Poor DM/ Game Advice

[dave2008]

To @Todd Roybark , I am not sure if this is what you mean, but my groups level very slowly. My main group is lvl 13 and we started about 1-2 months after 5e was released. So about 5 years to get to 13th. I don't play published adventures, but instead we tend to focus on character growth rather over-arching story or plot. Each character has some story thread to pursue rather than an overarching villain, story, or plot. If you focus on the characters and their motivations I think you can stretch a campaign out for a long time.

However, this style seems to be an outlier on these forums. Posters here seem to go through adventures and characters a lot faster than my group.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Larnievc]

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.)

When my group gets to the end of OOTA they will be about 14th level.

I’m going to give them the option of retirement or going epic as the speed they level up from there will decrease.

I know at least one player not keen on high level but who knows.

Tl:dr. Let the players decide.

 

[dave2008]

I have no comment to make, snarky, funny, helpful, or otherwise.

Just .... five years ... to make it to 13th level .... in 5e?

That's like ... some Shawshank Redemption-level TTRPGing.

I don't know what to say - didn't think I could render you speechless

FYI, we don't use XP so there are no set expectations for leveling. We stayed in the 1-5 range longer than most (well I guess all ranges probably longer than most).

Also, I find players a able to tolerate slow leveling if you give them new stuff along the way. If you character is partially defined by the stuff they have / acquire you keep them interested without level advancement.

 

[iserith]

In @dave2008's game, you get to level up on your birthday, on Christmas, and on February 29th.

 

[dave2008]

In @dave2008's game, you get to level up on your birthday, on Christmas, and on February 29th.

Close, but it is the winter solstice, not Christmas

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

You would be incorrect. I have exclusively DM’d for the last 20 ( w/ a brief stretch of playing in 4e).

I have retired campaigns, done one off adventures, and had campaigns that went for 7 years and epic levels.

I just find it difficult to believe that at the end of the Starter set adventure the advice to new DMs is: “If you had fun playing this, consider quitting, it can’t get better”.

 

[Esker]

So, the campaign ends where there is not enough interest in continuing or the DM flatly states (to the moans and groans of the players) that he has nothing else to do, in which case it is over or there is a break until new material is prepared.

This is an important point, I think: it's a much bigger investment for the DM to keep a campaign going than it is for the players. When I have seen campaigns end before everyone would prefer to end them, it's nearly aways because the DM gets too busy to continue. But if at least one other person can trade off as DM so the same group of players can continue playing together, I think it makes it easier to keep a campaign going when the players want it to continue: the DM can step away and be a player for awhile, at a much lower level of commitment, mitigating burn-out, and then swap back in when and if they're ready, while the group keeps up the habit of getting together.

It's tough, though, if only one person in a given group is inclined to DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You would be incorrect. I have exclusively DM’d for the last 20 ( w/ a brief stretch of playing in 4e).

I have retired campaigns, done one off adventures, and had campaigns that went for 7 years and epic levels.

I just find it difficult to believe that at the end of the Starter set adventure the advice to new DMs is: “If you had fun playing this, consider quitting, it can’t get better”.

It says no such thing. Not a good end to establishing your bona fides.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Yep plenty of us have. Please do not get into the mode of "If you disagree, you must be ignorant". That's not going to end well.



And you are so swift to dismiss their input, so it looks like you are even on that score.



Well, then you probably should have led with a question - How long do your games run?

We have some indication that, overall, a great many games don't run terribly long. Chiding people for ending games when they feel it is appropriate, though, is not constructive. A game ending before everyone at the table is satisfied may be considered a problem, a game ending when everyone's good with it... isn't a problem to be solved.

As I stated not my intention at all. That said, I have felt like I have been flamed on this board, and am being proactive to prevent that from happening again. I apologize for strident prose, but Umbran, you yourself assumed some ‘tone’ from two late night posts....mea culpa on the tone.

No mea culpa on trying to forestall people throwing shade....now enough of me and more of others posts.

Thanks