I thought about just making this a "Merry Christmas" post, but I'd rather give you guys some content with all the excuses why things are again slow at Disoriented Ranger Publishing. And now I'm late too. Ha! So have the excuses up front: I wasn't as fast as I'd have liked to be, which is entirely my fault (well, my fault in that I'm totally stressed out by current events and rarely work at capacity, so to say). That said, I'm making progress. be67 is at 62 pages and growing (I think I'll end up at around 90, maybe?) and the collection of posts just needs a proper layout, the rest is already where it needs to be. Small steps. Anyway ... Today I want to talk about satisfying campaign endings. Let's talk about that.
I already started talking about Good Endings in 2019 (see how slow my brain works?), so get some basics in Part 1 and Part 2 before we dive into BIG endings.
An end to all things?
What is an ending? What qualifies as a "good" or "bad" ending? And how do we engineer that in our stories? First of all, there are different forms of endings, naturally:
- A gaming session can end and should with its ending get people stoked for the next session.
- An adventure might end, and that should maybe bring some closure to most (if not all) the elements that made that adventure tick.
- A character might die, which is an end worth considering.
- A narrative arc comes to a close, breaking a continious loop of some story elements, and that might deserve some highlighting to make it an end worth recognizing.
- Or things might fall apart and people discontinue playing, which is another end in itself (although not a good).
This isn't, of course, a complete list. It's what the last two posts covered, more or less. It should make obvious that lots of interactions in our games need their endings acknowledged so that the story (or the participants) can move on.
 |
| Wise words ... heh [source] |
There is, however, one more ending I came to encounter in the last two years more consciously, and that would be something like the grand finale, the end of not only an adventure, but the end of a grand campaign. The final tally, if you will.
It takes special consideration in that it should (ideally) be the remarkable end note of a very long story (or collection of stories). D&D had always tried its hand on designs for this, at least up until the advent of 3E (which just paid lip service to the concept, imo), and if one would only see the decline of the attempt as far as role-playing games are concerned, one could come to the conclusion that it faded out of the books because it's not worth the time one would need to invest to make it happen.
Alas, we know that it works very well in other games, especially computer games with lose ties to the rpg genre, which is where I came to encounter it.
The things I have seen ...
[This will contain some spoilers for the games I've played ... they are old games, but you are warned]
The first time I saw this done well was in Far Cry 3 for the xbox 360. It's basically a sandbox with some rpg character development for good measure and lots of freedom to free an island from pirate occupation by shooting at them. That's one dimension. The main story, however, is less free-form and way more scripted, which allows for some memorable set-pieces and a distinct story arc in it's own right.
That story is about a soft guy becoming a "warrior" after being confronted with violence and its brutal reality. FC3 was lauded for how that story plays out, and rightfully so. In the end (spoiler!), the player has to decide if they want to embrace being a killer by sacrificing their friends or if they try to leave the violence behind by reconnecting with the friends they rescued.
You, the player, have to make that decision. Either way, the decision is not as important as the questions leading to that decision. Is there such a thing as a "Path of the Warrior", and what does that mean? Is there a way back from killing a shit-load of people? Honestly, playing a shooter all through to the end, killing all opposition, to then get asked what it does to the soul? That's powerful stuff and it makes for a great end. It stays with me to this day.
 |
| [source] |
At that point I did not think about writing this post, though.
The next game that did a great job with its ending was Dungeon Siege 3 (also for the xbox 360). The game itself was a somewhat enjoyable gaming experience, mostly because of the couch-coop (something the spouse and I really enjoy). It is somewhat forgettable, as far as playing it goes, but not outright bad ... linear progression and gameplay, nice to look at, very rpg-lite. But okay.
What really worked, though, was the end. The boss fight was very well balanced and felt epic (which is great!), but the main feature was seeing how all your decisions throughout the game played out in the end. See, there had been some minor decisions to be made every here and there. Do I kill this enemy or am I friendly towards them? Do I support this queen or should I force an alliance with someone else, more capable ... stuff like that. Somewhat disconnected from the gameplay, weirdly enough, but something to discuss during cut scenes.
The pay-off for this was very satisfying, I must say. Well done. In a way, the decisions made in between mapped the game, and when it all came together, it brought the whole game alive again. You did something a certain way and the people liked that, which led to XY. You didn't do another thing, and a region turned unstable, which resulted in XY, but due to your influence, it turned out alright ... Which is another aspect worth mentioning: it all mostly had a positive spin.
Admittedly, a lower achievement than what FC3 did, but worthwhile. A good end that actually manages to lift the whole experience to something worth reminiscing about. Nicely done.
Yet, there is a third game I need to talk about to bring that point home.
Because another game ending that impressed me was that of Far Cry 4 (also xbox 360, and yes, I got lots of gaming done in the last 2 years ...). The recipe was very much that of FC3: very open sandbox (different setting, this time in the Himalayas) with some rpg elements for character development and a strong main story for when you want to engage with it.
It is, however (and imo) the more mature game in that the punch the end carries isn't as hot-blooded as in FC3 but far more calculated. The main character is a guy that goes back to the place of his birth to bury the ashes of his mother. That fictive country suffers under a dictatorship, with oppressive forces, violence and slavery ... all the bad things one could imagine.
Your mother had been big with the resistance and you coming back puts you directly between the lines. And personally so, since the leaders of the resistance as well as the dictator (the main villain, of course) are aware of you and you actually get to know them from the beginning.
A couple of things happen in the game that give a player agency and make the game somehow more personal, although the main bad guy is barely there ... Mostly, because he starts talking to you right from the beginning, then he calls you every now and then to tells you some fucked up shit, then you go around fighting his propaganda machine AND you see what his soldiers do to the people. The villain becomes a constant presence through his actions and interactions but without being a target. The sandbox is saturated with his presence, so to say.
So when the final confrontation comes (spoiler!), he's just sitting there, waiting for you, completely being nice and charming, asking you to just not shot him in the head and how boring that would be.
I did not hestitate to shoot him in the head.
And the game went directly to the end credits! No bells and whistles, just creating facts. It was great. Shook me even more than the end in FC3. Was it the right thing to just pull the trigger? Should I have waited and sit down to eat with the guy instead, as he had offered? However, he was a murderer and torturer and bat-shit crazy! I saw what he and his goons did to the country, talked to the people ... He had it coming. For sure (I ended up thinking about a bunch of pixels). Would have poisoned me anyway. Or something. Right?
So after the credits the world is free to be roamed again. I went back to his place, see if the ashes went where they should. And there is the final revelation: the character's mother had killed the dictators 2 year old daughter as a punishment for the woman who fell in love with him. Dark shit ... Honestly, I might play the game again just to explore those angles a bit more.
It's a good story, with an even better presentation. That isn't all, though. The resistance, you see, has two leaders and they don't agree at all how to free their country. There is a modern, more money oriented way and a traditional, more religiously oriented way. And you have to decide several times if you go with the one side or the other.
Both come with severe consequences (if you do the one, it has dire consequences for the other). You help shaping the country by bringing one of them to power with the other being dismissed. That was also very good story-telling which left me thinking more than once that I might have done a mistake there with my decisions. Good shit, well worth a replay for that alone.
 |
| FC4 in a nutshell? [source] |
You see how in all cases the campaigns are wrapped up nicely, giving you something along for the way? What's more, the elements that made me engage with the games that way had nothing to do with playing the game, it was more about the interaction with the game over the course of the campaign. And that, of course, directly relates to the analogue role-playing games we are talking about here ...
What RPGs don't do (anymore)?
Classic D&D had immense level ranges. Levels 1 to 36 with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia alone, AD&D wasn't far behind that and you could always extend the game to godhood (which meant for some classes in the D&D RC to go the complete distance 1 to 36 AGAIN). Lots of play, with campaigns potentially lasting for decades and one of the main reasons to have loads of campaign settings in AD&D.
We are not talking about how intimidating the prospect of a campaign like that can be. What we are focusing on instead is what was done to actually make it manifest in the game. One would have to consider that characters get more powerful, of course, and all role-playing games do that. Actually, it is the one thing most role-playing games kept intact in their games: power curves demand adequate challenges. The bare-bones concession that there is a development that needs to be addressed.
Considering that more powerful monsters bring with them a higher impact on a campaign, we already have some intrinsic change in play-styles along the power curves that level advancement produce. That it in itself is not enough, is quite well obvious in the fact that most "old school" campaigns favor a range of 1 to 6 or 8 levels, with newer games thwarting that somewhat by diluting the early levels, starting directly more or less with mid-level gaming.
Both approaches show the problem and the solution, imo. Classic D&D lends itself to low level play while the tools for mid- and high-level games are available, but get mostly ignored. That mid-level game has a market is obvious in newer editions, as characters already start with the equivalent of level 3, adding a steep powercurve and fast development, resulting (arguably) in something comparable with, say, levels 6 to 12 in classic D&D terms.
It's not sold that way, but it most certainly reads that way. Going
by that trajectory, D&D 6 will be about allmighty and genderless
gods in a fantastic world of equity :)
AD&D, arguably, does a great job at offering good high level play. However, the main problem with high level campaigns is the workload, which is why there aren't many of them to buy, and I'm not even talking about quality here. You want a good "end game" module (and the pdf for FREE, no less), check out The Dreams of Ruin ... I wrote a bit about it here. That's Labyrinth Lord, so we are talking BX here, showcasing it can be done, but is very difficult to pull of commercially (among other things) and complex to boot. Dreams will give you scope.
The thing is, the big campaign arc isn't done anymore or very rarely. And not only because it is hard to prepare or write an end game module from the system-side alone. Megadungeons could fill the bill, maybe. However, if they just present the challenges without taking the implications into account (which is easy to do if the big bad monsters are trapped in a dungeon, or, in other words, a highly controlled playing field), it'll fall short in encouraging high level play or risks feeling "the same" just with higher levels and longer combat sessions.
As I said above, in a way one could argue that campaign play was just flawed design that failed enough commercially to be reduced to lip service in modern products. And while it might hold true, commercially speaking, it's thinking like this that reduces the playing experience to lots of blinking lights and short-lived amusement park entertainment, with the hard work of keeping it all together left to the Gamemaster ...
Anyway, I digress. The point is, it isn't done anymore, or not to a degree that actually helps DMs to play one single game for that long. Not taking The Campaign serious as an important part of a games design and instead relying on shiny facets that entertain only for as long as it takes to offer the next product is entirely grounded in product-oriented thinking and not at all in terms of game design.
Actually, most games even lack the advice for DMs completely, as a capable DM goes against the idea of selling more product. The DM part in general is also the most difficult part to write, lets not forget that. Easier production makes faster product and why risk something outside of popular mainstream when the easy road earns pretty cash? So all that complex stuff gets tossed ...
... and we are back on track, I guess: campaign play is not there anymore (as far as I can see), there are reasons for it, but what we are talking about here is how to utilize it and why it makes sense to do so.
What went wrong, then?
So we know those rules exist, and we know they don't work (to some extent). No one I'm aware of took the time to dissect those rules and check why they might be problematic (I assume they are necessary for the reasons summoned above).
I think that the main problem is the original approach that came to be known as "name level". It assumes a stage in character development where a character is elevated beyond level to represent more in the gaming world than they actually are. It is something of an advancement, but it doesn't work that way, mainly because it mimics a status that should emerge naturally through play, and that's a bit like getting a trophy for something you didn't achieve.
It carries no meaning as such to become a "paladin" (with additional rules, even!), if that's nothing you have worked towards but solely because you are lawful (as per the Rules Cyclopedia). There is no fun in reaching a level and class appropriate moniker if it isn't earned or even reflected in the gaming environment (for which it mostly is too abstract to even apply, considering different cultures and all that).
There is a strange array of additional rules patched unto this design, like having those characters in use groom low level characters (AD&D 2e), just in case of character death (or retirement, actually), the idea being that players have control over generations of characters with different power levels over the course of a campaign ... Yeah. A very small minority did that, would be my guess.
It even spawned a whole campaign setting making mid-level gaming a focus (Birthright, also AD&D), but it shifted the rules-focus so much, it ended up being a different game. Not unsuccessful, just very niche.
 |
| Birthright ... when the campaign map is the character sheet :D [source] |
But if you don't use it, characters barely evolve above the original first scope of development, and the campaign ends because people would rather experience that development arc again instead getting the feeling of stagnating with a character. It is an end in itself, I suppose, just not at its full potential (or good).
The main problem with all those rules, imho, was that they are only loosely attached to character development and need player-attention to be manifest in the game without offering enough incentives to bother. That's just not how players work, in my experience. It's also in conflict with the "Rule of 7", as it keeps adding and adding to a character. With too many balls in the air, most people will lose interest quick (I guess with games 5 is a good average, but go for 3 with low effort games).
So while early designers certainly have seen the necessity for an campaign arc beyond what levels offer, it was never successfully incorporated into the game. Therefor, producing a good grand finale for a campaign was not impossible, but left entirely in the hands of the DM, with barely any advice to go by.
What to do about it? (be67 edition)
The simple solution is: have the DM orchestrate it all and have some systems in place that support what the DM is doing. A campaign needn't be highly structured, as you can't plan with anything concrete over a long time. But what you can (and should!) do is making setting markers and making them count.
It is no secret that a wide power range makes different pacing necessary. You basically should have a major shift in setting and tone about every fifth of a given power range. For the D&D RC that'd look like this:
Levels 1 to 7 = Low-Level Gaming (The Rise), establish setting & possible future shifts on horizon, characters are unknown & looking for their opportunity to make themselves known
Time passes
Levels 8 to 14 = Low to Mid Level Gaming (The Great Opportunity), first major shift in setting (major conflict starts, maybe an invasion or a revolt), characters have to face bigger challenges & with more direct responsibility for others (owning land or titles, having an army, being higher ranking guild members, something like that, all facing the new challenge one way ro another), they might be able to have a hand in the next shift (their decisions certainly will have an effect on their surroundings), characters are known locally, big players start noticing & try to use the characters for their goals
Time passes (months, even)
Levels 15 to 21 = Mid Level Gaming (The Reckoning), second major setting shift (major conflict escalates or ends under new management with even more severe problems on the rise), character's actions after the first shift should be evident & saturate the gaming experience in this phase, characters are not only known, but people have an opinion on them & act accordingly, characters are now big enough with influence to be a threat to opposition they might not even be aware of & will have to fight to keep what they achieved (one way or the other), characters have a BIG part in how the next shift manifests
Time passes (might be years here)
Levels 22 to 28 = Mid to High Level Gaming (The Reign), third major setting shift (however the chips fell from the last phase, the characters are known for their involvement & are on the front line for whatever consequences arose),
Time passes (lots of time, probably decades)
Levels 29 to end = High Level Gaming (The Legacy) last major shift (the last hurrah, a final new challenge, ideally something connected to the past, something the characters are somehow responsible for), whatever the setting looks like now, the characters are major players in it & established through their deeds, although that final shift might be personal, its consequences are cataclystic for the whole setting, but alliances have shifted & old allies might be gone or missing, creating need for new, powerful allies
... and it all will end in one epic finale. A good end.
 |
| Somehow this came to mind: Buffy from season to season ... [source] |
Anyway, as I said, it is a very general frame, just to give you an example here. The game I'm writing on (be67 - a b/x retroclone-mutant, so to say) will have detailed rules for those transitions. But it is all there: plan a phase very generally, ideally have some major story per story arc (or distinct features for sandbox play).
It doesn't matter as much if the characters hit exactly that level range. A level more or less doesn't hurt (and characters die, people fluctuate ... you know the drill), but when a phase ends, shift focus for the transition. Let time pass by and have the players build on how the last phase ended. Collect tidbits for that moment and give the players a feel for what impact they had.
Offer them opportunities for growth: land or titles, marriages (political or otherwise), business opportunities, an army to lead or something academic ... just as characters and level allow (start small, build on that ... not from grunt to admiral in one go, for instance). Use future phases to build on that, maybe even threaten it. Make them work for it.
To bring that experience home, I'd allow a level up in the transition phase. That way it feels like part of the level up and the end of a phase needn't correlate with a "naturally occuring" level up. Just finish the phase as appropriate and treat the new phase just like you'd treat character creation: you set the new stage and the players arrange their characters accordingly.
The End
There is power in new beginnings, but a lot of that power is derived from the end that happened before that.
If you apply the general frame described above and keep your notes straight, you can make your rpg campaign a very distinct experience for everyone involved, with lots of good little ends in between and one big final end note to finish it all.
I should leave it at that. Took me three days to get here, so if this isn't done, I'll do a part 4 ...
But I hope you guys found something of value in those ramblings. It turned out to be a long one again. Did any of you reading this have long lasting campaigns. Does what I wrote resonate with you? Or are there other ways to sustain a long-lasting campaign? How about good endings. How important do you think they are?
 |
| FC3 GIF made me laugh ... [source] |
------------------------
If you are interested in a completely realized science fiction role-playing game with lots of theory and a huge DM section, you can check out a free preview of Ø2\\'3|| (that rpg I published) right here (or go and check out the first reviews here).I'm still doing a sale on it ...
If you already checked it out, please know that I
appreciate you :) It'll certainly help to keep the lights on here!
 |
| Just look at that beauty ... |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Recent developments made it necessary to moderate posts again. Sorry about that, folks.