I've been struggling for a bit now with question for writing a good end for games I GM. If you're playing a clasic dungeon crawl, do you end the game right when the PCs kill the big baddie? Or do you play out them getting back out of the dungeon and telling the greatful townsfolk that the evil monster is dead?

It seems that if you play up to the climax of the game and then play a bit more, the climax is weakened and the players remember the anti-climactic mopping up more then they remember the actual climax.

In a recent game I ran, I wrote a very simple write up of the game. I wrote down about three important things that were going to happen and then made up the rest on the fly. I wanted the ending to be very climactic, so I wrote out what was going to happen every step of the way. The players like all of the game, with the exception of the ending. It was climactic but my writie up did not leave them with room to do it their own way.

For the next game, I have a scenario where the players (a traveling band of entertainers) get captured by a traveling noble who demands that they entertain him for the rest of the trip. I have that start and a few thing to happening during the game, but I have no idea how to end it. I want there to be a climax of some kind, but I'm just going to try and wing it.

What methods do people use for writing endings and climaxes? Any ideas on how to end my next game?

--Victor

Don't ask us. Ask your players.

Don't ask 'em out loud but ask them by putting them in situations where they have to make choices. Their choices will write the game and write your endings.

If you give the players that choice they will make it complicated and the ending will be a surprise to everyone involved and it'll rock.

Hope that helps.

I would definitely see what your players prefer. You might run two games - one that ends promptly as the climax is resolved and one that handles the full resolution, and see what the players prefer.

For my own groups, I've found that ending with the climax is best. Not only does it end the game at the most interesting and exciting point, but I can use the resolution in the next game to prompt everyone's memory of what happened. So if they kill the giant monster in one session, you start the next session by handling the treasure and villager response. It ties the two sessions together, and it also starts sessions off on a high point of success instead of the usual "OK, here's another problem for you to solve" introduction.

Another advantage is that most games require a fair amount of book-keeping as people tally up treasure, experience, etc. Since there's almost always someone in my groups who shows up late, it lets everyone get involved in something while they're waiting.

I've seen games where, after the ending, there's an epilog written by the GM, telling about what each of the characters did with the rest of their lives. It was nicely mythic, but then it was an Amber game.

The other approach that comes to mind is be the Star Wars ending -- after the Death Star blows up, the immediate next scene is Leia giving everybody medals, and then the credits roll. So in your game, once the Big Bad is dead, you could jump over the whole business of getting back out of the dungeon and back to town and jump right to the celebration in the town square and the grateful populace.

Paka wrote: Don't ask us. Ask your players.

Why don't you let your players actually take part in it, probably on the spot, but perhaps with preparation. You could narrate the conclusion of the PCs walking away into the sunset and the larger events in the world (what happens to the kingdom, the evil henchmen, etc.). Then let each player describe what his character does with the rest of his life, what he's famous for (if anything), and perhaps how he finally dies.

This is what I did with Graal, and players seem to get a kick out of it. Since there are no real consequences to what they say, they can describe very dramatic or very humble ends as they see fit. IMHO, it really sucks if the GM describes an ending for your character that you don't like, and which you go no input into -- and arguing about it just seems petty since the GM is trying to be dramatic, and after all there aren't really any consequences to it (other than your own final appreciation of the game of course!)

Jasper wrote: Why don't you let your players actually take part in it, probably on the spot, but perhaps with preparation. You could narrate the conclusion of the PCs walking away into the sunset and the larger events in the world (what happens to the kingdom, the evil henchmen, etc.). Then let each player describe what his character does with the rest of his life, what he's famous for (if anything), and perhaps how he finally dies.

Well climaxes are maybe a little harder, and depend on what you're players like and on what you've done recently (you can't let things get too stale). A dungeon crawl of course suggests a climactic battle...just think about all the action movies you've ever seen, and maybe throw something cool into the environment: slippery surfaces, dense jungle, pits of fire, columns falling down in the midst of a (PC caused) earthquake, etc. It really depends a lot on your group. What was your first climax exactly?

For post-climax endings, I agree with Paka. You've got to ask the players what they want. Either in advance, or right there on the spot -- though be ready with what you think they might want beforehand.

As a player, I definitely like Epilogues - the climax of High Noon is when Frank Miller is finally shot dead, but the epilogue with Gary Cooper & his new wife leaving town & Cooper throwing his sheriff's star in the dirt really makes the movie. Players like the chance to savour their victory, so as long as the game isn't going to devolve into D&D looting and sheet-updating I would go on, to a final scene - the medals scene in Star Wars is a good example, as is the celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi. The PCs aren't required to 'do' much - maybe after the victorious dungeon-crawl they go back to town, get conngratulated by the mayor, there's a banquet in their honour, they get to flirt with his beautiful daughter (or for warrior women PCs, his handsome son), and fade to credits.

I would say a mix between the two approaches.

If they completed something signifcant, by all means let them be heroes and return to town in triumph.

If it was just another dungeon then let it end when the dust settles on the corpse of the big bad.

Or alternativly in a campaign, end it after the big bad falls, then ask them what they'd like to do next and use this as a lead in to the next session.

As others have already suggested, a brief flash of a reward scene after the showdown is always nice to release tension and provide closure. Get the girl, resign the bloody job, decoration pinned to your chest, what have you. Ask your players for input, too.

As for an actual ending, personally I don't write endings in the sense of scripting options for endings in advance. I tend to present open-ended scenarios to my players, so all sorts of crazy and not-so-crazy things might happen. I have starting conditions, a challenge and an environment in which to play, and I usually have an idea of what will happen assuming that no PCs turn up and affect things. (On a side note, I usually try to have challenges that are meaningful to the PCs and their goals.)
For example in your scenario with the captive entertainers, you have a starting condition: captured PCs and a captor who wants entertainment. An environment: the caravan or whatnot. A challenge: provide entertainment? Escape? Both? In which order? At which point in time? and so forth.

If I were to run this scenario I'd think about some kind of twist or surprise, or escalation. I'd like to offer more detail, but I need more specific information first. What's going to be the consequence of the PCs' either going along or refusing to entertain their captor? What if the PCs just go along and provide entertainment? Is their decision even relevant to how the scenario will continue, or will the things that you are planning to have happen be triggered by outside events?

Hi,

I've found that most players will pull together an exciting endgame on their own. This and other experiences have caused me to change my style of GMing over the years to my current model.

I write down beats I want to hit, which are always one liners like, Merchant Guild tries to kidnap Father Danya. I then write down one liners of information (rumors, clues shit like that) I want to pass on to the players like, Captain Skippy once killed a shark with his bare hands, while in the water. If there are important characters they will be encountering I give them a one line description like, Slavick likes to make others uncomfortable with things he says, then write up the answers to questions I think will come up in the game.

With a basic outline like this I found that I can easily adapt to the changes my Players make to the game/story. It empowers them in play and they tend to enjoy the game more because they are the ones directing it, not me the GM. The endgames then turn out to be much more satisfying for them because they aren't marveling at my cleverness. Instead they are marveling at how things game out.

Keith

Thanks for all the help guys! I'm gonna write up some stats then run the game in a hour or so. If I get any amazing RPG related revelations while doing so, I'll start a new thread.

--Victor