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.

 

[Umbran]

How do you handle rules or setting discomfort at the table? Am I wrong? Any horror stories? Best practices?

I have not yet encountered a need to abandon play early due to rules or setting discomfort on my part.

But then, reading on these boards for years has taught me that many folks here are incredibly picky, at least compared to me. And you all run games that are way more about you than my games are about me.

I don't run games to have rules work a particular way. I don't run games to support my vision of a world, or story.

I run games to give my players an entertaining break from reality, and a play experience they enjoy. They are my focus, the rules and setting are only tools to that end.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

Exactly what you're supposed to do

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.

Have you run Queen of the Spiders by chance? If so, any tips? I want to run it for a group this year

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.

Very smart. Getting player engagement up-front is extremely useful

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.

That's a smart approach because it can make you a better GM, if you study the craft and listen to your players comments

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.

Outstanding. You're doing a lot of what I do, so now I won't feel as weird when it happens again (and it will). Many thanks!

 

[MGibster]

In the Before Times, pre-COVID, I ran a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game using Savage Worlds. Set in the near future, mutant animals were much more common, but they were treated as property for the most part and were fighting for their rights. The central conflict of the game was the rights of sentient beings and the PCs were supposed to be championing that particular cause. So there's an underground fighting scene pitting mutants against mutants, and the PCs are involved, when the New York Police Department shows up arrest the humans and wrangle the mutants.

The PCs ended up killing six or seven police officers during the raid. As all the officers had body cams, it wasn't hard to figure out which mutants did the killing, and I didn't see any way to really salvage the campaign after that. So I closed up shop and we played something else.

 

[aramis erak]

​

This is shocker for the Gamemasters out there, so players can take 15.

What do you do when you're running an adventure or you're early into a campaign and realize you are NOT feeling the game system? Some rule or collection of rules is triggering your "NO FUN" sensor. Or maybe the setting feels wrong - you're in the Middle Ages but your really wanted something more Iron Age. Worse still, the players all seem to be enjoying themselves. It's a tough spot to be in and I've been there a few times - it can be a real crisis at the table.

I discuss it with players.
But there has been only one family of games where I was unhappy and I didn't have at least one co-suffering player... Dungeons and Dragons. AD&D, BX/BECMI/Cyclo, AD&D 2, D&D 3, D&D 5...
All other cases where I was unhappy, at least one of the players was, too. Often, about half.
Sometimes we continue a few sessions to complete a cadence point in the story. A few times, we converted to another game system, but continued the campaign.