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.