Post by gorm on Jun 2, 2024 19:19:54 GMT -5
First, is there any legitimate reason to end a D&D campaign? IMO very few, almost none. Consider that Dave Arneson passed away in 2009, one would think that his Blackmoor campaign would have ended at that point in time. Not the case! His friends continue that campaign till this day. They don't play very often, one a year as I recall, but nevertheless, the campaign is a living thing and it will continue as long as two living members are able to play.
He had friendships that dated back to childhood and his early adulthood that continued his whole life. Maybe not all of us have friends that committed to our memory and our legacy. So what are those few reasons that are legitimate to end a campaign?
1. The DM is no longer physically and/or mentally able to continue and there is no one to step in.
2. Because of life events - marriage, kids, job changes, moves, IRL deaths, the group just can't game together anymore.
3.
That is all I can think of, maybe some of you have more.
Now you may ask, what triggered this?
Well read this post Apocalypse—How?: Ending the Game with a Bang - © 1998-2001 Dru Pagliassotti - Although this guy claims to have played since the 70's he has a distinctly video game view of TTRPGs. It is sad really when you think about it.
A D&D campaign is by definition not intended to have an end, unless it is a one shot. IMO all of what he lays out here is not old school thinking.
He has still not addressed why you would end a campaign, not legitimately. Maybe if you knew you were dying and for some odd reason you wanted it to end with you, then maybe you would have such an ending to wrap it all up in destruction. Not the way I would want to end my life, I would want it to go on without me. I would be more likely to prepare someone(s) to take over for me when I was gone.
Further why would you want to change editions of the rules? I know lots of people have done it, the majority in fact. I will never understand why. Seems like a crazy thing to do to me. If you want to play different games, awesome, go do that. But kill a campaign to change rulesets? Why?
The third thing he talks about in C above, brings me back to the question of why end a campaign?
His last point is
Comments? See the link for the writeup.
He had friendships that dated back to childhood and his early adulthood that continued his whole life. Maybe not all of us have friends that committed to our memory and our legacy. So what are those few reasons that are legitimate to end a campaign?
1. The DM is no longer physically and/or mentally able to continue and there is no one to step in.
2. Because of life events - marriage, kids, job changes, moves, IRL deaths, the group just can't game together anymore.
3.
That is all I can think of, maybe some of you have more.
Now you may ask, what triggered this?
Well read this post Apocalypse—How?: Ending the Game with a Bang - © 1998-2001 Dru Pagliassotti - Although this guy claims to have played since the 70's he has a distinctly video game view of TTRPGs. It is sad really when you think about it.
1. Apocalypse—How?
Apocalypse.
From the Greek, to uncover, or reveal. But when we speak of an apocalypse, we think of a world-shattering event—most often, the actual end of the world.
What a memorable way to end a campaign.
A GM can end a campaign in several ways. The game can simply stop in mid-adventure, abandoned. The game can be neatly wrapped up and tied off, with "happily ever after" endings for everybody.
Or the game can end with a bang.
Apocalypse.
From the Greek, to uncover, or reveal. But when we speak of an apocalypse, we think of a world-shattering event—most often, the actual end of the world.
What a memorable way to end a campaign.
A GM can end a campaign in several ways. The game can simply stop in mid-adventure, abandoned. The game can be neatly wrapped up and tied off, with "happily ever after" endings for everybody.
Or the game can end with a bang.
2. Apocalypse—Why?
A. First, an apocalyptic, earth-shaking ending satisfies players.
B. Second, apocalypses are great excuses for changing the world around. Switch to a different Edition.
C. Third, apocalypses can end a campaign swiftly and without questions.
A. First, an apocalyptic, earth-shaking ending satisfies players.
B. Second, apocalypses are great excuses for changing the world around. Switch to a different Edition.
C. Third, apocalypses can end a campaign swiftly and without questions.
He has still not addressed why you would end a campaign, not legitimately. Maybe if you knew you were dying and for some odd reason you wanted it to end with you, then maybe you would have such an ending to wrap it all up in destruction. Not the way I would want to end my life, I would want it to go on without me. I would be more likely to prepare someone(s) to take over for me when I was gone.
Further why would you want to change editions of the rules? I know lots of people have done it, the majority in fact. I will never understand why. Seems like a crazy thing to do to me. If you want to play different games, awesome, go do that. But kill a campaign to change rulesets? Why?
The third thing he talks about in C above, brings me back to the question of why end a campaign?
His last point is
Apocalypse—What?
Comments? See the link for the writeup.