Why should a campaign end?

[Ibram]

although I have always enjoyed playing my characters (from my 2ed priest to my 3.5 rogue) I wouldnt want to play just that character. after a while I get somewhat bored with a character and look to move on, and the same can be said for a campaign. Sometimes a fresh start (new characters and new locations) can revitalized a stale game.

from a DMs perspective it gets harder and harder to come up with new ideas for the same group of characters, starting over from scrach is needed sometimes.

To add to the ever popular TV analogies we can look at several TV Series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Now I loved both of them, but by the end Buffy was getting kinda stale (the plots didnt quite excite me as much as they did in the begining). Angel on the other hand was still going somewhat strong (the ep with the mexican wrestler brothers was incredible). Both seriess ended on a high note (Angel: "I kinda want to slay the Dragon") which is the way it should be. Finaly lets look at the Simpsons. Its early eps were great, but the last two seasons have been realy, realy lame. Yet Fox keeps it on life support.

If these were campaigns then Buffy would be the one that went on a few sessions to many, Angel is the one that ended with a bang, and the Simpsons is the one that kept gooing long past the point of both player and DM exhaustion.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Can people input there reasons as to why a campaign should have a definite end? Or why you would rather not use the same characters to continue on to another campaign?

I'd say that for our games, the short answer would be something like "because we get sick to death of them." (Especially as a GM; yeesh, I'd hate to be running the same game for years and years and years.)

Closure's a good thing, like others have already said; reaching a satisfying ending (which is not necessarily the same as an ending in which everything is wrapped up neatly) is fun and good and something our group really enjoys. As a result, most of our games aim for that satisfying ending, and when we get there, we move on to something new.

"New" being another part of the answer, of course. It's cool to switch to a new game, new characters, new setting...to break away from the characters and history you've established over the past few months and try something else.

So for us, it's a heady mixture of impending burnout, the satisfaction of a good ending, and the allure of novelty that drives us to set a game aside. Sometimes it's with the intention of resuming it or revisiting it at a later date, and sometimes it's just shelved for good. Unfortunately, sometimes good intentions aren't enough to bring a good game back, but for every one of those we have at least one game that ended well, so it mostly balances out.

--
and it gives players something to suggest for the next game
ryan

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Change is good. You won't know what you're missing if you don't expand your horizons and try something new.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Great responses, especially the whole TV analogy thing. I especially like the rating system for the Sci-fi shows, heh.

I'm trying to get a sense of when and if my current campaign should end, and what steps I should take to prepare for the next one.

 

[Gadodel]

IMHO, as long as there is one Game Master and atleast one Player-the campaign should have no ending. Breaks...long extended ones even, but really no ending.

 

[Qualir]

I end campaigns all the time. Once a particular stroy arc ends, the campaign ends. Players can usually utilize the same character in the next campign. This is just like in novels that have multiple trilogies (or quintets) that focus on the same group (David Eddings: The Belgariad + The Malorian). Each campaign places the players in a different story line but uses the familiar PCs. Eventually characters retire (usually levels 14-18). Sometimes, we go back through our old characters and revive them (hmm, how about an epic campaign?) When DMs face burnout, we switch DMs, and sometimes game system/genre, with the new DM running a new campaign or series of campaigns.

Its kind of like watching a Sci-Fi Star Trek marathon followed by a Next Gen marathon, followed by Star Trek the Motion Picture, followed by a Buffy marathon, followed by some time on Cartoon Network, followed by Alias, followed by a Star Trek marathon.

 

[Capellan]

There are several reasons a campaign can end:

* TPK
* burn out / boredom;
* collapse of the group for OOC reasons;
* you have new, novice players and want to start at 1st level to help them get into the game more gently;
* the DM is no longer comfortable running a game at the levels involved; or
* you get to the end of the story you want to tell with those characters

There may be more, but those are among the most common, with the last being the 'ideal' for me. There's a point where the story you're telling comes to an end, and it's time to tell a new one (this is something that certain fantasy authors need to learn, IMNSHO). Where that story ends may be 3rd level or 30th; it may be where you planned at the start of the campaign, or many sessions later (or earlier) than you expected ... but sooner or later, it happens.

 

[Dogbrain]

What I've found that works is for an arc to end, then have a "time passes" interlude, in which the players participate, but not quite in character. That is, the big thing around which the arc spun is over, so the characters have some down (or down and out) time. Then something revs up. That "something" could be of my manufacture or something that a player or players come up with. The latter can be a lot of fun. "Just what *did* happen to that henchman we couldn't account for? Maybe we should poke around and take a look..."