Do you write an ending for your campaign before you begin? During? Never...

Do you write an ending for your campaign before you begin? During? Never? If you've written an ending for a campaign before, and had it end, how did it compare to non-planned endings?

If you're the kind of guy who's prone to writing campaign endings, here's what you do:
Type out the ending you want to see in double spaced lines with a serif font, and send it to your printer. Take the printout that you get and just walk over and throw it in the trash, because the players are going to ruin any chance of it ever happening, likely within five minutes of the first session..

I constantly hear people say this but I have never experienced it in all the games that I run.

I always write endings for my adventures and other DMs I've played with have planned out the ending of their game.

You just gotta be vague and it's super easy.

Your players are probably accustomed to staying on the rails, then. Have fun, I guess.

Then maybe you're railroading your players too much. I dont write endings, I write villains. Factions. Artifacts. Describe the primary forces of conflict within the campaign and the people behind that conflict but dont write an ending in the way that a book has an ending. How do you know your players will end it that way? Just write villains with plausible goals and the resources to act on those goals and have them react to what the players do.

Or at least thats what I do. If it works for your group fine, but I dont write endings,

My players stay on the "rails" for the most part, but when they derail it is logical and in-character... and also the single most destructive thing they could possible do.

Everything from choosing the most story important and dangerous path and curb stomping it with perfect rolls to accidentally sparking a rebellion and being forced to hide and use intelligent tactics to avoid them and escape to a comfy life out in the country.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in writing an ending for your story, so long as you are prepared to revise it and re-revise it ยด- writing an ending might even be necessary for a one-off or shorter campaign with a very clear plot progression. If you're playing an open world, it's-up-to-you, sorta grand campaign thingy it would be downright insulting to your players to write an ending though, and i assume that's why there's such a toxic response from Veeky Forums about this sort of thing. Players are very sensitive about their narrative freedom after all

This guy here has the right idea.
Definitely make sure that your antagonists and factions have an end-game that they're likely to achieve if the players don't intervene, but writing a story from the outset will probably lead to railroading.
No plan survives contact with the enemy (ie. the players)

I will normally have a sketch of where I think the campaign is likely to end (really rough stuff like the PC's uncover the plot, confront bad guy probably with the intent of killing them) but if the players are finding other parts of the campaign or other ways towards a conclusion I pick up those ideas and shape the campaign around them. Why I should I punish players for having fun?

Also if the players get involved in an aspect of the campaign and you reward them by focusing more on what they like they'll give you a lot more to work with as they develop their characters. I've rewritten campaigns on the fly because something I thought would be a fun diversion was better than the main plot.

Rocks fall, everyone dies.

Why do you say that?

This

It's better to write a general plot arc that will roll forward to a certain conclusion on it's own. (Usually the BBEG's plan) In between the beginning and end of said plot the players are free to do what they want, keep the details loose and adjust how the story plays out according to their actions. If they choose to goof off, (ala the infamous story of the party that strove for gay rights only to die when the evil lich they failed to stop laid waste to the kingdom.) then they lose. This too is a valid ending.

The key is never making the plot rely on player actions to move forward.

Doing it before is foolhardy. During, I HAVE done--I have certain endings, plural, I'd love to see, but they're so regularly rewritten by the players' actions that they might as well be in the Never category to begin with.

Journey > Destination

>The key is never making the plot rely on player actions to move forward.


This. Though I would also add that its important to included player motivations into the plot.

Depends. If I am running a sandbox, all of the plots will have possible endings but the pc's will determine how and when some or all of them stop.

If I am running a campaign with a major arc, ten the ending is a concept (as simple as "pc's confront bbeg") until it gets more and more definition by the campaign's adventures.

If i'm running a short campaign, then most o the scenes are probably pre-planned but flexible enough to accommodate pc wrangling.

I know I can't give my players absolute free will but so long as I give them enough to let them affect the story in significant ways, then we're all happy.

Of course. Moving the plot forward without relying on player actions doesn't mean taking away their agency, just that something will happen even if they do nothing.

I planned out what I thought would end the campaign, but the PCs slept in and missed the encounter. Then they moved out of the country and we ended the campaign in a more peaceful place. Shit still went down in the timeline though.

It's somewhere between a pre-planned ending and .

Have an ending in mind, but don't solidify it or have your heart set on it.

At the end of any major arc or event that's going to change things, look at it and revise your end scenario.

Keep a broadened view of the situation. What you'll find is that there's a similar end scenario that will organically take its place, or at least a logical extension or consequence.

I don't think of it in terms of "endings" I think of it in terms of goals.

What does the BBEG want and what is it willing to do to get there? what happens if they succeed fully? what happens if they succeed only in part, and what happens if the fail utterly?

I find it helps if your BBEG's plots don't revolve around "destroying the world" or other apocalyptic machinations.

> my game always ends precisely as I want them to
> my players are allowed total freedom of choice and are creative and broad in their adventuring experience

one of these things is not like the other.

Not really.

Maybe the games have a story design meant to act as a funnel, guiding people towards a singular ending.

Or maybe their 'wants' aren't that specific.

I barely write anything beforehand, but basically.

I tend to run short campaigns which are build around singular well defined premise, which usually includes some sort of idea about the end.
If the campaign is about some quest or task, then the default end is players succeeding on that task.