How do you stop a DM from starting NEW campaigns all the time?
- Thread starter dead
- Start date
Our group tends to have a similar problem, but to be fair, its not totally the GMs fault. The group rotation does alter now and then, and there are a few players who tend to spoil it for others. These ones tend to be more the hack slashers and
make gaming a tad of a chore. As a result, the GM wants a change. Funny thing though, these are also the gamers who constantly whine about not being able to develop characters to epic level. In many ways, these ones are the power gamers. Levelling up wasn't a matter of character development, but one of powering up.
Now, same GM but different groups of players. Have had a Deadlands campaign run over 5 years. Character are now getting to the point where they are so powerful that play is getting boring. But the great part of it all, is the characters development, what they have gone through and how the events had shaped them.
However, the way we got round the GM burnout side of things was a rotating GM system. Both allowed the same characters in the game and continued with the ingame continuity. This way, if the Gm was feeling tired, we switched to the alternate GM. Both GMs had their own little niches which the the other was not allowed to alter, but as long as both Gms discussed things over, it worked quite well.
Sam
make gaming a tad of a chore. As a result, the GM wants a change. Funny thing though, these are also the gamers who constantly whine about not being able to develop characters to epic level. In many ways, these ones are the power gamers. Levelling up wasn't a matter of character development, but one of powering up.
Now, same GM but different groups of players. Have had a Deadlands campaign run over 5 years. Character are now getting to the point where they are so powerful that play is getting boring. But the great part of it all, is the characters development, what they have gone through and how the events had shaped them.
However, the way we got round the GM burnout side of things was a rotating GM system. Both allowed the same characters in the game and continued with the ingame continuity. This way, if the Gm was feeling tired, we switched to the alternate GM. Both GMs had their own little niches which the the other was not allowed to alter, but as long as both Gms discussed things over, it worked quite well.
Sam
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Suggest something like Planescape*, where change is an integral part of the setting. He can change things around all he wants, yet the campaign continues.
The Auld Grump
*This setting would drive me batty, but a lot of people seem to like it... My dislike is personal taste and nothing else.
The Auld Grump
*This setting would drive me batty, but a lot of people seem to like it... My dislike is personal taste and nothing else.
Ogrork the Mighty
Explorer
I think you need to find out why exactly it is that your DM wants to change campaigns all the time. What is it that bores him? Maybe the DM is actually dissatisfied that the players aren't investing in the campaign and thinks that starting a new one is the answer. Or maybe the DM's idea has played itself out and he doesn't know what more to do. Who knows... that is, unless you ask him!
DarrenGMiller
First Post
dead said:
As a DM, I would like to attempt to speak to this from a different angle. In the late 80's-early 90's, I had a campaign last almost 6 years. My first 3E campaign lasted for over a year, but ended when several players moved. Also, as players and I learned the new system, it became clear that the campaign needed to change. So, we changed to the next campaign, which lasted about a year and a half. We left it because the players wanted to.
The next campaign we started only lasted a few months for two reasons. First, we had some player conflicts, then the deaths of some core PC's took away the party's raison d'etre. Then, we switched over to D20 Modern, which ended because some players wanted episodic unrelated sessions, for which I ran out of ideas, and some wanted a story driven campaign, which the other players did not want. Also, I wanted to return to fantasy.
After that, we attempted Midnight, which some of our players hated and some loved. Then, we tried another campaign that everyone agreed was going nowhere. Recently, we started our most recent campaign, which is currently on hiatus due to player conflict and a DM decision. It seemed that what the players wanted from the game was not what I wanted. There also seemed to be some generational problems.
So, there are a number of reasons why I myself have run several short-lived campaigns in a row. Do I want to run a long term campaign? Of course. I just want it to be the best it can be. I want to run something that will make everyone at the table happy, including myself.
I have a player who DM's for other groups who also switches campaigns frequently. I am not sure of his motivations for doing so, but I know that it does aggravate his players, as I am sure it has done to some of mine as well.
DM
Kalendraf
Explorer
I've seen a DM that had exactly that same problem. It seemed like each time he bought a new book, he either wanted to A) start over basing his campaign there or B) find some silly excuse to jump our group into that realm. All of this came after he declared the original campaign was going to last a long time and we should focus on developing our characters.
I'd recommend just talking to the DM and try to get them to commit to the story and stay focused on it.
I'd recommend just talking to the DM and try to get them to commit to the story and stay focused on it.
My answer to the original question is that an RPG is a cooperative endeavor. The players can't play without the DM, but the DM can't run the game without the players. In my experience, the DM puts in the most work; so the DM usually drives the game. But, the players untimately dictate the game as their participation enables it just as their lack of participation kills it. Everyone has to agree on the game. The DM usually has to agree more than the players do; but the DM can always embargo the players, and the players can always boycott the DM (sadly, I've experienced both).
That said, here's what else I've experienced. I've DM'ed and played a lot of games over the last 25 years. None has gone to epic levels. I think the highest level I've ever advanced a PC from 1st level was to 7/7 (an AD&D dwarven fighter/cleric). I think the idea of an epic campaign is a myth. I certianly find that I don't have the time for it as I get older. Also, I don't have the inclination. I want more variety in my games. There are just too many great d20 games out there to just play plain vanilla D&D--it no longer captivates me.
Right now, I'm running the Shackeled City adventure path from Dungeon for our weekly gaming group. We've been at it for nearly 6 months, and we're still in the second module. Once we finish it, there are nine more to go. I even added jedi, judges, mutants & aasimar paladins to make it different & interesting for me to run, but the bloom is off the rose. I'm not sure I can stand to run it all. Even if I do, it's another 2 years of gaming (possibly 3). I'm ready to DM something else.
I've had much better success with smaller campaigns. It's probably the most fair to let the players know it's a mini-campaign from the beginning. I did 3 over the last year or two, and they were fun. They were vastly different genres, too: pirate, western & post-apocalyptic. It seemed as if the players got enough time to develop their characters without the game dragging on interminably.
I think an ideal solution is to transport PCs from one game the DM runs to another. But, most of my players don't like the idea. They are either D&D purists or they want to develop a character for a specific game to min/max the character for that specific game (usually both). Most camapigns with converted characters end in disaster, even D&D edition conversions, both for the DM and the players. So, I just put different campaigns "on break" and never get back to them. Sad but true.
My suggestion to you is to ask your DM whay he or she is bored with the current campaign. Then, try to figure out how to transform the game into something that keeps everyone happy. It may not be easy, but you might be able to atleast reach a comprimose that lets your DM try new things with the same PCs that you as players are trying to more fully develop.
(Heck, I might do this myself. Now I'm glad that I responded to this thread.)
That said, here's what else I've experienced. I've DM'ed and played a lot of games over the last 25 years. None has gone to epic levels. I think the highest level I've ever advanced a PC from 1st level was to 7/7 (an AD&D dwarven fighter/cleric). I think the idea of an epic campaign is a myth. I certianly find that I don't have the time for it as I get older. Also, I don't have the inclination. I want more variety in my games. There are just too many great d20 games out there to just play plain vanilla D&D--it no longer captivates me.
Right now, I'm running the Shackeled City adventure path from Dungeon for our weekly gaming group. We've been at it for nearly 6 months, and we're still in the second module. Once we finish it, there are nine more to go. I even added jedi, judges, mutants & aasimar paladins to make it different & interesting for me to run, but the bloom is off the rose. I'm not sure I can stand to run it all. Even if I do, it's another 2 years of gaming (possibly 3). I'm ready to DM something else.
I've had much better success with smaller campaigns. It's probably the most fair to let the players know it's a mini-campaign from the beginning. I did 3 over the last year or two, and they were fun. They were vastly different genres, too: pirate, western & post-apocalyptic. It seemed as if the players got enough time to develop their characters without the game dragging on interminably.
I think an ideal solution is to transport PCs from one game the DM runs to another. But, most of my players don't like the idea. They are either D&D purists or they want to develop a character for a specific game to min/max the character for that specific game (usually both). Most camapigns with converted characters end in disaster, even D&D edition conversions, both for the DM and the players. So, I just put different campaigns "on break" and never get back to them. Sad but true.
My suggestion to you is to ask your DM whay he or she is bored with the current campaign. Then, try to figure out how to transform the game into something that keeps everyone happy. It may not be easy, but you might be able to atleast reach a comprimose that lets your DM try new things with the same PCs that you as players are trying to more fully develop.
(Heck, I might do this myself. Now I'm glad that I responded to this thread.)
I think the best way to stop GM doing this is to be very proactive in the existing campaign, coming up with lots of plans & goals for your PC and making it a PC-driven campaign rather than GM-driven. PC-driven campaigns are much easier to sustain over the long term. If the GM isn't interested in your PC's goals then he's probably not very good anyway. Be positive - make the GM _want_ to continue the campaign so he finds out what happens next!
robberbaron
First Post
Over the years we have had the same problems with one GM.
I think his last two ideas ran 2 sessions each.
How did we get over it?
We didn't really.
Sure, we'd bitch about having to roll up new characters and occasionally have "old" characters magically appear to continue their adventures but, in general, we put up with it.
I guess our feeling was that if he wanted to run a game then fair play to him. If he wanted to dump it and start something else then OK, we'll play that instead.
Thing is, through all this upheaval we did manage to get several long-terms campaings going as well, so our development needs were at least partially taken care of.
Another related issue is where the GM keeps changing the rules. He has a "great idea" about how, say, Hit Points, should work so we rejig our characters to suit, then rejig them back when he changes his mind a few months later.
Just as annoying as short-lived games IMO.
I think his last two ideas ran 2 sessions each.
How did we get over it?
We didn't really.
Sure, we'd bitch about having to roll up new characters and occasionally have "old" characters magically appear to continue their adventures but, in general, we put up with it.
I guess our feeling was that if he wanted to run a game then fair play to him. If he wanted to dump it and start something else then OK, we'll play that instead.
Thing is, through all this upheaval we did manage to get several long-terms campaings going as well, so our development needs were at least partially taken care of.
Another related issue is where the GM keeps changing the rules. He has a "great idea" about how, say, Hit Points, should work so we rejig our characters to suit, then rejig them back when he changes his mind a few months later.
Just as annoying as short-lived games IMO.
Similar Threads
