Why do so many campaigns never finish? Genuinely curious what others think

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think it's also worth noting that not all campaigns have an end that can be reached.

If most D&D campaigns are homebrew affairs, as WotC has previously told us, there often isn't some linear story with a beginning, middle and an end.

If your campaign is just "well, we'll play whatever adventure looks good for whatever level the characters are at now," how do you know when the end is? When they hit level 20? When they run out of interesting adventures?

Yeah, those campaigns "fizzle out" but they also didn't have a set end point, so there wasn't any finish line most of them could reach at all.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm surprised it's that low, honestly.

I think it mostly comes down to two things. Eyes bigger than stomach and daydreaming.

Eyes bigger than stomach. You have grand plans for an epic campaign that goes from 1-20 with an epic, sweeping story where all the PCs' backstories are integrated into the ongoing, collaborative story etc. Then you start hitting normal potholes. Scheduling conflicts, PCs not engaging with the stuff you thought they would, PCs skipping their backstory hooks, etc. Most "the campaign just went off the rails" stories are because of this.

Some solutions. Smaller, shorter, and more focused campaigns. Games that are lighter on rules so the players and referee aren't burned out by the system itself.

Daydreaming. Constantly chasing the shiny new thing. Stopping one campaign when the newness wears off and everyone realizes it'll actually be a bit of work to keep it going or complete it.

Same solutions really. Smaller, shorter, and more focused campaigns. Games that are lighter on rules so the players and referee aren't burdened with learning new system after new system. Or using a generic, universal system.

 

[titus171]

Honestly, I belive it's disinterest. I don't mean it in the sense that players don't find the campaign interesting. Most campaigns are. It's just that your TTRPG campaign is constantly competing with work, family life and other things going on in your players lives. The only way to make a campaign last is to maintain interest to the point that the players will always come back. Maintaining a game means players will have to tell their friends "No, I have a game and I can't miss it!" or tell their families that "Oh I need to leave the dinner early. I've got a game!" because that's what you're competing with.

As a GM running a campaign, you're basically Queen Scheherazade from Arabian Nights where you need to keep the king interested in your stories or he gets bored and executes you. End on cliffhangers. Close story arcs so you can open new ones. Keep the player's crossairs on the climactic ending of the campaign.

 

[Reynard]

I think it's also worth noting that not all campaigns have an end that can be reached.

If most D&D campaigns are homebrew affairs, as WotC has previously told us, there often isn't some linear story with a beginning, middle and an end.

If your campaign is just "well, we'll play whatever adventure looks good for whatever level the characters are at now," how do you know when the end is? When they hit level 20? When they run out of interesting adventures?

Yeah, those campaigns "fizzle out" but they also didn't have a set end point, so there wasn't any finish line most of them could reach at all.

This is a good point. I wonder how many campaigns open with an assumed "end state" versus those that are open ended. My current campaign has a clear goal, with no predefined path to it: the PCs are a BBEG revenge squad. But this campaign has been "artificial" from the perspective that we have been fast levelling throughout. I am about to bring it to a head -- but is that artificial? Arbitrary? Too early? I don't know.

 

[AstroArtificer]

My issue is that I finish what I thought would be the campaign and then the players want to continue on. This lasts a couple levels and I begin to burn out or lose interest and start planning a new campaign.

We do not play many official book campaigns but the ones we did start, we finished.

I can see many places like college or summer games start with an idea to make a campaign and then life gets in the way.

Yeah, this is how I feel, too. I have too many new campaigns, and a real shiny object syndrome. My players and I just don't see eye to eye on things because of that.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I think it's also worth noting that not all campaigns have an end that can be reached.

If most D&D campaigns are homebrew affairs, as WotC has previously told us, there often isn't some linear story with a beginning, middle and an end.

If your campaign is just "well, we'll play whatever adventure looks good for whatever level the characters are at now," how do you know when the end is? When they hit level 20? When they run out of interesting adventures?

Yeah, those campaigns "fizzle out" but they also didn't have a set end point, so there wasn't any finish line most of them could reach at all.

This

 

[AstroArtificer]

Seems to me "life gets in the way" is a good summation of a lot of campaigns that end before they resolve--kids, jobs, other more-adult responsibilities can, will, and do get in the way.

Bad table chemistry (in all its shapes and colors) probably also covers some territory, here. A lot of people will be unwilling to sit at a TRPG table with fellow-gamers they do not like.

And I think a lot of "GM Burnout" type stuff ends up coming from GMs who think they need to make the entire world, or plan out the entire campaign, before Session One. That's a lot of work, and if the players start trying to be interested in something the GM hasn't prepped--whether that's world stuff they want to see that the GM doesn't, or some form of wanting to chase down some story other than the one the GM has planned for the campaign--then the outcome seems likely to be some form of the campaign ending prematurely: A) The GM loses interest in where the PCs are going, and either hard-ends the campaign or shows visible disinterest; or B) the GM forces play to go where they want it to go, and the players lose interest--possibly ending up with a premature campaign termination.

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Real-world responsibilities don't stop because you want to run a session. But, interestingly, you mention that bad table chemistry happens, too. Do you personally have any stories about that?

 

[AstroArtificer]

DMs are the main determinant of whether a campaign will finish in a clean and final manner but I would be misleading if I didn't state that some play groups just suck the enthusiasm of running a campaign down the drain so much and so fast that even a properly hastened finish isn't even a concern.

How does it get that bad? I mean, you'd think that if the GM chose the group, the group wouldn't be draining on the GM, right?

 

[timbannock]

I think it's incredibly easy to write a paragraph or a page about how "[Insert world here] is about to face its gravest threat yet, in the form of [insert villain here]! Their plans are A, B, and C, and in order to stop them, the players must X, Y, and Z." And you have no idea if that's a one-shot or a 50-session marathon or anything in-between. And you don't actually figure that out until like session 5, and it's too late to pivot when [insert new game] catches your eye.

I'm very guilty of plots that are simply too big for the realistically 3-5 sessions we're going to have to play the thing before 2 or more members of the group get caught up in some other life stuff and the scenario falls apart.

 

[AstroArtificer]

Honestly, I belive it's disinterest. I don't mean it in the sense that players don't find the campaign interesting. Most campaigns are. It's just that your TTRPG campaign is constantly competing with work, family life and other things going on in your players lives. The only way to make a campaign last is to maintain interest to the point that the players will always come back. Maintaining a game means players will have to tell their friends "No, I have a game and I can't miss it!" or tell their families that "Oh I need to leave the dinner early. I've got a game!" because that's what you're competing with.

As a GM running a campaign, you're basically Queen Scheherazade from Arabian Nights where you need to keep the king interested in your stories or he gets bored and executes you. End on cliffhangers. Close story arcs so you can open new ones. Keep the player's crossairs on the climactic ending of the campaign.

This is gonna be a controversial take, but what if the problem isn't that the GM isn't interesting enough, bur rather it isn't the right audience? It's tiring to always be the Jester DM for groups that don't appreciate it