PDA

View Full Version : Advice on Ending a Campaign *Players, Please Don't Read*



Lappy9000
2009-01-14, 12:05 PM
Massive spoilers for my players below, Please, Please do not keep reading if you're one of them!





So, coming up in the summer will be the first campaign I've ever ended that didn't involve killing the entire party. The group is currently level 10 started from level 2, and will likely be in the mid-teens when things are finished. Unfortunatly, I've never seen any sort of advice that pertains to finishing a campaign with maximum levels of awesomeness.

The current idea is for the players to have the obligatory epic fight with the insane big bad evil guy who has been hounding them constantly for the past 6 levels. The way I want the fight to work is to make the PC's feel like their winning at first, before they realize that their abilities have actually been hindered. For example, at the start of the fight, the barbarian will be assaulted with a seemingly-endless kobold horde (which I know he'll jump right into) which he'll cut through with in a swathe of destruction. However, in a few rounds, he'll probably realize that while the kobolds bear little threat to himself, he can't simply cut his way out of the horde to help the rest of the party who consist of physically weak characters in comparison.

However, after the fight is over, the BBEG will relate some plot-important information, revealing that former characters of the players will have actually had a hand in creating what he is now (he was formerly a PC of mine; but don't worry, I have no sentiments towards keeping him alive). Then, he will spill the beans that now that he's dead, noone will be able to stop the extraplanar army emerging from the town where the PC's started in. From there, I hope for a frantic trip back to the town, and a Helm's Deep-like battle. I'll try my best to fufill the character's aspirations, particularly those of one who wishes to personally cause tons of destruction before he ends his life. The fact that I plan to have a paladin kill him when he's helpless, making the paladin fall, will just be the icing on the cake.

But what do I do after the conflict is over? Just spout out "The End" and that's it?

Canadian
2009-01-14, 12:14 PM
The dimensional hole does not close when the bad guy dies. Instead it is permanently wedged open and cannot be closed. The monsters keep pouring through the hole in an endless stream.

Instead of running amok they all bow down at the feet of the fallen paladin and the rest of the party who killed the bad guy. The monsters kneel waiting for them to give them orders. "What is your command dark master?"

The camera pulls back into space and the adventure ends...

You can always pick up this scenario if the players want to get back into this particular game. Otherwise it's an epic cliffhanger ending.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-14, 01:17 PM
Since when paladins fall for killing helpless enemies?

Oslecamo
2009-01-14, 01:24 PM
Since when paladins fall for killing helpless enemies?

Probably since when druids don't fall not even if they sell their soul to the Pseudo natural entities from far beyond wich defy everything in our existence(true story). It's all in the DM's interpretation of the class code of conduct. And boy there's a lot of paladin hate out there.

Prometheus
2009-01-14, 01:41 PM
I might say be careful about railroading the part in the BBEG fight - players don't always do what you expect and when they do they aren't always doing what they want.

Multistage boss fights are always fun, if you have any excuse whatsoever to create them. After killing him, he transforms to a new form or what have you. Perhaps if the paladin is going to fall, have him gain a surge of dark power before facing down the remainder of the PCs (giving him new abilities but letting him direct his own actions).

It's okay to let PCs know that within a couple of sessions, the campaign will be headed towards an end. They will do last minute things and they will pay more attention to description that you give (be sure to deliver it). If they finish the campaign and can't help but feel that they want to progress their character stories/build, do what I did and give then an epilogue campaign. In the epilogue campaign, they advance X years into the future and X character levels further. They had all gone their separate ways but unite for a new danger or a resurgence of the old (like in the movie IT). Wrap up any lose ends, give them a chance to play out their awesome powers, plan another ending from the beginning, and make it relatively short.

Lappy9000
2009-01-14, 03:07 PM
Since when paladins fall for killing helpless enemies?
Since the moment I decided to use the How-It-Should-Be Paladin by Fax_Celestis.

And I love paladins <3
Besides, he's fallen twice before, it's really to just the player a bit of fun and finish their little plot arch (If someone killed your daughter, only to have her return as a hideous abomination hell-bent on revenge, you'd probably lose your control when confronted with her murderer)


I might say be careful about railroading the part in the BBEG fight - players don't always do what you expect and when they do they aren't always doing what they want.
Railroading? How? I'm trying to find new ways to challenge everyone. Any plan I think up is ready to be scrapped at a moment's notice. I have no doubt that they'll find an incredibly ingenious and insightful solution to the problems I'm facing them up against; I just don't want to make it seem too easy.

Tempest Fennac
2009-01-14, 03:15 PM
I honestly wouldn't have a Paladin fall for that to be honest (my stance is that if evil people don't want to be killed while helpless, they should try harder in regards to avoiding being in that position:smalltongue:). I don't think that particular fight would class as rail-roading either, but it's a good idea to have a back-up plan in case the PCs do something unexpected.

Thane of Fife
2009-01-14, 03:29 PM
Hmm. First, Lappy9000, I PMed you something that might be of some interest, or possibly not.

Other than that, my general thought on ending something is that it should try to wrap up everything. If you ever played NWN: Hordes of the Underdark, the end of that is about what I mean, where it basically tells you what happened to everybody important. If you intend to run another campaign in the same setting, you might want to limit this.

But you can tell the PCs what happens to them after the campaign (make sure not to take them out of character). When I run games, there is invariably a large number of ideas which get dumped - you can mention these and point out any remnants that made it into the plot. Any adventures that you planned that were never run can be shown.

Just generally try to wrap things up.

Lappy9000
2009-01-14, 03:39 PM
If you intend to run another campaign in the same setting, you might want to limit this.
Thanks, by the way, that PM was quite useful. Yeah, I plan to use the setting for at least 1 more campaign with the group, so I'd rather not say what happens to them immediately following the battle.

Satyr
2009-01-14, 04:12 PM
It's not over as long as they are alive. Player characters who have fight for a very long time have earned themselves a heroic death. At the end of the campaign, theay have earned a glorious last stand and a simiular glorious and gruesome death. Let them die young and glorious, before they grow old and helplesss and need to help to not spoil themselves. A good player character does not deserve a humiliating straw death but should die with the sword in the hand.
So give them their last glorious charge, their last battle, let them sacrifice themsleves to save thousands of people, give them feeling that they are martyrs who redeem themselves when their blood is spilled (especially the Paladin). Give them the feeling that their sacrifice is is meaningful and changes the course of the worl.

If you later play with the same players in the sames setting, include the memory of the older characters in the world. Children are named after the heroes; there is a holiday to remember their sacrifice, at least on local level; their tomp or memorial has become a place of pilgrimage for the Paladin's cult, etc. This will give the characters a feeling of grandeur.

Tacoma
2009-01-14, 04:25 PM
Have the boss tell them during the fight that he's been working to keep an extraplanar gate closed. He has to repair the gate seal all the time. Of course it's a result of his failed attempts at summoning, but who really cares whose fault it is?

Point is, he tells them, if they kill him the gate will spew forth horrible creatures and ruin their country, maybe their world. And he obviously refuses to tell them how to keep the gate seal repaired, because then they could kill him. And they can't imprison him, for the same reason. Or hold him in stasis, etc.

So what do they do? Kill him mainly out of spite and let the world go to pot? Seal the whole dungeon and keep him locked in forever, laboring away at his failed attempt to take over the world? Just leave and let him go?

Come up with a denoument for a bunch of different possible outcomes and alter one on the fly when they actually make their choice. If they call his bluff and kill him, the gate seal really does snap after a couple days. Too little time to research his whole process, especially since he destroyed and scattered his research materials to keep the knowledge secret.

So maybe they end up just leaving him alone or sealing the whole dungeon. Not much of an ending, maybe. And if they kill him the world becomes like the Terminator future in fantasy form.

Prometheus
2009-01-14, 04:37 PM
Railroading? How? I'm trying to find new ways to challenge everyone. Any plan I think up is ready to be scrapped at a moment's notice. I have no doubt that they'll find an incredibly ingenious and insightful solution to the problems I'm facing them up against; I just don't want to make it seem too easy.
I know a lot of the people find the word "railroading" insulting and I didn't intend it that way. From the two quotes below, I inferred that there was a particular way that the battle was supposed to go (that is, the PCs have scripted actions). While I knew you wouldn't force them into it, I was recommending that you prepare for the contingency that they act oddly - i.e. the barbarian decides to defend the casters and the paladin decides that it is not time to fall yet (although that the player still wants to fall eventually). It seems like you are sensitive to the erratic nature of PC actions.

...at the start of the fight, the barbarian will be assaulted with a seemingly-endless kobold horde (which I know he'll jump right into) which he'll cut through with in a swathe of destruction. However, in a few rounds, he'll probably realize that while the kobolds bear little threat to himself, he can't simply cut his way out of the horde...

...The fact that I plan to have a paladin kill him when he's helpless, making the paladin fall, will just be the icing on the cake.

Tacoma
2009-01-14, 04:40 PM
He just gave his plans. Woot if they work out, right? Railroading occurs when we spot the player in the wild, going about his business, and if he doesn't go along with the DM's plan the DM forces it to happen anyway. Just planning is fine.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-14, 06:40 PM
It's not over as long as they are alive. Player characters who have fight for a very long time have earned themselves a heroic death. At the end of the campaign, theay have earned a glorious last stand and a simiular glorious and gruesome death. Let them die young and glorious, before they grow old and helplesss and need to help to not spoil themselves. A good player character does not deserve a humiliating straw death but should die with the sword in the hand.
So give them their last glorious charge, their last battle, let them sacrifice themsleves to save thousands of people, give them feeling that they are martyrs who redeem themselves when their blood is spilled (especially the Paladin). Give them the feeling that their sacrifice is is meaningful and changes the course of the worl.


I disagree. Many players would be much happier to see their characters retire and lead happy, peaceful lives, probably including mentoring a new generation of heroes at some point.

I personally am very fond of ending a campaign in a "where are they now" way - timeskip forward several years, and, together with the players, decide what happened with the PCs and the world in the meantime.

Oslecamo
2009-01-14, 07:00 PM
I disagree. Many players would be much happier to see their characters retire and lead happy, peaceful lives, probably including mentoring a new generation of heroes at some point.


I strongly agree with this. Altough heroic sacrifices are nice, surviving the last fight and seeing a new world be born with your own eyes while enjoyng the pleasures of life it's much nicer.

And indeed, those trainers, guild leaders, story tellers and shopkeepers had to come from some place, right?:smallbiggrin:

Lappy9000
2009-01-14, 07:32 PM
I strongly agree with this. Altough heroic sacrifices are nice, surviving the last fight and seeing a new world be born with your own eyes while enjoyng the pleasures of life it's much nicer.

And indeed, those trainers, guild leaders, story tellers and shopkeepers had to come from some place, right?:smallbiggrin:
Keep in mind that one character's intention is to die and one other would gladly go down in combat (assuming he had taken down as many enemies as he has hit points). Two others, I'm not so sure on (they'd probably abandon the rest of the party) and I know for certain that one would resent me for killing their character.

Tacoma
2009-01-14, 07:34 PM
So give them a fight that they have a solid chance of winning, a goal to capture, and incoming enemies. The people who wanna die know this is the last game session and can choose to run up into the slaughterhouse if they want. The others can flee with the goal.

Tempest Fennac
2009-01-15, 02:14 AM
I agree with Tengu (admittedly, my aging penalty system would mean they may not end up that weak at venerable).

Satyr
2009-01-15, 03:52 AM
And indeed, those trainers, guild leaders, story tellers and shopkeepers had to come from some place, right?

But so do saints, heroes of legends and martyrs. And from the perspective of telling a cool story, "and still today, hundreds of pilgrims visit his grave every year and his sacrifice was never forgotten" is incredibly superior to "and after his adventurer dys, he founded a pub and bore everything with his wartime stories back when he was a hero. After his first stroke, he didn't do even that anymore."

A heroic death is a campaign's accolade. And often, what the players want and what is good for the story are two completely different things. I think the campaing as a whole is always moree important than the petty interests of any particular player.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-15, 10:13 AM
And often, what the players want and what is good for the story are two completely different things. I think the campaing as a whole is always moree important than the petty interests of any particular player.

Hope I don't come out as too harsh, but...

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

The story is good when players have fun. If a player has fun when his character dies in the end, then good - but if he doesn't, and would rather his PC to survive and lead a happy life until he dies from old age, then killing his character means he loses the fun from the game in the end. If you think that creating a story you like is more important than all the players having fun, then I wouldn't like to be in your campaign, because a DM who doesn't care about what his players want and calls those needs "petty" is a DM who misses the point.

Not to mention that retired adventurers rarely become boring, crippled old people. More often, they become Badass Grandpas/mas (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassGrandpa).

Lappy9000
2009-01-15, 11:09 AM
Not to mention that retired adventurers rarely become boring, crippled old people. More often, they become Badass Grandpas/mas (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassGrandpa).
Heck yes!

While I myself like the idea of pitting everyone up against an epic encounter where they will most surely go down in combat (albeit in a glorious manner), I'm going to make it quite possible for them to win the encounter. They don't know it yet, but they already have contacts that can rally a sizeable force to come to their aid. If everyone gets wiped out; so be it, I'll make their deaths glorious and the stuff of legends. However, the encounter won't be biased towards them losing.

Satyr
2009-01-15, 11:59 AM
If you think that creating a story you like is more important than all the players having fun, then I wouldn't like to be in your campaign, because a DM who doesn't care about what his players want and calls those needs "petty" is a DM who misses the point.

A Gamemaster who does not manage his players with the narrative he creates in complete indifference to their particular interests is just not trying hard enough. I have seen too many 'jukebox GM's' who tried to suit everybody while being not contempt with their own narrative anymore; that is a form of failure, as I don't think that it is possible to tell stirring tales if you are not convinced by them yourself. Staying true to the own agenda should be seen as obligatory by every GM; as with his or her dedication to the game, the quality of it is set. I don't see the GM as a service provider for the players; I see him or her as an author.
A good GM is someone who tries to make the stuff he or she thinks as brilliant rousing enough to capture the players and tag them along the path. The secret is to make the campaign good enough to capture a player with completely different interests nonetheless.

Lappy9000
2009-01-15, 12:07 PM
If you think that creating a story you like is more important than all the players having fun, then I wouldn't like to be in your campaign, because a DM who doesn't care about what his players want and calls those needs "petty" is a DM who misses the point.
I don't make any stories. Everything that has happened in the story has been a direct result of the players. I made the campaign world, they do stuff, and I try to make things fun/interesting.

Faramir
2009-01-15, 12:46 PM
I personally am very fond of ending a campaign in a "where are they now" way - timeskip forward several years, and, together with the players, decide what happened with the PCs and the world in the meantime.

That's my favored approach as well. For the characters that sacrificed themselves you can describe their impressive memorial or perhaps a page from a history book talking about the great hero soandso who died saving the world. Alternatively if they had an npc they were close with you can relate how thanks to their heroism the npc lived a long and fulfilling life, with many children and always remembered their old friend/lover/teacher/whatever who sacrificed everything

Tengu_temp
2009-01-15, 02:58 PM
Satyr - there is a difference between "I'm trying to create a campaign that will be fun for everyone involved, including myself", which is a sign of a good DM, and "screw the players and their stupid opinions, I know better what is more fun for them", which is a sign of an arrogant egotist. Even if you didn't mean it, your previous post advocated the second stance.

Prometheus
2009-01-15, 07:42 PM
Sounds like Tengu and Satyr have come to an agreement that there has to be a balance between leadership (making a coherent story independent of player input) and representation (giving the players that kind of story that they want) - even if they differ on which side to err.

Satyr
2009-01-16, 03:06 AM
I don't make any stories. Everything that has happened in the story has been a direct result of the players. I made the campaign world, they do stuff, and I try to make things fun/interesting.

I think it is virtually impossible not to create a narrative; "we killed the kobolds, then we killed the goblins and then we killed the Orks" is a narrative. People think in form of a narrative. And I don't think that it is possible not to create a story during a roleplaying game. You should always be aware that effectively, a GM is always a narrator, as he or she is more or less the primus inter pares of the story which is spun in the campaign.

Lappy9000
2009-01-16, 09:56 AM
I think it is virtually impossible not to create a narrative; "we killed the kobolds, then we killed the goblins and then we killed the Orks" is a narrative. People think in form of a narrative. And I don't think that it is possible not to create a story during a roleplaying game. You should always be aware that effectively, a GM is always a narrator, as he or she is more or less the primus inter pares of the story which is spun in the campaign.
Dude, I don't write the stories. I don't have a pre-developed plot that I force down the player's throats. I create the stories based off the player's actions.

I would like to thank you for your advice in regards to ending the campaign, but I'd really appreciate it if everyone stuck to just that. No matter what I do as a DM, please keep your comments based on ending the adventure. Thank you.

Llama231
2009-01-16, 10:19 AM
I think that it would work better if you brought out the skills in the characters and make the overall battle harder. The players should have more fun.Also, puzzles during the fight also might help. I think that you should let the players themselves end it.