Should the Campaign have an Ending?

I think this question has everything to do with out-of-game factors, with some twinges of game mechanics factors, than it has to do with in-game or story ones.

There's no reason a game has to have an end. Think of it like a highly episodic TV show. Sure, there are plot arcs, reoccuring themes, end-of-season cliffhangers and all that, but the show can go on, at least until the proverbial moment of Jumping the Shark.

As a rule, like in TV, the immediate story for a RPG is generally the more important. Not always, and the long game is highly satisfying, but a RPG operates on a session by session sequence. The ending you need to worry about is the one three hours from now, not the one sixteen weeks from now.

However, there are a lot of structural reasons why concise endings payoff. There's a clear sense of when to start and when to stop, and since it's likely something's going to happen at some point to bring the game to a stop of its own accord, it's good to have it coordinate with in-game reasons. There's greater turnover between games, DMs, characters, and so on, which is generally healthy for the group. One of the reasons why I always run LARPs that have a fixed ending may also rear its head, which is that it's much easier to convince a player to take a risk when that player knows there's a date by which it won't matter.

Campaigns should have endings because campaigns do have endings, whether you want them to end or not. That doesn't make a completely open ended game work poorly, it just means that it thrives for reasons wholly outside of the game itself.

Another 2 - 3 game sessions will mean the end of a long standing campaign. We are now 17 - 18th level, and for the finale we will face off against an evil deity.

The campaign will end after that battle - win or lose.

All good things must end.

For many, many years our group followed this particular philosophy: "Play until TPK". So, pretty much by definition, all our campaigns ended with a TPK. All the campaigns were very sandboxy, so it worked for us.

Nowadays, though, I have mixed feelings. Both my players and I are just as happy with campaigns that have a definite ending. The concept is pretty new to them, and they see this change as refreshing (well, all except this one guy, but he hates all change in general... the guy still quotes 2e rules in error, for pete's sake).

So, it really depends for us. Sometimes a particular game feels like it should just go on until: 1) TPK or 2) they all just quickly retire so we can try something new. But often a game calls out for a clear ending and resolution, and we're cool with that too.

(For me, I believe a definitive ending is now my preferred option.)

For many, many years our group followed this particular philosophy: "Play until TPK". So, pretty much by definition, all our campaigns ended with a TPK. All the campaigns were very sandboxy, so it worked for us.

Nowadays, though, I have mixed feelings. Both my players and I are just as happy with campaigns that have a definite ending. The concept is pretty new to them, and they see this change as refreshing (well, all except this one guy, but he hates all change in general... the guy still quotes 2e rules in error, for pete's sake).

So, it really depends for us. Sometimes a particular game feels like it should just go on until: 1) TPK or 2) they all just quickly retire so we can try something new. But often a game calls out for a clear ending and resolution, and we're cool with that too.

(For me, I believe a definitive ending is now my preferred option.)

With my group there was a transition from one philosophy "never-ending" to another "beginning-middle-ending".

The reason for it is that our DM at the time was an aspiring novelist, so his campaigns were more like a story. He was a great DM, and we still talk about his games now - many years later.

But at the time we felt railroaded into his plot. At the time we felt that the games were not supposed to be like a novel, but like the "life" of our characters. We played anyway, but that was the main complaint we had about his style.

I did not realize that some of our DM's had taken to this style.

I agee that ending a campaign because of a TPK, or because the DM got tired, or the players got bored is not as much fun as a climatic ending.

But when I make my character, I don't think of it as being part of a story. I think of it as my new alter ego, and I am going to roleplay his life of adventure.

HappyDaze wrote:

Congrats. Your display of poor imagination at how to continue a story shows why you should step back from the game. Hopefully Frodo's player can find a better GM to pick up the game.

Oh, you really didn't write that story either (unless you're a railroad conductor). At best, you set an outline and your players decided how it's to be written from there.

Not all stories are never ending. It's the DM's call on when things should end and considering that he's doing the bulk of the donkey work, his sense of story ending is a bit more important than a player who's main reason of complaint is not having more time to play with his big new shinies.

So you're going to knock on Tolkien because Frodo's story ended after three books instead of continuing on to a 21 volume series like Battlefield Earth?

A well run campaign should have an overall arc, a beginning, a middle, and an end.

I'm not nocking the author of a book. I am saying that a rpg is quite different with many authors to consult before making a big change to the story.

The question was "should a campaign have an ending?" Not "should I retire my characters forever?"

Campaigns should have goals and endings. But that doesn't mean the characters are dead, retired or forgotten. There are always new campaigns. But campaigns themselves should have an ending. You rescued the kidnapped king. You slew the evil dragon. You restored honor to the princess's reputation. Whatever. That's the campaign. Characters themselves should always be looking for new adventures. That's not the same as a "never ending campaign."

Not in my opinion.

I am pretty sure the other players in my group would agree that we don't want to move PC's from one campaign to another. And we don't want one DM to take over another DM's campaign world.

Except in the rare cases where 2 DMs collaborate on a campaign, but even those don't usually work.

We have found that too many chefs spoil the campaign.

I'm not nocking the author of a book. I am saying that a rpg is quite different with many authors to consult before making a big change to the story.

So since the players obviously outnumber the GM, and the players want to continue the game, the GM should be forced to cause he is outnumbered despite him doing the majority of the work? I call bullpuckey on that. Players get a chance to appeal the GM decision just like anything else. Their vote in when a campaign ends or how it ends does not equal that of the GM.

Im pro-ending for campaigns. I like to re-use the campaign world though, so you may run into pcs or npcs from previous games Ive GMed in a new one, but the story for those particular PCs is done.
Upset about the story ending? Write something yourself about the continuation of the group if it matters that much to you. Why does the one GM have to do all the work?

Edit: If you trolled at my table like your doin in this thread, youd find yourself without a table to sit in on from then on.

Pro Ending here. I would rather have a nice epic and fulfilling conclusion then have the game peter out to nothing as I have to come up with more and more to challenge the players.

How would you 'not tell the players the end is coming?' That comment confuses me a bit... and i don't see any way that it would work out well....

Was there a PLOT to the campaign? If your goal was to get the ring to mordor... and your IN mordor... Level 18+ and your heading toward the big bad... how do the players NOT know the end is near? Campaigns usually have goals and once the goal is in sight, then you know you're getting close.

You could have a FALSE ending... where the big bad wasn't REALLY the end... and theres more adventure to come... but that's kind of the OPPOSITE of this discussion.

You could surprise the players by ending the game about level 10... but i'd be pretty annoyed with that... I guess I'm just not sure how you could 'surprise' someone with an ending...

I've been in both types of games... the ones that had clear definitive goals that we'd worked on for ten levels or so and had a huge epic climaxes... and I've had the ones that just petered out and were brushed to the side...

the climactic ones are the best.

FYI, This is ALSO why I prefer playing in established worlds such as FR or Golarion... Just because the campaign is over, doesn't mean the characters are. Our recent massive campaign ended with characters near the 18-20 mark... but they are part of our FR history now. They were in the battle against the Phaerrimm in Everska... they've roamed the ruins of Myth Drannor...

we've got another short adventure 'epilogue/reunion' coming up with these guys that we're all looking forward to. And the next campaign will have mentions of them and their kids...

Look at Drizz't. I think the first 6 books were really a campaign. the epic quest to find Mithril Hall... After that was ended, Bruenor was king... and they STILL had about 12 books after that.

Ending the campaign doesn't mean ending the GAME... It just means THAT story is over.

I've removed some posts and their replies. Please be civil to each other, thanks!

I like to win.

In a campaign that just keeps on going, eventually, the character will die. Whatever he's built or established or developed will be torn down. If he's built a keep, it will probably be razed, in some epic storyline later. If he's founded a merchant-empire, or sired a passle of kids, it'll all burn, as fodder for some plotline. If he's got Leadership (or is a 1st edition 9th level character, with a bunch of followers), they'll get butchered. If he's a Ventrue with a bunch of contacts, allies and resources, bombs will explode and people will die in Garou / Sabbat / whatever attacks and fortunes will be lost, making it feel like my character is a crab in a bucket, cursed to make it this close to the rim, only to be dragged back down by the other crabs.

I'm also, what they call in online games, an 'alt-a-holic.' Click on my username, and see how many characters I've got written up. I don't show up to a tabletop game with *one* character. I show up with five, and play the one that best suits what everyone else wants to play (which, oh frabjous day, usually ends up leaving me with the cleric, which is one of my favorites roles anyway).

So I'm strongly motivated to 'move on' to another campaign, so that I can explore a completely different character, with a different personality and a different playstyle.

I have played with plenty of gamers who recycle the same character, over and over, even in online games, trying to find the race / class combination that is the most similar to that halfling druid they played in EverQuest, and using the same name, and I don't begrudge them that. They found something they like, and they can eat it every day. Cool for them.

I crave variety, and a never-ending tabletop campaign often results in me changing characters multiple times.

PBPs are a different deal, 'though. I can play multiple PBPs, and so I don't get as bored with a character, since I am often putting on or taking off two or three different persona in a single day. Mordecai is different enough from Marak and Servayn and Zarabeta, that I never get bored with them.

I've also noticed that the rules start breaking down, once stuff like Simulacrum and Polymorph Any Object scoff at any fragile semblance of balance. GMs that might have been inclined to say 'yes' when your character was 2nd level, and a troglodyte was scary stuff, would be more inclined to say 'no' when your character is 15th level and can create money and magic items and servant creatures willy-nilly. It gets frustrating, for me, to go from a game where the GM is a cooperative entity, to one where getting to use the stuff in the core book becomes a never-ending series of arguments and frustrations.

So that's another vote against longer-running campaigns. Many games break down, mechanically, at the higher levels.

I think that it is more true that "Pathfinder games must end" rather than "pen & paper RPGs must end." In Pathfinder, you gain levels, and you often gain them pretty fast.

Eventually, you get to high level, and then you have to stop playing the game. Now, I see evidence of people on the internet liking high-level play, but I have never once met a person in real-life who felt that way. Once the game gets around level 13 or higher, it just stops being fun to play, (in the experience of myself and those I play with). This forces us to have an endgame, because if we don't, we'll just get frustrated with hours-long combats and rules disputes.

Another consequence of going high level is that the threats you face start getting bigger and bigger, until they quickly get big enough to threaten the existance of your homeland. After that, it feels a little weird to pick up and "save the world" all over again from a different (and now bigger!) threat. Yes, I admit, I watched Dragon Ball Z when I was in highschool, but looking back on it: it was pretty silly.

When I run World of Darkness, or whateverelse it is that I enjoy running, I don't plan endings. There, the characters grow slow enough that I can pull off episodes, etc. It makes sense to keep going forever. (Especially since those games tend to be more focused on the characters themselves rather on external threats that have to be written into the world.)

So, in short, I think game mechanics and rules play a huge part in the question of "does a game need to end?"

We have found that too many chefs spoil the campaign.

With my group, it actually was quite the opposite. For our longest running Me and my wife traded off DMing duties, and for one of her longer arcs, she and one of our players were co-DMs. He was still new to roleplaying, and wanted to do a major storyarc, but wasn't comfortable DMing, so he came up with the plot, and she helped with all the crunchy bits and ran the combats.

Our group played thru the AoW campaign and it was awesome. Everything from the start to fighting the BBEG at the end was a blast. And now we are playing the STAP and it's set 15 years after our victory in our last campaign.

Our GM has told us that our other group of PCs is now working to stop a lvl 50+ Titan of some sort. It's cool that we're campaigning to stop whatever is in store for this campaign and knowing that our last group of epic lvl heroes is still fighting the good fight.