D&D 5E Quittin' Time

[Fauchard1520]

When a game is getting a little long in the tooth, how do you go about deciding on the next thing? Do you press on to the end even when it's stopped being fun? Do you mix it up by starting over with low-level characters in the same setting? Or do you cut you just let the old high-level campaign remain forever on hold, moving on to the next big thing?

Basically, I'm asking how to balance the desire for closure with the desire to start something exciting and new.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[iserith]

Where I think a lot of campaigns fizzle out is because the DM and/or group hasn't thought about the real time commitment being made and whether that is sustainable for the given group.

I think the best option is to conceive of the end state of the game in terms of real time (hours, weeks, months, years, sessions or perhaps levels) before the campaign begins, then shave a few sessions off of that. Better to leave them wanting more than to let it die on the vine.

So the solution is on the front end in my view, not on the back end. If you're trying to figure out a way to bring it in for a landing before it fizzles, you already done flumphed up.

 

[payn]

If I'm allowed, I'll try and close out the campaign instead of putting it on hold. Track record is pretty poor with that.

Follow up campaign is usually some collective agreement on the mood and interest of the most folks. In the PF1 era, high-level definitely got long in the tooth and often starting over was pretty exciting prospect for the group too.

 

[Shiroiken]

A successful campaign is comprised of one or more stories that are successfully resolved. I try to have an idea of the campaign's primary story, ending them together. Some things might be left unresolved, either to be used in a later campaign or should we decide to revisit the characters, but often I give a summary of most of those.

 

[Stormonu]

Used to be that I'd run the game until it fell over for whatever reason - usually the end of the game group.

However, the last two campaigns were deliberately stopped at the end of the current storyline.

The first was my Phandelver group; we finished the module, which I ran to teach me the 5E rules. Upon it's completion we switched over to another campaign so everyone could switch to new characters.

The next was Ghosts of Saltmarsh. I ran the campaign, through the middle of Covid until they had completed the Final Enemy portion of the campaign. Everyone agreed it was a good stopping point, so we ended there. This allowed me to switch to the player side, and we started a Theros Campaign, which we got up to 7th level before it has temporarily been put on hold (due to work/weather issues).

For future games, I intent to continue running until an agreed stopping point is reach. I've learned I abhor D&D past 9th level or so, and when a good stopping point is reached after that time, I'm happy to move on to a new game/campaign.

 

[Voadam]

In my group things usually end because the DM gets burnt out at some point or work/life stuff picks up for them and makes running the game untenable. It has been rare for the DM to say they want to do something different, though it has happened and in that instance the campaign continued but switched to two new systems within a month (4e to BESM to Pathfinder 1e).

Occasionally people will want to do something different and we will switch, usually abruptly with no campaign closure.

I have had a couple games I run end unexpectedly with TPKs (Reign of Winter Adventure Path can be brutal) and then we did something different next with someone else running. I also was running a game for my face to face group but dropped out for pandemic isolation and so since they continued ftf they started a new thing without me.

 

[Lanefan]

Where I think a lot of campaigns fizzle out is because the DM and/or group hasn't thought about the real time commitment being made and whether that is sustainable for the given group.

I think the best option is to conceive of the end state of the game in terms of real time (hours, weeks, months, years, sessions or perhaps levels) before the campaign begins, then shave a few sessions off of that. Better to leave them wanting more than to let it die on the vine.

Unless one's intention going in is specifically to leave the duration open-ended, to last the shorter of a) as long as anyone wants to play it or b) the DM's life.

That's how I've approached every campaign I've run.

So, in answer to the OP: re-starts with new characters within the same setting/campaign can work, even better if you can somehow link the re-start group to what went before (or is currently ongoing) in previous play.

I did this not so long ago: restarted within the same campaign, and sent the party into an adventure that had already been done 5 in-game years earlier by a different group! (long-term player turnover has its benefits!) They never figured out why/how the place had reset itself, but every time they took anything significant back to town they kept getting "Hey, we've seen this before! Some boneheads brought us the same thing five years ago! What the ... ?"

Another option is to allow/encourage players to have more than one character on the go, and split them into multiple parties. That way, you can in effect run the same in-game time period a few times over, as during the same spring that Party 1 is busy vanquishing Snurri the Frost Giant Party 2 can be off dealing with Captain Barbosa the pirate lord. In real-time, however, you run one party through its adventure then jump to the other party and run that; the trick for you-as-DM is to not let the two (or more!) groups get too far separated in in-game time, and believe me whenI say that can become a real juggling act.

I should also ask of the OP: is the game getting long in the tooth in your eyes as DM or in the eyes of the players? If it's the players saying it's getting old the above ideas can work to refresh things; if it's you-as-DM who's had enough then its days may well be numbered, as there's no point running something you're not enjoying. I've had two long ones go this way. One I brought to a story-based shut-down conclusion while the other I just left hanging; the advantage of doing the latter is that characters from that game remain available for play in later/other campaigns if desired.

 

[J.Quondam]

Starting in 3e days - and my work life - I've generally planned to keep campaigns/arcs fairly short in real-time, with an explicit finish-by date. The option to continue was usually offered, depending, and marked the launch of either a new arc or an entirely new campaign.

It's also helpful to be honest with oneself and try to identify a fizzler of a campaign earlier rather than later so it can quickly be put it out of our misery. No point prolonging the agony, just to watch a pet campaign concept limp to an ignoble end.

 

[jasper]

The campaign ends when the DMS dies. Otherwise the groups disbands for reasons. Changes systems for variety. Or starts a new story line. I have always been in groups where we did all of the above.

 

[jgsugden]

I always have three campaigns on my computer at a time. The first is my currently active campaign. The second is the one I plan to run next. the third is the one I'll run after the second. I collect ideas for all three and adapt them as time goes by. When you have that scenario going on, you are always tempted by the amazing ideas waiting in the wings. However, it is worth the wait - because most of the treasured memories I have for D&D are the culmination of campaigns.

I'm not talking about the best moments in D&D - those are usually an isolated spontaneous moment where luck and opportunity collide. Instead, I'm saying these ends of a long cmapiagn are the best series of games where all the build ups pay off, all the climaxes hit one after the other, and you build to that one moment that provides a climax to two or three years of games.

You can find yourself struggling along the way. You can find a lull when the PCs are wandering away from every story hook, when they've soured on something you were excited to reveal, or they've worked themselves into a hole that they can't find a path to escape. When that happens and the interest has found a lull, I schedule a one shot or mini campaign as a gap filler and palete cleanser. And then I make sure that the session right before the palate cleanser has one heck of a cliff hanger ending that I can play around with between games.

For example, if the cliff hanger is the sudden reappearance of an old enemy that the party thought was dead, or an ally suddenly turning on them, I'll drop subtle hints as to what might be going on to the players during the weeks away from the game in an effort to peak their interest. It doesn't always work, but it does work a lot. I might tempt them with some of the theories I thought they might have. I might talk about some of the ramifications they may (or may not) have considered. I might drop hints about where they might have seen this coming had they connected the dots ... or what NPCs might have interest in the situation.

 

[Fauchard1520]

The campaign ends when the DMS dies. Otherwise the groups disbands for reasons. Changes systems for variety. Or starts a new story line. I have always been in groups where we did all of the above.

Wait... You ritually murder your DM at the end of the campaign? I feel like the Chick Tracts dude is going to want to hear about this. O_O

 

[tetrasodium]

When a game is getting a little long in the tooth, how do you go about deciding on the next thing? Do you press on to the end even when it's stopped being fun? Do you mix it up by starting over with low-level characters in the same setting? Or do you cut you just let the old high-level campaign remain forever on hold, moving on to the next big thing?

Basically, I'm asking how to balance the desire for closure with the desire to start something exciting and new.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Depends on why. Generally I'll force myself to stick with it and let things wrap themselves up in a way that provides some awesome closure. In one recent game the players pushed some buttons too forcefully though and I just said I was done at the end of the session with no regrets, first time for everything.

 

[aco175]

There is usually a definite end to the campaigns. We had a couple drag on with some extra adventures and then pitter out, but most have an end . The current one I'm running is the 'summer' campaign from last summer. We just finished the PotApocalypse campaign that ran to level 15 and had a few side quests and the players wanted to play different classes for a while in a short campaign. I picked the Forge of Fury adventure from Yawning Portal that goes to level 5 and had a few other adventures that tied them together and it ended... But, then the players wanted to keep going. I am now taking the Against the Giants adventure and adding that to the campaign. They are just finishing the hill giants and about to go to the frost giants. Not sure if it will go to the fire giants.

I kind of want to start the new Shipwreck Isle campaign. I have been planning some things and coming up with additional material, but are fine with going where the players want to go.

I know at some point, my father will grow tired of playing a mid-to-high caster and will want to go back to a 1st level fighter.

 

[jasper]

Wait... You ritually murder your DM at the end of the campaign? I feel like the Chick Tracts dude is going to want to hear about this. O_O

Yes. Yes we do. And a recent open just became open. Are you interested?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I've been a player in games where the GM insisted on keeping going to fulfill their vision of the campaign's end ahead of the players' enjoyment, and I can say that doing this is antithetical to a good game. If the players are clearly not enjoying the game, the GM needs to talk to them about what would make the game more enjoyable and/or end that campaign the next session, if not earlier.

I think it's better to end a campaign earlier than too late. You can (almost) always come back to a good campaign, but no one is going want to return to a bad one, and grinding it into the ground might jeopardize the gaming group.

Do you press on to the end even when it's stopped being fun?

And here I thought Mork Borg's burning of the book was extreme...

Wait... You ritually murder your DM at the end of the campaign? I feel like the Chick Tracts dude is going to want to hear about this. O_O

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am actually moving toward closure in 2 long running campaigns at the moment.

In one, there is a goal that one character needs to see through for the campaign to be satisfying, and we just sort of agree that it’ll be rad to leave the campaign with epic PCs who have changed the course of history for Abeir-Toril.

In the other (Eberron), I expect to be done around level 16 or so, after a climactic battle between the PCs and thier allies and the chthonic red dragon who is trying to become a god and his cult. The group is currently level 10.

I think in the future, at least for a while, I’ll do limited stories with a set starting and ending level, if we stick with 5e D&D .

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I prefer to end things with at least a partially substantial conclusion, even if it requires a little effort. Sadly, this...often doesn't happen, which might be why I prefer it.

If the game has become long in the tooth and no longer "doing it" for the players, taking a sort of "session zero-mark-2" to figure out what players want from a game ending, and then make that happen, seems like a wise course of action.

 

[Weiley31]

And here I thought Mork Borg's burning of the book was extreme...

I legit wonder if somebody EVER actually did that according to the book's guidelines.

I definitely wouldn't since I don't feel like buying Mork Borg's corebook all the time just to play a session of it. Lol.

 

[pogre]

Typically, we hit a big level around 16 and there is a natural story pause - most of the PCs have accomplished their goals and much of the tensions of the campaign have been resolved. At this point I typically asked the players if they want me to create a few more adventures to take the group to 19th or 20th level. They almost always do.

Once a campaign ends the PCs continue to be integrated into the greater campaign world. From time-to-time I will run an epic adventure and the players can bring back any one of their previous characters to take part. I've really enjoyed the campaign continuity this has created.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I legit wonder if somebody EVER actually did that according to the book's guidelines.

I definitely wouldn't since I don't feel like buying Mork Borg's corebook all the time just to play a session of it. Lol.

Apparently, yes.

Also from that thread:

"Johan and Pelle burned a copy of the rulebook and said that it smelled like a chemical fire then instructed everyone not to burn the book because it is obviously a joke"