sound and there is nothing wrong with it. It is okay to end the campaign. It is not required. But the DM has, at that point, delivered on the campaign's original promise. If they're not feeling excited to keep going, they should feel free to wrap it up and either try something new or hand the DM screen to someone else. The DM's fun is just as important as anyone else's*.

I've tried to keep a campaign going after the original idea was done. Without fail, every one of these efforts meandered around for a while, got nowhere, and petered out. Nothing burns me out like trying to keep a story going after it's reached its logical conclusion.

These days, I focus on bringing the campaign to a satisfying finish, and when it's done, it's done. Time to hang up my hat and let somebody else run a game. By the time they're done, I'll have a new idea I'm fired up to try.

*In fact, I would say it's more important, for two reasons. First, the DM puts in most of the work. And second, if the DM isn't having fun, the campaign usually suffers.

 

[iserith]

Not every campaign need be open-ended. I plan for a regular campaign to be 20 to 30 sessions of play, each about 4 hours long, then we move on to something new. My current Eberron campaign is on its 27th session and I figure it'll wrap in about 3 sessions (1st to about 12th level). That is sufficient in my view to create a lot of good stories and fun experiences together without the "floundering" that you think is okay (I don't).

I think DMs are well-advised to consider how long a campaign ought to take in real time given the constraints in the group. Sometimes shorter campaigns are a better fit for the group's preferences, schedule, or commitment. It's a good idea in my view to give this a hard look as a group and try to find the best fit.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thread titled “poor DM/game advice”: recommends extending games beyond their natural conclusion, even when doing so leads to floundering...

Yep, that checks out.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Folks if you are reading my post and thinking I am saying there is only one correct way to play, I’m not.
A long running campaign certainly does not have to be open ended.
A campaign is not like soured milk, it can be un-soured or it’s sourness used.

Those throwing shade have you played in a long game to know what you are missing if anything?

This board is so quick to be dismissive off a title post, ohh please.

Dausuul post makes clear that they have multiple people that can DM.
That is not true for some, perhaps most groups. His post also made it clear that when he DMs he has a firm idea in mind of the campaign, and when his idea has ran its course he is done DMing.

Cool, it is a great setup.

Dausuul I want to ask, have the players ever wanted to continue playing after the idea ran it’s course? It reads like it has from your post.

So for you, the game stopped because playing further was no longer fun?

I’m just trying to understand why games don’t go longer.

The answer of planned demolition for campaigns is how we prefer to play is fine

but is it the norm?

If you are not interested in the idea, don’t post.....I’m not interested in your shade
polite cough Charlaquin.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's some truth to what you are saying. Just because the original story arc of a campaign has been completed doesn't mean that there can't be subsequent arcs in the same campaign that are just as enjoyable. In a lot of ways, that general concept is what sets a campaign apart from an adventure.

That said, it's a decision for the group (in particular the DM). High level play is a different beast. Players often gain access to game breaking magic, for starters. I don't mind it myself. I generally create a new game world for each campaign I run, so it's intended for players to "wreck" it. I also don't mind powerful PCs. A DM can always challenge the PCs given that the DM is only limited by their imagination, but not every DM feels that way. Some don't want to have to deal with the shenanigans that a high level character brings to the table.

In any case, I get wanting to end a campaign when it seems completed. I used to run more story oriented games, and when the story was complete the campaign was finished. It made sense. I had run the story I was looking to run.

Nowadays I run a more sandbox style game. So "completed" takes on a different context, as there is no fixed end point.

Even so, a few years ago I was running a game where the characters had made it to 19th level. I mentioned to the players that we were almost at the end. However, I didn't want to deny them the chance to experience level 20, so I asked them if they wanted me to pad the game with an extra session or three. It would have involved hunting down the BBEG. Despite that they were enjoying the game, the vote was unanimous to skip any filler. The game had been going strong and they wanted to end it on a high note, even if that meant it ended at level 19 instead of 20. So that's what we did, the BBEG came for them, and the players loved the ending. They still talk about it as one of my best campaigns.

You're not wrong per se. However, it's fairly risky advice. Going out on a strong note is desirable. IMO, most groups (particularly the DMs) would rather end a campaign early with a strong finish than have the campaign die the death of a thousand cuts, dragged out beyond it's natural span with everyone just wishing it would end (been in a few of those games).

If you want a campaign that can last multiple "stories", my advice would be to use a sandbox. Rather than having a fixed plot, allow the story to emerge from play. That way when one "story" finishes, the players are free to pursue the next point of interest on their agenda. And if they're out of those, it's probably time to end it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be honest, the OP sounds more like a player trying to argue DM's should run until the PCs hit 20 because they've never gotten to play high levels rather than a DM offering experienced advice on how to actually run long campaigns.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Folks if you are reading my post and thinking I am saying there is only one correct way to play, I’m not.
A long running campaign certainly does not have to be open ended.
A campaign is not like soured milk, it can be un-soured or it’s sourness used.

Sure... it can. But for many people, the answer is "Why?"

You get no bonus points for continuing to run a game after a chapter conclusion. Just like you don't get any point for ending a game after a chapter conclusion. In fact, there are no bonus points at all.

If the players and the DM want to keep playing in the current campaign with the current players, they will. If any of them wish to stop, they will. There's nothing gained or lost for doing either of those things.

So to answer your question as to why don't games run longer? The answer is "Some do, and some don't. And every group has a different reason why." And you're not going to glean anything useful from any of the answers.

 

[DWChancellor]

There's nothing magical here. If the "campaign" is "done," but the DM and players still have a lot of enthusiasm and ideas... keep going.

If your "campaign" is "done" and you (or the players) don't have a lot of enthusiasm or ideas, but just keep pushing through because, uh, something-- that's when the advise is to stop.

The key is enthusiasm. That's what makes great games, either long-running or short. A lot of DMs and players push past their enthusiasm and then games and groups die.