Comments on: Endpoints and Expectations

By: Xaos Bob

Xaos Bob — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:08:38 +0000

In my years as a GM, I have had a number of short-term campaigns that I planned to be only 4-6 sessions that lasted longer or shorter, depending on player interest and initiative. My current campaign has been going for better than two years, and will probably culminate at summer’s end. I had determined the campaign would last until the PCs faced the great villain threatening the world. It would seem I will finally see the end of a save-the-world scenario, after 15 years of gaming!

For the future, I think talking about it with the players is going to be my route. Perhaps, even, taking an adventure at a time, and seeing if there is interest in continuing or switching gears.

By: mercutio

mercutio — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:09:46 +0000

I’ve never really thought about campaign end in terms of time. I have an idea of the last piece of the story arc, but not a set time period or number of sessions to get there. I do think the campaign will end because of an unwritten #6 – players graduate grad school/move away.

By: in the Shadow of Greatness

in the Shadow of Greatness — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:11:38 +0000

’til the end of ?

Endpoints and Expectations – Treasure Tables Asks about starting a game and having expectations of how that game might finish….

By: Arref

Arref — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:01:07 +0000

I’ve done all five types, but I think the most fun can be had with a dedicated group and type 4.

You get a higher level of commitment to drama and change.

By: Sven Lotz

Sven Lotz — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:10:28 +0000

As we are story players our campaigns all develop toward a clear endpoint. I set this point (as the GM) in advance as I have a clear goal (a premise) whereto a campaign will develop. So it’s #2 for me.

I use vague mind reading as I offer my group a campaign proposal that they can accept or reject, making me overthink all the stuff, trying to find a compromise or alternative.

By: Mike Rainey

Mike Rainey — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:29:28 +0000

Actually, none of the above.

In my group, we have a “revolving GM”, and the current GM (GM #1) and the next GM (GM #2) get together when GM #2 has his campaign planned out and somewhat ready to go. They mutually decide what is a good endpoint to the current campaign. When the campaign ends, GM #1 becomes a player and GM #2 takes over, and the process starts anew.

By: Ken Newquist

Ken Newquist — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:43:29 +0000

Typically my campaigns run 2-3 years, with the campaign culiminating when the characters hit high level, which in D&D translates to around 12th to 15th.

In terms of discussing how long the campaign will be before hand, we don’t explictly state the campaign will run X number of sessions or Y number of years, but we do discuss what folks would like to accomplish in the campaigns, in terms of story, character and setting development, and go from there.

So I suppose my answer would be “play until all the stories have been told”.

By: Crazy Jerome

Crazy Jerome — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:19:57 +0000

“If you don’t discuss endpoints with your group, how do you choose which approach to take?”

We discuss a general endpoint as part of our overall discussion of what the campaign will be about. We do this in both mechanical and story terms. I didn’t mention it, because to me that is a tiny part of a bigger discussion.

Now, we don’t tend to bring that up as much as we once did. Our guys and gals are pretty darn tired of open-ended and episodic campaigns. So we default to “definite ending” until someone starts to feel differently. Since the switch, we’ve had 100% agreement that definite ending is the way to go.

By: ScottM

ScottM — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:19:44 +0000

When we went through our last “propose a system” discussion, I put four ideas forward. The game with the clearest time indication [Primetime Adventures] was shot down because the rest of my group is fixated on the #2 idea.

[Incidently, we've finished three good runs-- each lasted 18-30 months, so that's our "forever" I think. Though each of the three suffered a #3 ending-- due to group composition issues each time.]

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:02:23 +0000

It’s interesting to see this much variation in approaches — and to note that out of 10 commenters, only 3 specifically mentioned discussing endpoints and expectations with their players.

If you don’t discuss endpoints with your group, how do you choose which approach to take?

I’ve defaulted to a mix of vague (trying to read my players’ minds) and specific ways (asking for feedback) of taking my group’s pulse over the years, but I’m less and less enthused about that method.

By: Daguruvjt

Daguruvjt — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:56:47 +0000

Our gaming group meets twice a month, and we have three active GMs in our group. In order to prevent a monopoly at the table, and to allow everyone a shot at running a game we go with two models. One is essentially an extended one-shot, where you get five sessions to run your game. The other is an extended campaign, consisting of 12-14 sessions. At one time one game master would run his game until he reached an end, or interest waned. With our new structure, the GM avoids burnout.

By: GilaMonster

GilaMonster — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:30:27 +0000

I have an endpoint planned, but it’s not time based.

When the group works out the ‘evil’ group’s plan and foils it (and unless they smart up soon, it’ll be a last-minute foil) then the campaign will end.

Yes, it’s a ’save the world’ campaign, but I figure everyone’s got to do one once.