Why do so many campaigns never finish? Genuinely curious what others think

[Umbran]

Only since 5e did it become clear to me that a single adventure book, like Curse of Strahd for example, was considered a full campaign and the expected end of for these characters. Perhaps we never played (A)D&D as intended…

Aside from Slavers -> Giants -> Drow -> Demonweb, Temple of Elemental Evil, and some other odd bits, the phenomenon really derives from when Paizo published Dungeon and Dragon magazines with Adventure Paths.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Aside from Slavers -> Giants -> Drow -> Demonweb, Temple of Elemental Evil, and some other odd bits, the phenomenon really derives from when Paizo published Dungeon and Dragon magazines with Adventure Paths.

Though it kind of existed before that. The first time someone decided to run a game that was trying to capture the Tolkein feel (this game is about dealing with and defeating the Dark Lord/Undead King/Witch Queen) it was going to largely play out that way, and I saw those a very long time ago. They just were an at least somewhat different beast than games focused on dungeon-of-the-week and the like.

 

[Golden Bee]

63% is an extremely high completion rate, considering most campaigns start "we're going to hang out in this configuration for 4 hours a week in perpetuity".

 

[Umbran]

Though it kind of existed before that. The first time someone decided to run a game that was trying to capture the Tolkein feel ...

Laurefindel was referencing books- published materials - not the private action of individual tables.

 

[Laurefindel]

Aside from Slavers -> Giants -> Drow -> Demonweb, Temple of Elemental Evil, and some other odd bits, the phenomenon really derives from when Paizo published Dungeon and Dragon magazines with Adventure Paths.

Indeed, Paizo's adventure paths were designed as self-contained campaigns, with a more deliberate and linear design than the old D&D Giants and Drows series. In that sense they remind me more of the old WFRP's Imperial Campaign. But as they happened over several books (published month, if not years appart), it felt more of a traditional series than a single big adventure. I've seen more people play only part of those campaigns/adventure paths, or else start halfway into them from a homebrew campaign, than people doing only half of Strahd before branching off etc. (though Strahd may not be the best example because the whole concept is a no-exit situation).

 

[dragoner]

Indeed, Paizo's adventure paths were designed as self-contained campaigns, with a more deliberate and linear design than the old D&D Giants and Drows series. In that sense they remind me more of the old WFRP's Imperial Campaign. But as they happen over several books, it felt more of a traditional series than a single big adventure. I've seen more people play only part of those campaigns/adventure paths, or else start halfway into them from a homebrew campaign, than people doing only half of Strahd before branching off etc. (though Strahd may not be the best example because the whole concept is a no-exit situation).

Like your group mine we just sort of played open ended, Vault of the Drow was a sort of fun open ended module. Though the later adventure pths are good, there is nothing wrong with either way.

 

[Laurefindel]

Like your group mine we just sort of played open ended, Vault of the Drow was a sort of fun open ended module. Though the later adventure pths are good, there is nothing wrong with either way.

Nothing wrong indeed!

As a matter of fact, I now deliberately plan for campaign endings in my homebrew games because it feels good to actually concludes something. It doesn't have to stop there for the characters, but whatever comes after is proper sequel then; not just another chapter in a weekly serial or coming back from intermission in a two-act play.

But still, that's something relatively recent in my gaming experience.