Yesterday we finished our Aquelarre game, that has taken several months. It feels good to bring a good game to a closure.

In two weeks we are starting again our game of Mutants in Shadows (Spanish game about secret services fighting for the control of mutants, and mutants trying to escape them). We finished the game after discovering a high level mole inside Heracles, the organization that shelters the mutants against the M services of the governments, a mole that almost destroyed Heracles from the inside giving vital info to the CDFC (the USA M service). In that moment I wanted to try another genre, it was a good finishing point after the PCs managed to save Heracles at the last second, and I longed to play Aquelarre again, so we started this game that we just finished.

And that takes me to the questions I wanted to ask: do you often finish the games that you start? When you finish your games, do you leave space for a continuation, or a spin-off? How do you decide which game will be the next?

I usually finish the games I start, in 80% of the cases, give or take. I always try to leave space for a continuation (a new season, if you like), or a spin-off (it often happens that my players want to play with allies contacts or even antagonists of the PCs). And usually I propose 2 or 3 games, and the players choose which one interest them the most. Though sometimes I just announce 'People, after finishing X we'll start a game of Y'

What do you think?

PS: if you're interested in knowing more about the Mutans in Shadows game, you can check the blog where we keep profiles of characters, AP entries and such. It's in Spanish, but such is life. If anyone here who can read Spanish wants to make a translation to English, I will be more than happy, as we lack the time to do it. In any case, I'll try to post APs of this game here, as it's a thing that I have wanted to do for some time.

Typically we only play games that will have a conclusion.  Usually it is something that we come up when we meet at the bar and hash out what we want to play.  Usually turns into something like, "I don't care what happens as long as it ends with a siege" or some shit like that.  A sort of vague finish line for us all to focus on, though sometimes it is clearer than that.

Last week we started our first open ended game in a long time, which is going to be interesting, since the only sort of finish line is wanting to have a flying ship at some point.

I try to finish my games.  Don't always get the chance since real life squabling among the group usually self destructs them.  But I plan my storylines to have a beginning and a rough ending point.

The games I have gotten to finish have always been a real joy to accomplish.  Also I do leave the door open for a continuation of the characters into a new story arc if they want to.

But I also have run games that don't really have a overall story and are very episodic.  Each plot is wrapped up in one or two sessions.  This allows for changes in players and all that.  Easier to maintain also.

My two cents.

Frankly, if I had my way, the road would go ever on. I just read that Erick Wujcik has this 20-year campaign going, including some of the original PCs. Arneson's Blackmoor is still alive, too.

Not that I'd want to play a single game for life. But a mega-long-term, on again, off again campaign as a kind of second option, besides the regular circulation of one-shots and short campaigns--that would be ideal.

Quote from: ImperatorAnd that takes me to the questions I wanted to ask: do you often finish the games that you start?

Always. Conclusions are important to my group.

QuoteWhen you finish your games, do you leave space for a continuation, or a spin-off?

Sometimes...it's more that the ending is vague, so there's a possibility of something starting up again, if the interest is there.

QuoteHow do you decide which game will be the next?

We normally have a couple of games going at the same time and some campaigns ideas at various stages of "production" My players just give me the "green light" on what to do next.

Regards,
David R

We continue games until they begin to pale, which may sometimes take years. It seems there's always places to go next, or repercussions of past victories to deal with.

I run games until I reach a good conclusion. Sometimes that happens quickly, sometimes it doesn't. Often games end due to player drift and scheduling so I wrap them up (these days) as best I can with a good finale if that looks to be happening.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFrankly, if I had my way, the road would go ever on. I just read that Erick Wujcik has this 20-year campaign going, including some of the original PCs. Arneson's Blackmoor is still alive, too.

Not that I'd want to play a single game for life. But a mega-long-term, on again, off again campaign as a kind of second option, besides the regular circulation of one-shots and short campaigns--that would be ideal.

I feel the same way.

Also, I've said before--I really savor the memory of old campaigns that didn't have a clearcut ending. In a way they're like Star Wars before the release of Return of the Jedi--a torn manuscript, full of allusions, nothing tied up, fertile ground for endless imagination.

A good compromise is probably the episodic campaign.

The thing is: Once you say, at the outset, "This campaign will run for X sessions," or "until goal Y is achieved," that changes the ballgame right away. The first statement imposes a dynamic ("Hurry, five more weeks to go"), the second imposes a motivation. That kind of thing has its upsides, sure. BUT... to figure out both DURING play... one misses that. Those were the days.

I've always just kept going until the game fell apart somehow.  Then someone else picks up as GM and we sart a new game, or whatever.

ours just run on and on, rarely with any conclusion.  sometimes we just find a good spot to break, and then someone else runs a new game.  the other one sits on the back burner until interest revives it.  the only time i remember things actually "ending" was in the old ad&d 1st ed. days, when we ran modules.  otherwise it would end with an "oops!" on someone's part and a TPK.  

one traveller campaign actually had to end due to everyone's characters getting  arrested by the imperials, tho.  of course, some of them pointed the finger at one guy and he took the worst of it, but they all ended up incarcerated anyway.
 :haw:

Sort of like Seinfeld, huh?

i'd love to end one like newhart. . . .