D&D General How often do you complete a campaign as a player?

[KYRON45]

I've found that it's all about expectations. Have I ever played a 1-20th level game? That sounds dreadful!! Why would i want to play 1 character for years and years when there are an exponential variation (come on now, one of you knows how many) of PC possibilities? Have i played in games where goals were met and arcs were completed? Sure. Was my highest level PC in 40 years 9th...maybe.....have i ever saved the world from 20th level threats....nah...who has that kind of time?

 

[jdrakeh]

Very rarely. I've started dozens of campaigns in the past 10 years or so. I think two of them have been run to completion.

 

[Faolyn]

Still way too early days to see anything like a trend. But, a prediction:

People's approach to gaming strongly reflects their experience in completing campaigns. For example, I predict that there is a really strong correlation between players who deep dive into setting lore and those who play out entire campaigns. I wonder if this isn't one of those sort of "hidden" reasons why we tend to have so much difficulty discussing gaming strategies.

I haven't found this to be the case at all. We do deep delves into lore all the time. It doesn't stop the game from ending. What ends the games IME are system fatigue, GM burnout, and player issues. Edit: And often, everyone just deciding they want to try something different.

 

[Seramus]

I complete several major story arcs of 3-5 months each, but usually we just keep going until schedules or system fatigue eventually grinds things to a halt. Even in games that last 2+ years, it's very rare that I ever say "Welp, that was the end of the campaign. Good job everyone."

So, Very Rarely.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted “Very rarely”, but there’s a caveat: most of the campaigns I’ve been in have been open ended.

By that, I mean there may have been a big initial goal, but the adventures continued with those characters. Only a very small number actually ended after a single big goal had been achieved.

 

[jayoungr]

The main GM in the group who's not me has ADHD and tends to drop campaigns in favor of the next new shiny. I'd say they average about 5 sessions. However, he's aware of this and typically plans episodic adventures rather than ambitious long-term storylines.

He has finished some campaigns, though, and the current one has lasted longer than most. (Knock on wood.) I chose Rarely.

 

[Lanefan]

Still way too early days to see anything like a trend. But, a prediction:

People's approach to gaming strongly reflects their experience in completing campaigns. For example, I predict that there is a really strong correlation between players who deep dive into setting lore and those who play out entire campaigns.

As seems often the case, I'll be an exception to this theory.

As a player I dive deep into setting lore, but the concept of "playing out [an] entire campaign" is somewhat foreign as the campaigns I'd want to play in are those that have no pre-planned end point and that are, going in, intended to last until the players get bored (and that turn over players rather than end when someone leaves), or the rules system collapses (usually due to playing beyond the level it's designed for), or the DM and-or players run out of ideas, or the DM dies.

Thus, there's no suitable option for me in the poll as the underlying assumption - that campaigns have a predetermined end point that can be reached or not reached - doesn't apply.

I wonder if this isn't one of those sort of "hidden" reasons why we tend to have so much difficulty discussing gaming strategies.

Might be.

 

[Hussar]

Huh. Again still too early but what is the term for an inverse bell curve?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've had better luck as a player than a GM, if I were honest.

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

Most of the time. With my group we've finished 4 campaigns, one is in progress, two have been cancelled. That's 4 out of 6 completed, possibly 5 out of 7 later this year.