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

[Tigris]

I've been thinking about this topic a bit too much. I ended up creating a language that I hope can bridge that gap so we can understand each other's playstyles. Would be genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this, or potentially what it's lacking.

Player Archetypes: The 16 TTRPG Personality Types

A compatibility system for D&D players and GMs built on real psychology, not vibes.

astroartificer.com

It lacks simplicity. 16 styles are way too much. Then 8 types of fun, when its more normal to have just 4, makes it even worse.

Also it shows 1 typical problem: GMs overcomplicating things and think one can solve things with discussion, which can also be a reason why people bump off. (Seen in my most recent campaign again).


In the end it will always be a tradeoff to form a playgroup. And part of the tradeoff is "how much unneeded discussion do you tolerate", so any system to help with other parts of the tradeof need to be as simple and light as possible.


Thats why having a short clear outlined campaign helps so much. "Hey we play this premade adventure together its about X, players need to Y, and it takes 12 sessions".


People know here what to expect, buy in to it, and since its limited time may even try something they normally would not. And not much discussion needed at all.

 

[payn]

It lacks simplicity. 16 styles are way too much. Then 8 types of fun, when its more normal to have just 4, makes it even worse.

Also it shows 1 typical problem: GMs overcomplicating things and think one can solve things with discussion, which can also be a reason why people bump off. (Seen in my most recent campaign again).


In the end it will always be a tradeoff to form a playgroup. And part of the tradeoff is "how much unneeded discussion do you tolerate", so any system to help with other parts of the tradeof need to be as simple and light as possible.


Thats why having a short clear outlined campaign helps so much. "Hey we play this premade adventure together its about X, players need to Y, and it takes 12 sessions".


People know here what to expect, buy in to it, and since its limited time may even try something they normally would not. And not much discussion needed at all.

I want to like what you are saying, but ive found that simple campaign tag line that outlines the whole campaign is absolutely zero assurance that players will not flame out. Not to say that you will have any more luck with 16 playestyle, 8 types of fun, etc.. detail either. The latter might seem like more work than its worth, but I think its great to get people thinking about it.

 

[Tigris]

I want to like what you are saying, but ive found that simple campaign tag line that outlines the whole campaign is absolutely zero assurance that players will not flame out. Not to say that you will have any more luck with 16 playestyle, 8 types of fun, etc.. detail either. The latter might seem like more work than its worth, but I think its great to get people thinking about it.

You never have assurance that players do not stop. But when you use a premade adventure (and players can read up on what its about etc.) and use it as much by the book as possible as a GM and tell exactly that it will be 12 half days ingame so most likely 12 sessions then as a player you know sooo much better what to expect than normally.

I dont think its great to make people think about even more things. Games and including them in life is too complicated already.

 

[prabe]

I want to like what you are saying, but ive found that simple campaign tag line that outlines the whole campaign is absolutely zero assurance that players will not flame out. Not to say that you will have any more luck with 16 playestyle, 8 types of fun, etc.. detail either. The latter might seem like more work than its worth, but I think its great to get people thinking about it.

I'm also unconvinced that being able to tell the players what the campaign is about (as a narrative) before play is a great good thing. I mean, if you want to promise lots of fighting or lots of intrigue or some other specific gameplay premise, sure, but even that seems as though it might--depending on the gameplay and/or premise--have some pitfalls. (For instance, if you promise a game with a lot of intrigue, and the players see a solution that's more direct, that might be an issue.)

I think trying to be the Linnaeus of TRPGs and nail down all the types of players and fun might be its own different problem. I recognize that different people want different things from their games, and I understand the impulse to try to pin that down, but while incompatibilities can and do happen I'm not sure taxonomies are the best way to avoid them.

 

[payn]

You never have assurance that players do not stop. But when you use a premade adventure (and players can read up on what its about etc.) and use it as much by the book as possible as a GM and tell exactly that it will be 12 half days ingame so most likely 12 sessions then as a player you know sooo much better what to expect than normally.

I dont think its great to make people think about even more things. Games and including them in life is too complicated already.

Interesting, Im guessing you and I would not align on the compatibility quiz

I think my bottom line is the fact there is no assurance other than experience on this front. You can be succinct or you can be detailed up front, but its not gonna matter after dice hit the table.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting, Im guessing you and I would not align on the compatibility quiz

I think my bottom line is the fact there is no assurance other than experience on this front. You can be succinct or you can be detailed up front, but its not gonna matter after dice hit the table.

Personally, I just don't see a game not reaching an "end" as something to really worry about. I DNF stuff all the time; books, TV shows, video games.

Of course, I'm also on record as being much more interested in beginnings and middles of stories than the end, so that might just be my personal perspective speaking. I do know quite a few people who feel like a story without an ending, or a bad ending, is intrinsically ruined.

 

[prabe]

Personally, I just don't see a game not reaching an "end" as something to really worry about. I DNF stuff all the time; books, TV shows, video games.

Of course, I'm also on record as being much more interested in beginnings and middles of stories than the end, so that might just be my personal perspective speaking. I do know quite a few people who feel like a story without an ending, or a bad ending, is intrinsically ruined.

I think there's a difference between "I didn't like it enough to keep reading" and "the ending is horrible." I think a bad ending can mar a narrative, but I don't think it's necessarily the worst thing that can happen to one.

(I've DNFed three novels this year, out of twenty-eight I've started. Some of the ones I've finished have stuck the landing better than others. At least one novel I finished mostly redeemed some bad middle with its ending. Obviously we can have different preferences about endings, as we can about anything else, I'm just using my recent experience to mark out some of mine.)

 

[payn]

Personally, I just don't see a game not reaching an "end" as something to really worry about. I DNF stuff all the time; books, TV shows, video games.

Of course, I'm also on record as being much more interested in beginnings and middles of stories than the end, so that might just be my personal perspective speaking. I do know quite a few people who feel like a story without an ending, or a bad ending, is intrinsically ruined.

Sure, thats also a good reason why campaigns dont finish, some folks simply dont care.

 

[Tigris]

Interesting, Im guessing you and I would not align on the compatibility quiz

I think my bottom line is the fact there is no assurance other than experience on this front. You can be succinct or you can be detailed up front, but its not gonna matter after dice hit the table.

The quiz does also not aline with me at all.


I tried to take it and it just soo much feels "Oh clearly made by a GM not a player" that half the questions I cant really answer at all.


Like if a teacher makes a quiz with questions asking students for feedback and the options mostly read out as what the teacher wants to hear not what students would actually say.

 

[innerdude]

I think it's also worth noting that not all campaigns have an end that can be reached.

If most D&D campaigns are homebrew affairs, as WotC has previously told us, there often isn't some linear story with a beginning, middle and an end.

If your campaign is just "well, we'll play whatever adventure looks good for whatever level the characters are at now," how do you know when the end is? When they hit level 20? When they run out of interesting adventures?

Yeah, those campaigns "fizzle out" but they also didn't have a set end point, so there wasn't any finish line most of them could reach at all.

Showing up to the conversation late, but this is very much a key point.

Did the group ever actually agree that there was an "end game" to begin with?

Like, "This campaign will continue until one of 3 conditions are met: A) Players achieve primary goal X, B) Villain achieves primary goal Y, or C) secondary campaign meta-narrative reaches condition Z."

If not, how does one determine what the appropriate "end state" was supposed to be?

Most "fizzling" in my experience is a result of the group simply not stopping to talk about what their goals are for the campaign, and when they would feel satisfied that play had reached a natural or narrative conclusion.