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

[Hex08]

I've found the opposite to be true: once most of our crew hit the 40-45 age range, player turnover dropped off sharply.

I certainly agree here. Once people reach a certain age some distractions are less likely to occur.

 

[Dyson Logos]

I play in one group that's been running for over a decade now that has completed 12 campaigns. These are always a "back and forth" between an extended campaign and then a short campaign as a breather while the GM sets up the next extended campaign.

The real kicker? Most of these campaigns have been competitive. Two different player groups, same win conditions. See which group can pull it off first.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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 could be wrong, but I doubt that has anything at all to do with it. My F2F group is incredibly casual. I would characterize only one out of seven of us who is particularly versed in setting lore (and it's not me or any of our three rotating DMs.

We got together in 2008 with 4e, and we completed multiple parties going from level 1 to level 30, and several that completed the adventure (whatever levels it ran) without being the full span. In 5e, we've done Horde of the Dragon Queen, Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, Rhime of the Frostmaiden, Tomb of Annihilation, and Dragon Heist. We also did a few of the shorter adventures from the Anthologies. I know you asked "as a player" but I DMed about 2/3 of those.

We didn't quite finish Princes of the Apocalypse and Light of Xaryxis because we lost interest in them, and we haven't finished Decent into Avernus or Wild Beyond the Witchlight (yet) but that's only because we're switching back-and-forth between them.

The biggest reason we don't finish something is because we always want to try out the newest book, and sometimes find out that it's not that great. Sometimes we keep going anyhow (and I or whoever is DMing bangs it into shape). Occasionally we quit and move on to something else.

 

[MNblockhead]

The biggest reason we don't finish something is because we always want to try out the newest book, and sometimes find out that it's not that great. Sometimes we keep going anyhow (and I or whoever is DMing bangs it into shape). Occasionally we quit and move on to something else.

Maybe a topic for a new thread, but how do you know when its time to ditch a campaign and go on to the next new thing? When is it too limited, too broken, too uninteresting to be able to (or worth the effort to) bang it into shape?

As a DM I have only ditched one campaign since 2014. But it was because my players asked me to run Mage the Ascension campaign and I just wasn't groking or enjoying the system. Even more, it was just two much work. It was second game I was running in addition to my D&D campaign and I just didn't have time to prep and run too campaigns. I ditched the MtA campaign because it was easier and more enjoyable for me to run my D&D campaign.

I think because of my lack of time, I am careful what campaign I commit myself to. I may jump in and try a new system or adventure for a one shot, but I go into a campaign expecting to run it for a year or more. Months before I wrap up a current campaign, I start looking at game systems and adventures for my next. As I find a few that look interesting, I'll float a few options to the players, if they are interested, I'll dig deeper. When I was wrapping up my D&D 5e Rappan Athuk campaign, I came close to running DCC Dying Earth, but once I started digging deeper, I realized the lack of VTT support for the Dying Earth specific rules would make it a heavy lift for me to run remotely.

Also, other than Curse of Strahd, my campaigns are generally set in a world where the adventure path can be ditched without ditching the "campaign." If my players had tired of Rappan Athuk, I had lots of material where they could have gone off to other adventures in the Lost Lands setting. If they had done that, would that count as ditching the campaign? For me, it doesn't feel like it would be. It is still one story of one party, using the same system, in the same larger setting.

Yet, if my players had decided that they were not into Curse of Strahd when I was running it and I came up with someway for them to get their characters out of Barovia and then ran them through another WotC adventure book, it would feel like I was ditching the campaign. Which feels like I'm contradicting what I wrote in the prior paragraph.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Maybe a topic for a new thread, but how do you know when its time to ditch a campaign and go on to the next new thing? When is it too limited, too broken, too uninteresting to be able to (or worth the effort to) bang it into shape?

It's a good question worth exploring. The easiest answer is: When everyone* agrees that it's time to.

* "Everyone" being the GM listening to the overall table's opinion and then deciding. The GM needs to be the most invested, and the investment of the players will follow, as long as the GM makes decisions with their players in mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe a topic for a new thread, but how do you know when its time to ditch a campaign and go on to the next new thing? When is it too limited, too broken, too uninteresting to be able to (or worth the effort to) bang it into shape?

If its mechanical problems we'll usually make at least a pass or two at it before concluding its too wide spread a problem to address without major system surgery.

But in general, I've usually ended up ditching it when I can't manage the wherewithal to prep for the game any more. Its not uncommon this is the consequence of demoralization on my part to at least some of my players reactions to it.

 

[Jaiken]

I don’t usually get to be a player in DnD 5e but when I do I try to finish a Campaign.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I'm still rather interested in the spread here. I feel that most of the discussions about the game fall apart, not because of people not understanding the rules or the point, but, because our play experiences are so different that people are just not speaking the same language when discussing the game.

 

[payn]

I have to admit, I'm still rather interested in the spread here. I feel that most of the discussions about the game fall apart, not because of people not understanding the rules or the point, but, because our play experiences are so different that people are just not speaking the same language when discussing the game.

Na, i get it when folks describe disparate experiences and views just fine. Some folks just think they can logic defeat an experience and/or preference instead of just listening.

 

[Hussar]

Na, i get it when folks describe disparate experiences and views just fine. Some folks just think they can logic defeat an experience and/or preference instead of just listening.

I think it’s more to do with people (and I’m certainly guilty here) look at the reported experience and just can’t get how this experience happened. It’s so far out there that the assumption becomes that the reported experience must be flawed.

I mean the original thread that spawned this on was because people couldn’t believe that not completing a campaign was a typical experience. That I only believe what I believe because I’ve had “bad luck”.

But when about half of players have “bad luck” suddenly my perspective becomes a lot more understandable. That I might push for dms to pull their thumb out and increase the pace of their games makes sense when I’m part of that 50%. OTOH dms or players who almost always complete campaign would see no need to increase pacing.