I recently got involved in a 2300AD game (we're in an intermediate planning stage, with the first session next month) which is stipulated to last no more than 3 sessions before closure. One of the players seemed bemused by the fact that the GM is going to run one complete "story arc" with a group of PCs and then--done. Maybe there'd be a sequel at some point if everyone was into it, maybe not.

While I "get" the idea of a one-shot or brief campaign, I actually have little experience running them. My old games as a GM and player were mostly open-ended and simply stopped when people moved and the group split up physically. This is something I don't really mind; it gives a feel of a "torn manuscript"--what happened next, nobody knows, but the world and characters didn't just stop with everything tied into a neat little package. I find it pleasing to consider that they're out there, "somewhere". (The one campaign that had a definite endpoint was basically a quest brought about by an overriding crisis in the game world--although there were a bunch of more-or-less discrete adventures, eventually it all came to a head with some sort of endgame. Unfortunately I missed the last few sessions, so I only heard about it secondhand.)

But now I see that even a number of advocates of long-term play (as they describe themselves in this thread) believe in bringing a campaign to a close after a fixed amount of time. This makes me wonder how they handle it. In the thread I referenced, Pundit says he has a definite endpoint in mind for his campaigns. As you prepare the campaign, how do you conceptualize the endpoint, Pundit? What do you (and/or the players) do to bring it about?

I'd also like to know how people have taken a game that started with an assumption of open-endedness, and brought it to a close without just stopping.

On the theoretical side, I suppose one way to accomplish real "stopping points" would be to use something like the Burning Wheel Beliefs + Deeds points, or in generic terms, asking players to periodically define major goals for their characters, and then focusing play on answering whether each of those goals is achieved or fails.

So--how have you done it, how would you do it? And do you prefer closure or not?

I've run a lot of limited-term games. You can read some of my AP write-ups on The Forge. One of the more interesting things I've done in my adult life is to have a group get together for, say, 96 hours and pretty much game as much as we can. This was more common when people would fly in/take vacation. Now, with online gaming being more prevalent we've done it less.

In this case the formula we used was:
1. Make characters well before play starts.
2. The GM ensures that the characters--and whatever stuff they have going on--is highly relevant to the game.
3. The action of the game is pretty much designed to complete the characters.

Then you may not get exactly 'X' sessions out of the game--but at least you usually get closure within a reasonable time frame.

For a long-running game that is closing soon, the GM announced that he was ready to try something out and simply didn't open other plot threads as we finish up (very satisfyingly) the ones we are pursuing.

There might, as you noted, be a sequel in that game--but in my experience we usually don't come back to them so much as just do something else but maybe "similar."

-Marco

.

All my campaigns have a definite endgame. This really says nothing of the duration of the campaign only that at some point, things will be resolved.

What I normally do, is run two or three campaigns at the same time. For instance, currently I'm running OtE and Cyberpunk 2020. I break down the campaign into seasons. Each season last about three months. So, for three months we play OtE and the next three we play 2020, switching from game to game.

My OtE campaign - The Day of Living Dangerously - is a close ended campaign proper. The whole campaign takes place within a 24(TV series) hour time period. There are numerous knotted threads which the pcs have to unravel and but, there is a time limit, I mean both in  and out game.

For this campaign I asked the players to create characters with a lot of backstory and with the knowledge, that this was a specific kind of campaign. They have a specific goal - to ensure that national elections go on without any trouble, and to make sure that their proxy candidate gets elected, using more or less legal means - and that the campaign ends after twenty four hours (game time), regarless of wether they fail or succeed.

Now, my 2020 campaign - 99 Problems But..- is a much different beast. The campaign is about the rise and...of a popular rap star and her Entourage. Characters start out small and become famous. Once this happens - it would take at least three or four seasons - the campaign will head to a close, when the pcs hone in on a particular goal as a group they want to accomplish. This can be anything, but I suspect (from experience) the goal is to discover the campaign's BB and deal with whatever is thrown at them.

I understand your fondness for the torn manuscript vibe. I myself learnt an importanat lesson, when running The Enemy Within for first ed WFRP. After that particular campaign, the pcs had nothin' much to do. I'm sure, we could have found something to explore in the setting, but after what they had been through, everything else, seemed a bit....pointless.

This is one of the reasons I don't like big epic showdowns. After you saved the world there is normally nothing left to explore, with the same characters that is. Sure you could make, new ones but the setting does not really feel the same. It's like the pcs are living underneath the shadow, of greatness. It works for some folks, but not really for my crew.

This is one of the reasons that I don't really have big epic campaigns. The campaigns I run, mostly centers around the lives of the pcs which could have setting changing consequences, but nothin' really major. They are interesting foot notes but the setting, although changed but retains the possibility of further adventures either using the same characters or new ones.

This last part is a bit of a derail, I apologize for that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo--how have you done it, how would you do it? And do you prefer closure or not?

Normally, our campaigns last around a year, meander as necessary, and end when some major conflict is resolved.  Sometimes, it's a sufficient number of small conflicts or the PCs reaching some goal.  But for three years, we ran limited 4-session games over the summer that several of us took a series of Fridays off of work to play.  Since one of the players could only play for those 4 sessions, they had to run for four sessions and that's it.  Every time we hit the four session deadline, with good closure, though the last game it was a bit too tight.

One of the keys to hitting the four session deadline seemed to not try to create four days of material. Create about two and then fill it in on the fly if necessary.  This gives the players time to digress and go off track a bit.  It's like planning any other project.  Build in a fudge factor for time.  So if you need to hit 3 months, plan half that worth of material to spread out over those 3 months.  And I would say that you should try to make sure there is some sort of closure or, like a series that gets cancelled between seasons and never has a final episode, people generally won't feel like it's finished properly.

Quote from: KashellFor my mini-campaigns, I like to make one area with a single objective. Essentially, a mini-campaign is a big adventure.

I think that's an excellent way to characterize a mini-campaign -- a big adventure.

Quote from: David RThis last part is a bit of a derail, I apologize for that.

Not at all, this thread is for both expressing preferences and describing techniques.

QuoteThis is one of the reasons I don't like big epic showdowns. After you saved the world there is normally nothing left to explore, with the same characters that is. Sure you could make, new ones but the setting does not really feel the same. It's like the pcs are living underneath the shadow, of greatness.

I agree, and this is also why I'm not that keen on Star Wars or Middle Earth games.

Well, we didn't start off with an endgame in mind for our current campaign, but after a while it became very clear that the PCs arch-enemy was trying to fulfill some evil prophecy. Once they shut that down, (or fail to) I think we could end the campaign right there. Or they could take a vote and take care of some other stuff (some other villians and adventures in the region need to be followed up on, and I usually leave one or two 'adventure hooks' in every new place they visit...)

The important thing is- we (or I) never really planned it that way from the start.  The main villian, after all- is a former PC that was retired from play after he simply became "too evil".

That villian and plot just seemed to grow over time, so shutting that one big huge deal down, would be a great ending.

So I guess my advice is " Whatever you do, don't plan more than one adventure in advance..."

Man that sounds like terrible advice, and it works like a charm!

Honestly, there is no easy answer to your question, as the best way to plan open or closed campaigns depends entirely on the preferences of the individuals who compose your game group. The feature article that I wrote for the Winter 2006 Silven Trumpeter tackles the issue in general terms, while touching on specifc realities that are often overlooked in the process. You can check out for free, here.

[Edit: I just re-read your post and realize that the Silven article, while possibly helpful, will be only tangentically related to your query.]

Well, with the Roman campaign, for example, the "endpoint" I envision is the fall of rome.

In my Qin campaign, the reunification of China.

Its pretty simple, really.

RPGPundit

How will the characters be involved in bringing those about? And how will those events bring closure to the characters' narrative threads?

That I don't know. Those parts work themselves out organically.

You just need to put the pieces on the board, know what the starting game and the endgame are going to be, and let nature take its course.

RPGPundit

In my recent BANESTORM mini-campaign I knew I wanted a definite bit of "closure" by the end of it . It was set in this country called Caithness that has a Civil War going on.

 Well, my two primary players promised that we go back to our TRAVELLER campaign  thing sometime in January.  So I figured  we game every other week  equalling 2 games a month, meaning 6 to 8 game sessions with the story arc ending in mid January 2007. What I designed was a high-point or story reveal of some kind that would end each session or a dramatic combat possibility. NOT a guranteed fight scene mind you  - just moments where combat was likely  to happen but the characters still had a shot at talking their way out of it.

 Didn't work out as perfectly as I had planned. Two players had an ANGRY violent argument - and didn't show up for a session in October. So, the rest of watched Ghost in The Shell that night - and patched up things and made peace with the other 2 players.  That pushed the timing of my story back by at least one session.
Then, in December a key player was in a really car accident - we had to cancel the game session that week.  REALLY fucking GLAD she lived. She's one of my best friends and might be considered somewhere between a "sister" to me or an old gorlfriend - we're that close.  (Her husband is also part of our group)  So that delayed the story by another session.

Final game - Did not happen anything like I thought it would when I planned the story in September. However, we got moments and scenes that were close in spirit to what I had been planning .  

They all had fun and we managed to have a blast.

 Not sure if that helps the Original poster or not.
 My point is - its alright to have a plan in mind , but be willing to be pretty fluid about it .  If you get close to your story - then you're pretty damn good.

My original planned ending session was saupposed to be a huge fucking battle with many troops involved  humans, Elves , dwarves and halflings going at it for the honor of the kingdom.

INSTEAD - I got a tension filled Banquet scene underneath a huge tent in a courtyeard near a cathedral.  Scene had an attack on a King, King defended and he winds up in  a duel.  The political ending was mostly the same ...and the players all had a ball . So it worked out.

 I don't even enjoy Fantasy-type settings...but I had fun despite myself.

- E.W.C.