thread: 2005-04-21 : Planned Endings

On 2005-04-22, Jason L wrote:

I think that explicit or implicit endings - whether were talking about story-arcs or entire games are important.

My play experience has been that story-arc endings are a lot easier to come-by than game endings.  Mostly, this arises out of the rules and 'how-to-play' texts in most mainstream games.

I could crack open any random book from my vast collection of RPGs, and most of them have a section on running a 'campaign' - and they usually tend to describe this as the ideal.

In the last major campaign I ran, using Amber DRPG, the game had some awesome story-arc endings - worthy of inclusion in a Zelazny Amber story - but real life eventually ground the campaign to a sputtering halt without a cathartic end-game.

Since that time, I've played some one-shot or two-shot games using Sorcerer, Donjon, and Dust-Devils among others.  These type games are great, because all the players know we're doing a one or two and done story - everyone seems to play balls-to-walls with their characters.  As stated above, they escalte, escalate, escalate, pushing toward some stunning climaxes.

In the Sorcerer game, my character Hollis ended up sacraficing the last of his friends in a vain attempt to rescue his grandson, and finished out blood-opera style killing the antagonistic sorcerer - but wound up will-bound to the antagonist's demon.  Good stuff.

I think, without explicit agreement from the group, it's hard to arrive at those kinds of endings, or have that "that was so cool" feeling when the story is done.



This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":