Campaign climax and group hiatus

[fba827]

((if any of my players read this -- you can read/respond, though there is more to it than what you see here, we'll talk about it later))

A general sort of questions ...

All the long-term campaigns I've been a part of have always fizzled/group split/DM burn out/etc before getting to that "end point" so I have no experience here.

1) How many groups actually get to the "end of a campaign" (i.e. a climatic finale that wraps up a long-term campaign)?

2) Does it feel "satisfying" to see the campaign and plot points get closure, or is everyone too busy feeling sad about loosing a favored PC/group/campaign/setting?

3) Is it better to wrap up all loose ends? Or do you like an open hook as that glimmer of chance that the hook can be used for the next batch of PCs for the next campaign to tie in?

4) If there was the possibility of the "climax" also being the last game session for the group before it went on a long-term hiatus of undetermined length, do any of your answers to 2 and 3 change?

5) If a group was going to break for a hiatus, would it be better to force the climax to happen by that last session (even though it is an otherwise player driven game where they go as they please), or is it better to allow the group to continue as they always have (under their own player-driven direction) even if that means that by the end of that last session they haven't yet "saved the princess"?


You can obviously see where I'm going with all this (how do climax encounters play out and should i force the climax if the group is taking a break of undetermined length) - so any other thoughts on the topic?

I will eventually talk to the players about all this. But I'm asking here just to fish for perspectives so I know what I might need to expect/answer/account for when talking to the rest of the group.


Thanks in advance.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

1) About 25-30% of campaigns overall, in my personal, limited experience. But if you discount those that fizzle out before the first five sessions I'd say it goes up to 60% or more.

2) It's definitely satisfying to get closure.

3) I think whatever can be wrapped up organically is good to wrap up. It's often impossible to wrap up every loose end in a natural way. A small number of dangling loose ends may even be good for future campaigns, or just to give something for the players to continue to speculate about.

4) See 5.

5) To me, it would depend on how certain I was that the game would continue post hiatus. If there is a decent chance that it won't return, I'd probably try to bring it to a climax, as long as it seemed natural and not forced to the players. (If it seems forced it could make the players feel like they didn't earn it completely.) If you're almost certain you'll be able to pick back up then ending with a normal session is more palatable.

 

[cmrscorpio]

1) I've tried it dozens of times. I've actually done it twice.

2) It is wholly satisfying. There might be some desire to return to old characters. Depending on how the campaign ends, it might be doable, but don't try it immediately. If the group falls apart, then the characters no longer have the "completed" feel when you look back at them.

3) Most loose ends should be tied up. However, I am a big proponent of having some far-off, long range question still in the air.
For instance, I ran a Planescape game through to completion. To make a long story short, the PCs needed to do *something* about the birth of a child who was prophesied to bring about a great inter-planar cataclysm. The PCs were caught in the middle of several rival groups who were trying to do what they thought best for the child (some wanted to kill it, some wanted to raise it for good/evil/law/chaos/neutrality, some wanted to imprison it for all eternity, etc). At the end of the campaign, the PCs held this newborn child who was literally hours old in their hands, the clear-cut enemies were defeated, but they still had to choose what they were going to do with the child. They chose...one of the PCs (the tiefling) would raise the child with her husband on the bottom-most layer of Mount Celestia. The ending was awesome, but I will never again play with those players again because we were in college at the time and we've since moved away from each other. Even now, when we reminisce, I'm asked if I've carried that plot hook into any future groups.

4) I tried having a hiatus back in college over summer breaks, but it never really worked out. I've tried having a hiatus over the winter holidays, but the group never got back together. After having a period of time off, it is hard for me as DM to get back into something since I generally have new 2-3 ideas burning in my brain at a time.

5) I've come to accept that if the campaign is going to go on an extended break with an advanced warning, I'm better off hurrying along what I have planned so that the campaign can end sooner than expected.


My advice is to prepare you campaign with a specific time frame in mind. In college, I knew that a particular group would exist for the current school year. I knew how many sessions we would be able to played due to the length of the academic year and approximately how many weeks we would not be able to play due to mid-terms and finals. I had a good idea how much material I typically ran through in a session. This has greatly influenced my current campaign design.

Look at all your past attempts at campaigns and see how long your typical group stays together. Use that as a baseline for how long your campaigns should be.

 

[MortalPlague]

1) In about twelve years of running D&D, only two campaigns have reached an end. I had one game nearly wrap up, but things fell apart right before the last session. Also, my current D&D 4th edition game is promising to wrap up in one or two sessions, and I'm excited about the conclusion.

2) The few times I've ran a campaign through to completion, the conclusion was quite satisfying. I've never really seen any regret for characters being lost.

3) Others have given the same answer I would. In short, tie up most, but not all the loose ends.

4) The answers don't change, but in my experience, a hiatus is almost always a game-killer. Even if you return to the game, it only seems to last a few sessions.

5) I would force the end of the campaign, assuming it's within reason to do so. If you need to cram five or six sessions worth of material into it, that would require some really creative DM'ing to work (and even then, it would probably work very poorly). If we're talking about cramming two or three sessions, however, I would definitely do that. Closure is great!

 

[kitsune9]

((if any of my players read this -- you can read/respond, though there is more to it than what you see here, we'll talk about it later))

A general sort of questions ...

All the long-term campaigns I've been a part of have always fizzled/group split/DM burn out/etc before getting to that "end point" so I have no experience here.

1) How many groups actually get to the "end of a campaign" (i.e. a climatic finale that wraps up a long-term campaign)?

2) Does it feel "satisfying" to see the campaign and plot points get closure, or is everyone too busy feeling sad about loosing a favored PC/group/campaign/setting?

3) Is it better to wrap up all loose ends? Or do you like an open hook as that glimmer of chance that the hook can be used for the next batch of PCs for the next campaign to tie in?

4) If there was the possibility of the "climax" also being the last game session for the group before it went on a long-term hiatus of undetermined length, do any of your answers to 2 and 3 change?

5) If a group was going to break for a hiatus, would it be better to force the climax to happen by that last session (even though it is an otherwise player driven game where they go as they please), or is it better to allow the group to continue as they always have (under their own player-driven direction) even if that means that by the end of that last session they haven't yet "saved the princess"?


You can obviously see where I'm going with all this (how do climax encounters play out and should i force the climax if the group is taking a break of undetermined length) - so any other thoughts on the topic?

I will eventually talk to the players about all this. But I'm asking here just to fish for perspectives so I know what I might need to expect/answer/account for when talking to the rest of the group.


Thanks in advance.

1. I have ran several campaigns from start to finish with a conclusion. I have played in 0 campaigns that have had conclusions. Not a single DM I've ever played with ever managed to finish the campaign they started, though there was one guy who if he didn't move away, he would have finished. I had another campaign that got close as the DM said there was only one more module for the campaign, but he took a break and didn't return to running.
2. I'd like to know if feels satisfying or sad to finish the campaign. All I ever feel at the end of one is frustration.
3. Never happened to me, but I did this exact same thing for my last Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign that will play itself out in the current campaign setting that I'm running.
4. Not sure.
5. Well, it wouldn't make sense to force a climax if the last session ends with PC's just dungeon exploring or buying equipment.

 

[EricNoah]

I do it all the time and find it very satisfying from both the DM's and player's point of view. The only other ends to campaigns - unintentional TPKs or disinterested fizzling out - are pretty unsatisfying.

 

[timbannock]

1) How many groups actually get to the "end of a campaign" (i.e. a climatic finale that wraps up a long-term campaign)?

I've played in a lot of groups, and probably only "ended" maybe 1 or 3 campaigns out of the dozens and dozens I've been in.

2) Does it feel "satisfying" to see the campaign and plot points get closure, or is everyone too busy feeling sad about loosing a favored PC/group/campaign/setting?

Every time it has happened, people were satisfied, moreso than not. A few of the endings were lackluster (the fight was too easy or something), but even then, there were memories that have lasted years and were well worth it.

3) Is it better to wrap up all loose ends? Or do you like an open hook as that glimmer of chance that the hook can be used for the next batch of PCs for the next campaign to tie in?

Better to wrap up if there's any chance the group might disband or radically change or go to a different game. But I have ended with threads left hanging, and tried to follow up on them later, and it's worked out well. So it really depends on how "final" you think it should be. Some campaigns just need to END. Others work well with a cliff-hanger, or a few mysteries left unsolved.

4) If there was the possibility of the "climax" also being the last game session for the group before it went on a long-term hiatus of undetermined length, do any of your answers to 2 and 3 change?

If it's a campaign-ender that leads to a hiatus, I'd try to tie everything up you possibly can. I'd also make sure to leave time at the END of the session for reflection, shooting the sh**, and just hanging out. Even if the campaign end sucks, you'll probably all get a good laugh out of it, so if you're going on hiatus, assume you'll want to spend quality non-game time with the group as well as game-time.

5) If a group was going to break for a hiatus, would it be better to force the climax to happen by that last session (even though it is an otherwise player driven game where they go as they please), or is it better to allow the group to continue as they always have (under their own player-driven direction) even if that means that by the end of that last session they haven't yet "saved the princess"?

Tough call. Make some kind of climax...if they don't save the Princess, at least give them the sword that can kill the badguy in three hits, or the key to the castle where the princess is held (and better yet, plant them at the foot of the castle as the very last scene).

Have some kind of climax, though, or else it'll just feel unfinished, and more importantly, it may not be "memorable" enough to stay in the player's minds during the hiatus. If you can have some thread open and you know (or are at least fairly certain) you'll come back to the same game after the hiatus, a cliffhanger ending can be great motivation for the PCs to talk and remember the events up until the day you get the group back together.

 

[chintznibbles]

I was honestly surprised when the last campaign I ran ended at a natural break point. The PCs had just managed to clear out the castle and defeat the BBEG du jour, been rewarded with a lavish party and their own ship, and had just graduated from mid-level local rabble to double-digit level adventurers who deserve their reputation. There was a lot of cool stuff happening; I planned to have them move up to the next tier of influence, from changing the fate of a single island to being influential in the course of an entire nation. Their newfound shiply mobility was going to be key to this. I'd even set up a rudimentary trading minigame thing in case someone was interested.

Then I found one of my players was moving, and things sort of crumbled.

So, instead of actually using all that potential, it became an excellent fade off into the sunset, leaving the characters in the middle of celebrating their victory while looking forward to the challenges to come...

But yeah, every other campaign I've ever ran has mostly just crumbled when someone's schedule changes irreparably and people stop showing up. I'm not given to absurdly epic campaigns, really; I like doing new fresh things every so often as much as I assume players do.

I'd not bet on the odds of any group I've been in successfully resuming after a hiatus. Even if the ending was very meticulously crafted, after however many weeks or months off, well, things have changed. People will be in different places in their lives and the memories of their old characters may have changed. Will the old enthusiasm ever really be there again?

It might just be me, but I'd stick a fork in the campaign at the last session. Wrap stuff up reasonably well, give them a good ride-off into a shiny sunset, and get to work on the next game! Maybe you can come back to the world with a new set of characters (and/or a new set of players) For me, "hiatus of indeterminate length" is basically just another word for "the end".

 

[MortalPlague]

Also, my current D&D 4th edition game is promising to wrap up in one or two sessions, and I'm excited about the conclusion.

Just to be complete, I'm going to add to this.

My campaign ended last night. The central character, whose goals were becoming increasingly at odds with her supporting cast, was captured and taken into custody by one of the other PCs. She managed to break out of prison, sneak and bluff through the temple of Bahamut, and escape the other PCs into the crowds of the city. She fled the city, with the other PCs in pursuit, but as night fell with her outdistancing them, they realized that she had gotten away.

The player whose PC had become a villain had decided that her PC's course of action would be to hide out for six months or a year, and then return in disguise. The other PCs, who had been largely along for the ride, wouldn't work to continue the game, and if the villain returned, the other PCs wouldn't be drawn into the struggle. In the end, we decided to let things conclude; the villain escaping to plot her return, and the heroes having chased off a blossoming evil.

It was nice to have everything wrap up in relatively tidy fashion. But there were plenty of loose ends! The villain is still out there, and at a later point, she might show up as an NPC (or become the center of an evil campaign).

 

[NewJeffCT]

I honestly don't recall how many of my campaigns came to a conclusion when I was younger - safe to say, it was probably not many.

As a player, I was involved in a great year-long campaign in the waning days of 2E set in Kalamar. The DM was fantastic and it was a big group of 9-10 players and we gamed every week. That campaign came to its logical end and all of the major loose ends were tied up. Added via edit: The actual finale was very good as well - the group had a showdown with the evil emperor, and every PC save one ended up giving their lives in the big combat in order to allow the one remaining PC time to stop the birth of the emperor's demonic dark child and save the world from 300 years of darkness. Of course, in conclusion, the gods themselves raised/resurrected several of the PCs as a reward (save two who did not desire to return...) and the DM faded to conclusion with the world starting a new golden age.

A few years later, in the early days of 3E, I came back into the same group as a player towards the end of another long-term campaign and saw the conclusion to that one. However, I don't know how many loose ends were left outstanding, as I was only part of that campaign for a short while (work & life got in the way...)

I don't want to give myself the Kiss of Death now, but I have been DMing a 3.5 campaign for almost 2 years now (9/14/07 was the first session) and we're going to be heading into the home stretch soon. We normally have gamed every 2 weeks, and I anticipate finishing this campaign up by late September or some time in October. There will be a few loose ends, I'm sure, but I hope to tie up all the major plotlines by the campaign's conclusion.