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.
Since our GM announced that the end was near, some of the players have lost their enthusiasm for the remaining sessions.
Which raises the question - Should the campaign have an ending?
I understand that a campaign is like a story. I understand the need for this GM to take a break, and that he is reluctant to carry on into epic levels.
I am not trying to convince him to keep GMing - that ship has sailed.
But from a philosophical standpoint I have always felt that a campaign should be open-ended and organic. It grows and takes shape depending on the actions of the players - without a definite ending point.
Thoughts?
Creative Director
|
My personal opinion:
Campaigns that have strong endings are much better and more memorable and more satisfying than those that just go on forever and peter out. Even if the campaign's ending isn't 100% satisfactory... it's better to have a definite ending than one that just trails off. Or worse, ends with storylines still unresolved.
|
My personal opinion:
Campaigns that have strong endings are much better and more memorable and more satisfying than those that just go on forever and peter out. Even if the campaign's ending isn't 100% satisfactory... it's better to have a definite ending than one that just trails off. Or worse, ends with storylines still unresolved.
Agreed, but I don't know if I'd announce that the end was coming up. I think you'd be better to have a big finale and then wrap it up with some post adventure denouement.
|
But from a philosophical standpoint I have always felt that a campaign should be open-ended and organic. It grows and takes shape depending on the actions of the players - without a definite ending point.
I like endings. Just because the campaign ends it doesn't mean that world ends. If the campaign has a nice tidy ending it can be the back drop for future campaigns.
Today's heroes are tomorrows legends in an organic setting. ;)
My personal opinion:
Campaigns that have strong endings are much better and more memorable and more satisfying than those that just go on forever and peter out. Even if the campaign's ending isn't 100% satisfactory... it's better to have a definite ending than one that just trails off. Or worse, ends with storylines still unresolved.
Good point. A memorable ending is better than petering out.
It's just that I was so looking forward to epic levels and all that comes with it.
Would it have been a better idea (as CrackedOzy suggested) if he had not warned us? I am not sure how I would feel... it would certainly be memorable to have him say "that was a great fight guys... OK I'm done".
I like the idea of picking up where we left off one day, but I don't see that happeneing. If he decides to GM again, he will want to start with 1st levels I'm sure. And we don't cross campaigns with our characters so none of our other GM's will be taking over for those characters. :-)
I feel too "locked in" knowing that the campaign is a story with an ending. Like I don't have any real freedom to follow whatever path I wish.
I've been in a number of games where there was a strong story arc with a climatic ending. At the end of some of these, there was a clamor from the players to run a sequel, or just keep going. I can't think of an example where it worked out. Even worse, the players were often left with the sour taste of the failed extension, rather then the fond memories of an awesome campaign. You can also have problems with the party disintegrating. Sometimes you have to work with people you hate to save the world, but once the Big Bad is vanquished you don't need to put up with them anymore. Or the players wander around aimlessly with no real goal until the GM just ends it.
The only time I've seen continuation work is in Superhero games. By their nature, they work with story arcs, and the power level is a lot more stable then Pathfinder (where you get much more powerful later in your careers)
But I've never had a problem with people loosing interest just because the end was near. Normally it is obvious that a game is wrapping up, and often the GM will give us an outline of what he has planned next so we can start batting around character concepts. I've seen LOTS of people loose interest in a campaign, but that's more often a problem with the content, and not the end.
Unless you are playing The NeverEnding Story Role-playing Game, there needs to be a resolution.
I've run two extended campaigns that went into high levels, and both had a climactic ending after which we set aside the characters. There was no secret about the campaigns coming to an end. The PC's did what they had set out to do oh-so-long-ago and now could take a break.
The first campaign where I did that we revisited the PC's in some one-shots from time to time, but not for the second. I think the players rather liked the one-shots with their favorite high-level PC's. I had fun designing them, too, so it was a win-win.
I feel too "locked in" knowing that the campaign is a story with an ending. Like I don't have any real freedom to follow whatever path I wish.
I was in a game where I was turned off by the GM saying that the "end fight" was coming in N sessions. Especially since it didn't seem like we had a particularly well-defined arch-nemesis in the first place.
I've been in a number of games where there was a strong story arc with a climatic ending. At the end of some of these, there was a clamor from the players to run a sequel, or just keep going. I can't think of an example where it worked out. Even worse, the players were often left with the sour taste of the failed extension, rather then the fond memories of an awesome campaign. You can also have problems with the party disintegrating. Sometimes you have to work with people you hate to save the world, but once the Big Bad is vanquished you don't need to put up with them anymore. Or the players wander around aimlessly with no real goal until the GM just ends it.
The only time I've seen continuation work is in Superhero games. By their nature, they work with story arcs, and the power level is a lot more stable then Pathfinder (where you get much more powerful later in your careers)
But I've never had a problem with people loosing interest just because the end was near. Normally it is obvious that a game is wrapping up, and often the GM will give us an outline of what he has planned next so we can start batting around character concepts. I've seen LOTS of people loose interest in a campaign, but that's more often a problem with the content, and not the end.
This GM actually has a history of long lasting campaigns. He is very consistent that way. In a previous campaign he did not use a story arc. Instead we would tell him what we were going to pursue, and he would prepare accordingly. Once that task was completed, there were always other projects in the minds of the other characters.
Now it is true - we did not always get along, we sometimes killed each other, and yes that campaign eventualy petered out.
But it was still very memorable. We talk about our various exploits and conflicts today - more than 20 years later. And at the time we praised him for his unique approach of letting the players move the plot rather than the other way around.
Ending.
But... I'm on the fence about telling them.
Make it big, fun, and climactic. Then end it. No need to fill them in.
Unless you are playing The NeverEnding Story Role-playing Game, there needs to be a resolution.
I always thought this game was supposed to be a never-ending story roleplaying game. Once one story arc has been resolved, a new one begins. And so on, and so on....
If it's a long running, well loved campaign it should end with a bang and with the heroes winning. Regardless of who runs the next campaign though, might I humbly recommend that he or she should get a few ideas from your current GM and do a time jump in your current campaigns' universe?
That very trick has kept my players super hooked and engaged since we ended the campaign I ran for 6 years. A new DM is running the show now and he did a 1200 year jump. The new cast of characters are just about to hit 17th level and are starting to discover evidence of the previous cast of characters.
The best part though, was that the current DM and I kept the world continuity a secret from the rest of the group. We worked up a simple time line, discussed how pronounciations would decay over time, etc etc. The big reveal came at the end of the 1st session, when the new characters discovered a book that the previous batch of heroes had also found.
I've never seen 5 guys squeal like that before. It was awesome.
Highly, highly recommend some kind of univsere continuity. Discovering the legacy of their previous characters' exploits can be extremely satisfying, rewarding, and most of all - fun.
Not filling the players in on something metagame like ending the campaign is about as appropriate as them not filling you in that they're going to tank your plans as a GM. In my opinion, whether the game 'ends' or not, it should be by group decision - if the GM isn't up for continuing but most of the players are, the GM can step aside and someone else can pick up that role.Ending.
But... I'm on the fence about telling them.
Make it big, fun, and climactic. Then end it. No need to fill them in.
I agree that it is better to let us know than to surprise us. Even though I am dissappointed that it is ending, I am glad that I know ahead of time. By the way I think that is the minority opinion in my group.
The problem with another GM taking over is that we consider a "campaign" to be the creative endeavor of that particular GM. When we were in high school we would "cross campaigns" all the time, but as we grew older this did not make as much sense.
In our minds this is his campaign, his world, we can't just take over without his permission. And I don't think I could see myself wanting to continue another GM's campaign. I am too proud I guess. :-(
Are the players losing interest because the GM plans on hanging it up for a while after the big epic battle? Or does the GM plan on starting a new campaign?
btw, I ran an open ended campaign years ago in which the players drove the story and ended up fighting against each other and we still talk about that game to this day! I had to make up a LOT of stuff on the fly.
if the GM isn't up for continuing but most of the players are, the GM can step aside and someone else can pick up that role.
Hm. I disagree with this completely.
Nobody else gets to see my notes, my maps, my story arcs, my NPC's, etc. Those are trade secrets which I may use in future campaigns.
When this story is over, it's over. The next story will be good, too.
If someone else wants to DM their own campaign that's fine. But it won't be in the context of my world, my characters, my story.
If players continued to somehow play a campaign that I ended, I'd get all nerd rage about "canon" and how their new additions to the story aren't!!
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.
Since our GM announced that the end was near, some of the players have lost their enthusiasm for the remaining sessions.
Which raises the question - Should the campaign have an ending?
I understand that a campaign is like a story. I understand the need for this GM to take a break, and that he is reluctant to carry on into epic levels.
I am not trying to convince him to keep GMing - that ship has sailed.
But from a philosophical standpoint I have always felt that a campaign should be open-ended and organic. It grows and takes shape depending on the actions of the players - without a definite ending point.
Thoughts?
I have always hated the campaigns with a Ending. Though yes a campaign does need to go into retirement. And the campaign world can go on...
generally when a campaign reaches it ending the character do retire...or move on to other things. Sometime we will play them once in awhile. Though we keep them active in the campaign world...for instance a couple of examples from the FR campaign I played in...
I have one character who started a organization...which hires the new PCs.
Another player's character is the King of a land...which some new character are from...
All this adds to the richness of the campaign world.
etc.
Ending are disappiontmting to me in a RPG...I don't know why. Maybe because when I creat a character I see it as much longer investment than just 1 cxampaign arc.
Are the players losing interest because the GM plans on hanging it up for a while after the big epic battle?
I can't speak for the original poster, but when I was in a similar situation, we kind of lost interest because:
(a) it became clear at that point that the DM wanted to quit the campaign, so that was kind of a bummer(b) it deflated the idea that we were in charge of choosing which paths our PCs would follow
(c) once we heard there was going to be a climactic final battle, it felt like we were just killing time until the big fight
On the other hand, if I know in advance that a campaign is going to have a finite length (e.g. an adventure path), I like the idea of having a definite end point.
Are the players losing interest because the GM plans on hanging it up for a while after the big epic battle? Or does the GM plan on starting a new campaign?
btw, I ran an open ended campaign years ago in which the players drove the story and ended up fighting against each other and we still talk about that game to this day! I had to make up a LOT of stuff on the fly.
They are losing interest because they know it is almost over and that these characters have no future. He does not plan to GM again anytime soon, and when he does I am pretty sure he will not want to use these characters.
Are the players losing interest because the GM plans on hanging it up for a while after the big epic battle?I can't speak for the original poster, but when I was in a similar situation, we kind of lost interest because:
(c) once we heard there was going to be a climactic final battle, it felt like we were just killing time until the big fight
Yes, that is it exactly. That is how they feel.
Even if the campaign ends, it's always possible to bring the characters back. If the GM says he's not interested now, maybe next year he'll be convinced. Never engage in self-fulfilling prophecy by saying that the characters won't be used again. Once you eliminate that problem, you can end your campaign with a truly epic climax (regardless of actual level or rulebooks in use).
Every great campaign needs and deserves a great ending. Telegraph the hell out of it, while you're at it. Let the players know it's coming so they can prepare themselves for the final outcome. No sense saving up those charges anymore, let 'em fly! Drink all those potions!! Do it now!
That's how we do it. One campaign ends so the next can begin. There are plenty of adventures out there to be run. 17 or 18 levels is enough for us since we always start from 1st.
We spent a lot of our gaming days in those "never ending sandbox worlds from the mind of your DM!" and man did those campaigns just kill our enthusiasm. The "meander around the world campaign" kills more gaming groups than real life.
Beginning, middle, THE END. When does the next one start? That's our campaigning motto.
I just don't know... I mean I suppose you are speaking as a player, but when I play I don't think of the campaign that way. I plan long term. I want to be a guildmaster, a lord, ruler of a demi plane - you get the idea. And when I accomplish that goal, I want to enjoy it for a while, using my power for good or evil as it suits the character.
I think we should at least play to level 21 so we can see some of those high level abilities in play - other than from our foes. We read about the powers that come later on, and we say "man, that's gonna be cool".
What a shame if we hardly ever get there.
Every great campaign needs and deserves a great ending. Telegraph the hell out of it, while you're at it. Let the players know it's coming so they can prepare themselves for the final outcome. No sense saving up those charges anymore, let 'em fly! Drink all those potions!! Do it now!
That's how we do it. One campaign ends so the next can begin. There are plenty of adventures out there to be run. 17 or 18 levels is enough for us since we always start from 1st.
We spent a lot of our gaming days in those "never ending sandbox worlds from the mind of your DM!" and man did those campaigns just kill our enthusiasm. The "meander around the world campaign" kills more gaming groups than real life.
Beginning, middle, THE END. When does the next one start? That's our campaigning motto.
I am the exact opposite...though a open ended game require a creative DM and active players to work. It is harder but for me 100% more rewarding. I also hate Beging...middle...end campaign because they are so predicatible...it not a very good 'book' to read.
Also it help we play multiple campaigns so...we get a chance to try out different ideas...and stuff.
I just advise you have one is all, so you can start the next one. Would you want to read a never ending novel? Not me.
I would love to write the never ending novel with my friends...which is what you are doing in a RPG....not reading it. Well even that is sorta.
|
|
Let me say I am for campaigns having a ending. Though i prefer to run open ended campaigns and then when the game naturally comes to what feels like the climax thats a good time to wrap it up.
As for the OP, I think it is fine and even good the GM is wrapping it up. If he wants it to end it is for the best. Now I am not so sure he should have announced it though. What I have seen works best, is end a game session just before the big bad final fight. Then next game session you start with the fight and then do the wrapping up of the campaign for the rest of the night. Telling the players at the start of the last game this is the end. In my experience that works best.
As for the part 2 of a campaign, just never seen it work well. I played in a Vampire game once, once we hit the obvious story end that had been building up for 18 months of RL it was fun. It made sense it tied up most of the subplots and the main plot, everyone had fun and it was hands down the best Vampire game I have ever played. The group talked the ST into running a next part... boy that was a mistake, it was hands down the worst vampire game I ever played in. It lasted about 6 game sessions till everyone wanted it to end.
|
Nothing lasts forever and the world is better for it. As a GM I like having a finite campaign in order to make a coherent story of even the most sandboxy game. As a player I like finite campaigns because I can get to the end reminisce about the good times we had.
Also I hate high level play ( on both sides of the screen) and ending a campaign lets me play in the levels I enjoy most. Embrace the fact the campaign is ending and if you survive come up with a brilliant epilogue worthy of the tale told.
Nothing lasts forever and the world is better for it. As a GM I like having a finite campaign in order to make a coherent story of even the most sandboxy game. As a player I like finite campaigns because I can get to the end reminisce about the good times we had.
Also I hate high level play ( on both sides of the screen) and ending a campaign lets me play in the levels I enjoy most. Embrace the fact the campaign is ending and if you survive come up with a brilliant epilogue worthy of the tale told.
OK I concede to the wisdom of the "pro-ending" camp. You are right it can't go on forever. I can see how the campaign would lose its luster if it just went on and on.
But I submit to you that there is still a lot more story to tell - even when you hit 17th level and the main plot is done. Just as I enjoyed the challenge of low level adventuring, I also want to be a major player in the world for a while. So when the main plot is done, I know I am not the only player with some unfinished business.
I think (in our group) that the GM tends to think of the campaign as a story more than the player does. Our players tend to think of the campaign as... life. Not real life of course, but the life of the character. What if we have more to accomplish, what if we have more story to tell?
I should say that in the case of this GM, he is tired, and I don't begrudge his ending the campaign at all. But the GM who is due to step in and bring his campaign out of hiatus (8 - 9th level) told me that his campaign has an ending too.
Also I hate high level play ( on both sides of the screen) and ending a campaign lets me play in the levels I enjoy most. Embrace the fact the campaign is ending and if you survive come up with a brilliant epilogue worthy of the tale told.
And I have to ask you... dude, how can you hate high level play? I am not saying you are wrong, but I just don't understand it. Not all of it anyway.
I understand that it is difficult to GM for high level PCs. But I also look forward to running the high level encounters. I can't wait til I can use balors, pit fiends, dragons, giants, titans... man nightshades are hot... you get the idea.
I understand the challenge of being low level, but the GM can keep the challenge going from levels 1 to 20.
I don't have the patience for true "optimization" on either side of the screens, but I still drool over those high level abilities I am going to have one day.
I like the idea of picking up where we left off one day, but I don't see that happeneing. If he decides to GM again, he will want to start with 1st levels I'm sure. And we don't cross campaigns with our characters so none of our other GM's will be taking over for those characters. :-)
Depending on how it ends, level 1 again doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be picking up where you left off. Perhaps you could all play as the children of your former characters. Perhaps it is several years later, and your characters are "rusty" from being in retirement. Or, as I once did in a campaign, divine intervention has caused your characters to be brought back to level 1.
|
|
Options. When you hit lvl 6+ turns take longer and longer to resolve, and that means we get less of the plot/story/personal side-quest per session. I play/run a game 4 hours a week every week and more gets done and more kick ass moments happen per session.
Plus I tend to run very sandbox games which NEEDS time dedicated to individual characters. I hate seeing players get bored when it's not their turn forever or get confused by the insane amount of options. All of which doesn't change the quality of the fiction.
About the only reason I don't e6 is because I do want to run those high CR monsters. I don't know if it's worth the price though.
I have endings to my campaigns because it allows me to effectively set level caps, which I like because I find my high level play problematic because I have trouble believing that a world could be internally consistent with certain high level magic (planar binding, wish, and simulacrum are some of the notables).
I don't agree with a GM telegraphing his punches. He might say, I need to take a break for a while as a GM from date A to date B...but I don't want to know anything about the upcoming story as a player other than 'Dude! It is going to be SO COOL!!! YOU WILL LOVE IT!!!! If you survive that is.'
If you reach a point that 'feels' like a good stopping point, then say 'Gents, this is where I feel we need to stop and move on as I need to take a break as GM' OR 'this is where we need to move on from this campaign as I really want to try something different that I have been brewing up back at the GM LAB!'
The first rule of good story telling is "Write for the ending."
If RPGs are a way of telling stories, then the story should have an end.
|
|
Put me in the camp of not ending a campaign. Or at least not ending at level 20. To me, high level characters are so much more fun to run than low level ones. More power, more options, cool things to choose from.
I love getting to the crazy high levels. Nothing wrong with a strong ending for the storyline; that's when you take a 6 month hiatus as DM, while you start planning a mythic extraplanar campaign for the players to take their 24th level characters into.
In my opinion, you should never plan a total ending. Why start over when characters are just getting interesting????
The first rule of good story telling is "Write for the ending."
If RPGs are a way of telling stories, then the story should have an end.
I like it to have many endings and many new beginnings. Story Arcs.
I like it to have many endings and many new beginnings. Story Arcs.The first rule of good story telling is "Write for the ending."
If RPGs are a way of telling stories, then the story should have an end.
Well sure! There are always sequels! But those are new stories.
Put me in the camp of not ending a campaign. Or at least not ending at level 20. To me, high level characters are so much more fun to run than low level ones. More power, more options, cool things to choose from.
I love getting to the crazy high levels. Nothing wrong with a strong ending for the storyline; that's when you take a 6 month hiatus as DM, while you start planning a mythic extraplanar campaign for the players to take their 24th level characters into.
In my opinion, you should never plan a total ending. Why start over when characters are just getting interesting????
Now that's what I'm talking about!!
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.