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

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, those reasons all track with me. I feel as if a lot of GMs don't have the luxury of being able to run multiple games. I think you're right that it's often the reverse. GMs and players are already struggling to find the time for games, so once something else (like life) becomes a bigger priority, TTRPG time gets cut, and then the group just collapses.

Do you think that burnout is a symptom of life circumstances, or that people prioritizing their life stuff is a symptom of burnout?

Both. But, to be clear, I feel burnout happens less often than life happening. The two are different things. Of course, they can collide and exist within the same space, but they are different.

Life happening is often about someone taking a new job, moving, having a kid, etc. It can wreck the social glue or homebase or chemistry of the group. That's not burnout. That is life.

Burnout is people not having fun because they don't feel like playing. I have known people with burnout that had plenty of spare time, they just didn't want to play.

But my top two are still life happening and poor planning.

 

[Scott Christian]

My actual point is that I think GM burnout--a reason given by other posters for why campaigns end before they resolve--is much more likely to come about if the GM is trying to write the whole story ahead of time, and trying to make the campaign follow that pre-written story. GM burnout seems much less likely if you get the players to carry more of the creative load; this seems especially like useful advice for GMs who on their own aren't going to produce anything better than "workmanlike." Depending on the players to add content and direction seems to me at least in line with "depending on them to find and create their own fun within what we present."

That's interesting. In my experience it is the exact opposite.

The GM that runs an adventure path (bought or built), and does a few hours of prep around it for each session to highlight the PCs or use their backstories, has had a much greater chance of success.

The GM that works feverishly on one or two sessions to "start things out" and then just either improvs or doesn't have the time to flesh out the rest as well as they did the beginning. Those are the campaigns I have watched fail.

Again, I am sure it is a table-by-table experience. And I am sure the game being played has something to do with it too.

 

[prabe]

That's interesting. In my experience it is the exact opposite.

The GM that runs an adventure path (bought or built), and does a few hours of prep around it for each session to highlight the PCs or use their backstories, has had a much greater chance of success.

The GM that works feverishly on one or two sessions to "start things out" and then just either improvs or doesn't have the time to flesh out the rest as well as they did the beginning. Those are the campaigns I have watched fail.

Again, I am sure it is a table-by-table experience. And I am sure the game being played has something to do with it too.

Some part of it might be that I've disliked every published long adventure I've played in, to various degrees, and I literally cannot make them work in my head to run them. Some of it might also be that I'm genuinely completely comfortable improvising my way through a campaign, one session (or one narrative arc) at a time--and after the initial situation, it's really up to the players what's next.

I'm also not sure I really "work feverishly" to start things out, but that might be something of either a rhetorical flourish or a semantic nuance.

 

[bloodtide]

The number one thing is fairly simple apathy: people don't care. They are not willing to make the time, as they just don't care. "eh, whatever".

Number two is the spot light complaint. They some how want the game to be tier personal wish fulfillment. They will complain if they have to sit around for even a few minutes because another player is doing something. Then they will simply say "the game is no fun".

 

[Scott Christian]

The number one thing is fairly simple apathy: people don't care. They are not willing to make the time, as they just don't care. "eh, whatever".

Number two is the spot light complaint. They some how want the game to be tier personal wish fulfillment. They will complain if they have to sit around for even a few minutes because another player is doing something. Then they will simply say "the game is no fun".

I am sorry, and believe that is your experience, but those things are so far from the top in my opinion. In fact, they are the bottom two reasons. In fact, I have never seen (only heard of) your second reason.

 

[prabe]

There seems to be some disconnect between apathy as like a starting position and a desire for wish fulfillment.

 

[dragoner]

Sometimes they come back!

Or just fade away, though one never knows.

 

[AstroArtificer]

I've come up to a solution to this as well! I actually built my game system around it. What are you working on?

I'd love to hear what you came up with!

I made a 5-axis system that provides 16 distinct player archetypes.

External/Internal - How a player gets energized by a session. Do they get excited by things happening at the table, or by their internal worlds?
Concrete/Abstract - How the player likes to process information. Do they like the specific details, or like to think in grander themes?
People/Mechanical - What is the player there for? Characters and other people, or the game system itself?
Planned/Spontaneous - How does the player like to deal with situations? Do they spend a session arguing about how to kick down a door, or do they just go guns blazing?
Casual/Immersive - What is the player's emotional investment? Do they get sad over their PC's death, or are they excited to roll up with their new character?

I then paid this with the 8 types of TTRPG fun, to see why the player is there. And that is narrative, fantasy, discovery, challenge, fellowship, expression, sensory, and submission.

I have a more in-depth deep dive into the compatibility system here (Player Archetypes: The 16 TTRPG Personality Types)

 

[AstroArtificer]

There's two types of failed/unfinished campaigns IME.

The first type (failed) is that which never really gets off the ground in the first place: three or four sessions in, if not fewer, it's clear this thing has no future be it due to apathy, player-GM misfit, scheduling, arguments, or whatever. The metaphorical RPG beaches are littered with these wrecks.

The second type (unfinished) is that which is never in fact intended to "finish" at all, i.e. it doesn't have and never had a hard or pre-defined end point. Instead, the intent is that it keeps on keepin' on as long as players want to play in it and the GM wants to run it, thus it could last for years or even decades. What IME eventually kills these is a combination of a) running out of ideas and-or inspiration and b) long-term accumulation of problems and headaches with the game system itself.

(edited for clarity)

It makes me wonder what the true split between both types of games is. It honestly would be really hard to get data on the first (failed) type because people probably don't want to admit that. I feel like we see more of the second type because of survivorship bias. That being said, that's just my opinion.

 

[AstroArtificer]

IMO, new players and new tables. The campaigns we’ve completed all had the same core group of players who all liked each other, meshed well, knew each other’s schedules, and so on. Whenever that was changed - a new group of players, someone coming joining an existing campaign - it felt the probability that someone didn’t click with someone else or someone’s schedule started to not work out with the game rose considerably.

That's what I feel too. It's almost like marriage and dating. You either find the group you'll stay for long campaigns with, or you move onto the next "date".