GMs: When Is Enough Enough?

[thullgrim]

The 6 session minimum kind of happened by accident. I’m the forever DM of the group and was going through a phase where I wanted to try a bunch of different stuff. My players got frustrated. When I asked the minimum number games should be per game they all said 6. So that’s what we go with now.

Sometimes that means I run a complete campaign in 6 sessions. Sometimes it means just an adventure to try things out. The key for us, during those 6 sessions the PCs have to advance some as well so we can get a feel for the advancement but also so players get to play those characters they spent an hour working on. Especially when we play GURPS and those characters can really take some time and effort to build.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think yeah - if you have a decent group, everyone can kind of tell when someone isn't having fun. That's part of the cool group mentality of TTRPGs. That's why I really hate stopping a campaign - sometimes the flow of activity is so good.

Its not so much they notice I'm not having fun than my lack of enthusiasm bleeds through in how the game is run and it starts to feel lackluster.

But some of that is more likely to come late when I've run out of steam and it isn't so much my disliking anything as having gotten bored, which unfortunately can happen if I leave a campaign too open ended.

 

[Theory of Games]

The 6 session minimum kind of happened by accident. I’m the forever DM of the group and was going through a phase where I wanted to try a bunch of different stuff. My players got frustrated. When I asked the minimum number games should be per game they all said 6. So that’s what we go with now.

Sometimes that means I run a complete campaign in 6 sessions. Sometimes it means just an adventure to try things out. The key for us, during those 6 sessions the PCs have to advance some as well so we can get a feel for the advancement but also so players get to play those characters they spent an hour working on. Especially when we play GURPS and those characters can really take some time and effort to build.

Online play can be very similar to that, but the time gets measured in months instead of sessions. Six sessions isn't a lot of time, even if they're four-hour sessions like I used to do F2F. I'd call that more like playtesting than actually running campaigns - campaigns like Queen of the Spiders or Wrath of the Righteous take a lot longer usually. You're lucky to have a group willing to change systems so often

 

[MrGrenadine]

I only run D&D, (currently running games with both 2014 and 2024 rules), and even with new editions I never have the issue of not liking the system -- I just keep changing the rules and the way we play until it feels better.

I also like running long campaigns, of a year or more at a time -- either books like Curse of Strahd, or a series of modules that I'll strong together. Before I start a new campaign I usually give the players broad categories to choose from -- do you want to go on a horror-themed vampire hunt, or go to war against an army of evil cultists? Just enough to get a feel for what they're more excited about, without giving too much away.

Its thankfully rare, but I have had the unfortunate experience of realizing the players aren't into a campaign as much as I am. Every time, I feel its on me -- I didn't pull the players into the world and story effectively, I didn't weave in enough of what they care about, or something.

If I think its salvageable, and the players are willing, its something I can try to fix, but sometimes players are just not going to care about the plight of the Storm King, or whatever, and then I like to just end the campaign early, an start something new.