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

[Andvari]

In my experience.

1. Players moving (as in geographically IRL).
2. GM burnout.

I often hear scheduling being a major concern, but for whatever reason, that hasn't been much of an issue for me. Number 2 usually impacts when a new campaign is going to start rather than whether the current one will finish. I seem able to power through to the finish when it happens, then lay dormant a while after, recharging.

 

[bsss]

What has been working pretty well for my main group is fixed scheduling. We play on Wednesday evenings at 19. We're a group of 5, and we generally play if one but not more can't make it. That way, people can take care not to schedule other stuff for that evening if they can avoid it.

Real life stuff (kids, work schedules, etc.) obviously can still intervene, but this is the only way that's ever worked for me. Back in the day, my 8 friends and I could dedicate our whole Saturday. These days it's four of us on every other Monday evening. But it does work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that there’s an ingrained idea that longer is better. So that’s kind of the ideal that people shoot for, and then things fizzle out due to any number of the reasons people have offered.

Longer is not better. It’s just longer.

 

[payn]

I think that there’s an ingrained idea that longer is better. So that’s kind of the ideal that people shoot for, and then things fizzle out due to any number of the reasons people have offered.

Longer is not better. It’s just longer.

There being twenty levels in D&D kinda implies that long games are possible if not expected. Though most RPGs have smaller advancement, and yeah longer isn’t always better.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There being twenty levels in D&D kinda implies that long games are possible if not expected. Though most RPGs have smaller advancement, and yeah longer isn’t always better.

Sure, linger games can be perfectly fine. There’s nothing inherently wrong with them. But shorter campaigns are good, too. Neither is objectively better… but longer games tend to be put forth by many sources as being better.

 

[el-remmen]

I do have to add that the amount of time in-game matters more to me than the time out of game.

We recently realized in December in one of my games that we had not had a long rest since July (5 sessions) because 18 to 24 hours had not passed in game yet! Which we found hilarious but not game breaking.

 

[prabe]

I think that there’s an ingrained idea that longer is better. So that’s kind of the ideal that people shoot for, and then things fizzle out due to any number of the reasons people have offered.

Longer is not better. It’s just longer.

I absolutely agree, but I spent years playing with a chronic GM who had ideas fizzing in his brain all the time, and most of the stuff he ran just stopped abruptly with no narrative grace; it's obvious to me that running games as long as I am is a response to that (and I'm still responding that way, with my current campaigns).

I've also been immensely fortunate that I haven't had more than three players who needed to leave over those four campaigns, for various mostly-good reasons.

 

[Staffan]

Real life stuff (kids, work schedules, etc.) obviously can still intervene, but this is the only way that's ever worked for me. Back in the day, my 8 friends and I could dedicate our whole Saturday. These days it's four of us on every other Monday evening. But it does work.

Right. It's not fool-proof, but it sets up the expectation that (in our case) Wednesdays evenings are for gaming.

As an example of the opposite, I sometimes play with some other friends from the old gaming club I was in in the 90s. We play on weekends, and in a more ad-hoc fashion. Two of the players collaborate on setting up dates for a couple of months in advance, about once a month, and then check if the rest of us can play. But even with months of advance notice, some players still flake out – today, for example, we were only 5 out of 7.

Of course, there are other things being different. Most of the people in this group have older kids, and that often brings weekend obligations. And I would assume that there is a certain amount of survivorship bias in the first group – those who couldn't commit to mostly weekly playing on account of work and/or family aren't there anymore. But still the difference is clear as day.

 

[prabe]

Right. It's not fool-proof, but it sets up the expectation that (in our case) Wednesdays evenings are for gaming.

As an example of the opposite, I sometimes play with some other friends from the old gaming club I was in in the 90s. We play on weekends, and in a more ad-hoc fashion. Two of the players collaborate on setting up dates for a couple of months in advance, about once a month, and then check if the rest of us can play. But even with months of advance notice, some players still flake out – today, for example, we were only 5 out of 7.

Of course, there are other things being different. Most of the people in this group have older kids, and that often brings weekend obligations. And I would assume that there is a certain amount of survivorship bias in the first group – those who couldn't commit to mostly weekly playing on account of work and/or family aren't there anymore. But still the difference is clear as day.

I've found fortnightly to work well. Something like, say, "every other Saturday" gives people half their Saturdays to do other things. We don't have many parents, though, and the kids are still really young, so that might change.

 

[el-remmen]

Kids are overbooked these days which means parents are the ones that suffer.