Poor DM/ Game Advice

[MarkB]

Good games die for so many reasons out of one’s control, moving away, being deployed, births, deaths etc,
it seems a shame to just surrender the chance to have a long run.

Good games also die if they stop being good - whether it's because the players are looking for a change of pace, or the DM is having trouble finding inspiration for a new storyline set in the same campaign.

As with relationships, sometimes the desperate attempts to keep a campaign going after the magic has gone out of it can be a far worse experience than making a clean break.

But unlike relationships, ending a campaign doesn't have to mean splitting up. Often, it means just starting a new game with the same people, reinvigorated by the chance to try something different.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know it is interesting how things come about. Our group fully intended to end our current campaign this last Saturday. But, things ended in such a way, and the other players changed their minds, deciding they wanted to move on to the end part.

So, the campaign ends where there is not enough interest in continuing or the DM flatly states (to the moans and groans of the players) that he has nothing else to do, in which case it is over or there is a break until new material is prepared.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My two-teamed Eberron simultaneous campaigns end tonight, many many months (if not a year) before they originally were supposed to. I hadn't intended on ending them now, but the format of the two games-- both running alternate Mondays with the pool of players switching combinations every two months-- no longer became fun or useful for me. I just didn't want to run them anymore.

Had the game "soured" for me? Yes it did. The size and the scope of the campaign became unwieldy, plus I had fourteen players to accommodate-- several of whom I just didn't enjoy playing with anymore. Now could I have worked around it? Sure, I could have. I could have just continued unhappily, or I could have culled players to make it more manageable, or any number of things.

But what would have I gained from doing that? Moreseo than just ending it and starting anew with a format/style/group/story I was happier with? I don't see one. Other than the "honor"(?) of being able to say "Look how long my game ran for!"

But I've ran enough games at this point to know that the length of their runs means exactly two things-- jack and squat. And there's nothing worthwhile in doing so just for that alone.

 

[Umbran]

Those throwing shade have you played in a long game to know what you are missing if anything?

Yep plenty of us have. Please do not get into the mode of "If you disagree, you must be ignorant". That's not going to end well.

This board is so quick to be dismissive off a title post, ohh please.

And you are so swift to dismiss their input, so it looks like you are even on that score.

I’m just trying to understand why games don’t go longer.

Well, then you probably should have led with a question - How long do your games run?

We have some indication that, overall, a great many games don't run terribly long. Chiding people for ending games when they feel it is appropriate, though, is not constructive. A game ending before everyone at the table is satisfied may be considered a problem, a game ending when everyone's good with it... isn't a problem to be solved.

 

[Umbran]

So to answer your question as to why don't games run longer? The answer is "Some do, and some don't. And every group has a different reason why." And you're not going to glean anything useful from any of the answers.

It is probably good to note: Length is not, in and of itself, a virtue.

 

[Fenris-77]

Campaigns run their natural course. Sometimes that's short of the mark, sometimes it's long. The point is not to play past the best before date. If the players or DM are tired of things, then end it. If everyone is good to go then a group decision can be made, and sometimes that decision is also to end it. If I had to guess I'd guess that more campaigns run short rather than long - it can be hard to find just the right mix of people to run a long game. That's mostly been my experience. Even a pretty good game might not look like a long term game.

 

[iserith]

Folks if you are reading my post and thinking I am saying there is only one correct way to play, I’m not.
A long running campaign certainly does not have to be open ended.
A campaign is not like soured milk, it can be un-soured or it’s sourness used.

Those throwing shade have you played in a long game to know what you are missing if anything?

Yes, I've played in years-long campaigns. Many of those campaigns just sort of petered out. Finding this to be a problem, some years ago I decided to start to think about what the end-game looked like when planning a campaign and approximately how long that should take given the group. This is one of the first things I now discuss during Session Zero so the players can decide if that's a commitment they can keep. Then I make sure we end on time and go out on a high note.

Now I don't have campaigns that go unfinished, nor do I encounter any of those time-wasting "sour" parts and no sessions are spent on mundane errands like shopping or interviewing cagey, quirky NPCs. It's got good pacing the whole way through and ends in a satisfying manner. And all it takes is a little foresight, planning, and discussing on the front end.

 

[Stormonu]

Probably the longest single campaign I initially ran started in 1E, and was converted over to 2E. The primary campaign used A1-4 Slavelord series, I6/I10 Ravenloft/Griffon hill (simultaneously), and a heavily modified/homebrewed G1-3 Giants and D1-D3 series, culminating in Q1. The campaign lasted for over 3 years and had a few additional adventures after the Q1 wrap-up. The characters were around 14th level, and each of the PCs were coming into their destiny (An elvin king, a paladin Baron, a samurai Daimyo, a monk Master, a clerical Pope, a ranger Lord, a wizard Archmage and a halfing Syndicate boss). The players were ready to retire their characters and I was burned out.

Years later, we did try other adventures - and finished one, but that group was pretty much done. A couple of years ago, we started up another game, a mix of the original players and their actual children and we played a short campaign starring the character’s offspring.

That’s only one campaign of several I’ve run or played in over the years. I’ve been in short and long campaigns, but we have always tended to wrap the game up no later than somewhere in the teens, and I have not been in a campaign on either side of the screen that has made it past the levels of the first campaign I indicate, and I’m fine with that.

And just to note, the campaign I’m running right now (Saltmarsh) has ties back to a 3E campaign I ran in which the latter characters were pirates that ended shortly after the group completed their primary campaign-long objecting of recovering Bloody Jack Dascombe’s cursed treasure (and that campaign ended around 12th-13th level). So, while I don’t continue a single campaign forever and ever, I often tie in events, characters and places from prior campaigns for the players to interact with (“Hey, I remember those guys from the last campaign!”)

 

[Oofta]

I've played in and run campaigns that were years long, although I generally try to end a campaign after a couple of years. My campaign world has been knocking around for decades now, enemies and threats are vanquished only for others to rise up.

I always have general story arcs in mind but not necessarily a pre-planned conclusion. For example in a recent campaign the party defeated one of the BBEGs for my world. This BBEG had been a major or minor nemesis for several campaigns, often working in the background to stir up troubles for her long term goals.

When she was finally defeated, it just changed the power structure in the world. There's now a huge power vacuum and someone or some thing is going to step in to fill it with team evil basically descending into civil war.

So defeating the big bad didn't end all threats, it just changed the nature of those threats. That story arc ended, we'll pick up a different arc if we want to continue. Maybe she was really a puppet all along or the group will find she was doing all those evil nasty things because someone had to protect the world from something even worse or it just gives team fiend a chance to step in.

In any case, I think campaigns can continue if you want even after you've achieved a goal. My intent with every party is to get them to 20th level unless they really want to go a different direction. Even then, those PCs are still generally waiting in the wings in case we ever want to go back to them.