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

[Lanefan]

Did Dragonlance modules happen before or after the Enemy Within Campaign for WFRP?

Before.

A quick google shows the WFRP campaign as being "late 1980s" and that WFRP as a system didn't exist until 1986.

Dragonlance started in 1984 with DL-1 Dragons of Despair and modules (and novels) came thick and fast after that until DL-12 Dragons of Faith came out in 1986.

 

[billd91]

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.

I figure Chaosium’s various Call of Cthulhu campaigns also have some influence on the format, particularly Masks of Nyarlathotep.

 

[Umbran]

I figure Chaosium’s various Call of Cthulhu campaigns also have some influence on the format, particularly Masks of Nyarlathotep.

Perhaps, though I wasn't trying to list "influences".

I was responding to "Perhaps we never played (A)D&D as intended...." The point was that the format seemed to come to be a major player in the RPG scene around when Paizo started publishing Adventure Paths, making it more like 3.5e time, not AD&D time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Might be, but it still existed and didn't seem exactly uncommon. Acting like it was all random sandboxes just does a bad job describing the hobby even then.

 

[Umbran]

Might be, but it still existed and didn't seem exactly uncommon. Acting like it was all random sandboxes just does a bad job describing the hobby even then.

Yeah, but at this point you seem more into characterizing positions nobody explicitly took than actually discussing the matter.

I never said anything like, "it was all random sandboxes", and I don't expect anyone else did either.

I don't see any reason to discuss with you if that's going to be your approach.

Have a good one.

 

[aramis erak]

This is a category fallacy. If anything, the opposite happened. I was excited to create and play the game, but lack of interest from some of the players wore down my interest.

both forms of GM disintrest are valid situations... both the phoning it in and the burned out "'cause they don't care" are valid situations. I've had both flavors happen... tho the half-assing it 'cause I didn't care was once... and very obvious. My players didn't push for session 3. we played something else the following week. Risk, IIRC...

 

[aramis erak]

I suspect Dragonlance provided a much bigger push in the AP direction than did anything else in the early days.

Slavers - GDQ predates DL.. not by a lot... but both are progress in that direction. From different sources. But, same time frame, there were others. DL1 is 1984. Q1 is 1980. Different points in the timeline.

Note that the Slavers and Giants portions run just fine separate from each other; D1-3 work fine without the Slavers or GIants portion... but QotDP is a direct follow-on to D3. It's not the same as a more modern adventure path...

And DL? Sure, it's one big campaign adventure... railroaded all to hell... but fun for some.

Other companies were starting to experiment with similarly long-form adventure content...
GDW released a campaign length work, entitled, The Traveller Adventure... in 1983. It's been retitled in reprint to Aramis: The Traveller Adventure - a serious misnomer since it's not really focused upon the Aramis Trace, let alone the subsector capital Aramis. (And, despite my being a GDW fanboy and admin at COTI, Aramis as a handle is a reference to the Musketeer, not the world, trace, nor subsector in the Marches.)

1985, we get the serialization of the DGP's "Grand Tour" adventure in Traveller's Digest.

1986, GW starts serializing The Enemy Within.

 

[VHawkwinter]

What do you think actually kills most campaigns?

GM Burnout, or scheduling conflicts. I think people plan for yearlong campaigns or longer, but I always found 3-4 months (something we started to align our campaigns with University schedules) a long time ago was more sustainable. I've seen a few that last a long time, but not most of them.

 

[Lanefan]

Slavers - GDQ predates DL.. not by a lot... but both are progress in that direction. From different sources. But, same time frame, there were others. DL1 is 1984. Q1 is 1980. Different points in the timeline.

I don't think A-series Slavers was ever intended to be anything more than a connected series of tournament modules.

The G-series was both self-contained and connected to D-series at the same time. Also, each G-series adventure also works just fine as a stand-alone with no DM work required, where a Dragonlance module takes a lot more DM effort to carve out as a stand-alone.

And DL? Sure, it's one big campaign adventure... railroaded all to hell... but fun for some.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I think they're any good. What I am saying is that they were the first real mainstream-within-the-hobby push toward AP-style play; and whether in the long run that quite-successful push has enhanced the game or ruined it is a whole discussion in itself.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Even back in the day though, those modules were presented as discrete units. The Saltmarsh series is definitely inter connected. Dragonlance obviously. Bloodstone modules.

I played Star Frontiers back in the day and the Voltunus modules were right there at the start.

It's not like having closed campaigns with a beginning, middle and end point was some rare thing that never appeared until 2000 when Paizo started doing Adventure Paths.