>>43789239
Why are the games fizzling out?

Do you give up trying?
Do you never gather for another session?
Do the other players' investment in the game don't match yours?

>>43789239
Space your games out enough to get excited for each new session.
Get players that don't make running the game seem like a chore.
Run a player driven campaign.
Any combination of above.

>>43789315
What;s a player driven campaign?

>>43789376
On that has the players' agenda as a driving force behind the game's progress. A more focused subset of sandbox, if you will.

>>43789266
Yeah, it's hard for us to gather for another session because at least one person fails to show up. That's not really such a big deal but it may detract from my own investment.

I'm thinking (based on last session) that wrapping up a story is quite a lot harder then starting it. We played Call of Cthulhu and I threw some mysterious shit their way, but I could find a good way to introduce the monster and decided to postpone it until next session.

And I didn't come up with a clever way to do it yet. Also I kinda fucked up by giving more clues: I gave out some of the clues from the module and also the clues for an alternate version on the events of the module I wrote the night before. Well... I gave out one piece of evidence that is superfluos and I didn't really come up with a good explanation for it YET.

I want to finish it just because I hate not ever finishing an adventure.

>>43789408
Huh, I heard about this but have never tried. My schtick is telling mysterious stories ... with a twist in the end. Except no one makes it to the end and the twist is probably dumb. Maybe I should just stop lol. I have the best time with more humorous down-to-earth misadventure type shit.

>>43789487
Just remember that you're the GM. You don't need to give reasons as to why something happened, it just did. Provide superfluous info and details for sure, and follow up if the PCs focus on it, but otherwise just leave it there as just a piece of the world and move on. Don't worry yourself by thinking you have to create an elaborate reasoning as to why and how, and don't stress over leaving things unexplained, sometimes the best reasons can even come from the party and their actions.

>>43789487
edit: I could NOT find a way to introduce the monster

>>43789239

You need some more reflection and self-awareness here. There are lots of reasons games fizzle.

I know a guy I've been playing with for decades. He is a brilliant player, fun and good guy, definitely someone I'm proud to have in my group. He's run a few games over the years, and always the best players turn out to support him. The first game is inevitably great: wonderful mood, evocative setting, plenty of preparation, lots of good drama. But then there's NEVER a second game. Ever.

It took years before I realized what was happening. He's a great craftsman, but not a great improviser. There was always a moment in his games when someone does something unexpected and it throws him off. He can muddle the rest of the way through the game, but has no idea how to get things back on track, or how to roll with the change and incorporate it into his story. He'd be a great storyteller, but he's simply lacking an essential GM skill.

Other possibilities:

Perhaps you love the prep and build-up, but just can't bring yourself to care about actually running the game at the table. Either because you're a world-builder rather than a game-runner, or because you want your story and don't like adulterating it with your friends' input.

Perhaps you're not doing a good job drawing people in. Your friends show up to give you a chance and are polite, but then don't want to keep playing.

Not everyone is cut out to be a GM, or even wants the job. You can still be a great player or world-builder or storyteller but not have the skill or interest to actually run a game. No shame in that.

>>43789487

That sounds like a perfectionist. A GM needs to be able to balance the need to be a great game with the need to have any game. That means the ability to improvise (including handling a missing player or a screwup in your ), the ability to handle emotional/social/intellectual setbacks, and the

You mentioned that you wrote a module. Modules are dangerous IMO, because they teach bad GMing skills. Extensive preparation in advance is a very good thing (especially in a game like GURPS which pretty much demands it), but roleplaying is a collaborative exercise. A pre-written module excises the players from contributing to the story if it's followed too slavishly. A good GM has the ability to take a player's idea and run with it so seamlessly that they wonder if it was really their idea or yours.

Trying to script it, even with elaborate flowcharting, is bad for them and for you. A) you'll never anticipate every contingency, and B) you're denying your players a chance to contribute. You need to be able to be in charge without being in complete control. That's a learned skill, and it's not always easy.

In this case, what's worse: Not doing the perfect reveal that shows off your cleverness? Or having the campaign never finish?

>>43790722
One thing I learned as a DM is that improvisation and preperation go hand in hand. Not even as a DM, now that I think of it, but as a student. I'm great at presentations, if I have prepared well and know everything about the subject. Then I can just arrange it any way I see fit, make jokes to segue one bit into another, and play with the audience a little. Unprepared, I'm a stuttering, bumbling wreck.

I noticed my games had a lot more character when I was properly prepared. Because improvisation isn't just about making stuff up on the spot. It's also re-arranging stuff you already had.

>>43790722
>>43790799
>>43790808

I realize the importance of improvisation skills, although I'm not going to tell you that I'm great at it. I definitely had some railroading gone bad situations over the years. I also had some great improve sessions that I myself enjoyed a lot. That one game of Ars Magica I ran, man that was fun. Perhaps because I wasn't trying to be perfect at everything, I was just happy people showed up over and over to play my game. Also there was a lot of reacting to players actions. It's hard for me to improvise without either at least a vague plan or some player input.

But after that I do think I started being more of a perfectionist. Also I usually try to prepare a lot of handouts and maps and shit for my players (I have to translate them into Russian if I'm using a published thing) which burns me out fast lol. I'm just afraid to not be prepared for stuff, I want vivid NPCs (and I know they tend to be very samey)...

Of course it's better to have a game going even if it's not going perfectly then to have no game at all.

>>43791207

The main thing is to lose the perfectionism. For some people, it's a kind of hesitancy that makes it hard for them to do good work. For others, it's really that they're a control freak and they think the players always ruin their brilliant story. Either way, it's an obstacle.

I like the handouts! Keep it up. But don't let them trap you. You put a lot of work into making it, so it sucks if you don't use it. So there's a temptation to railroad your players into seeing your great work. Have lots of handouts ready, but use them sparingly. Also, they can sometimes clue your players into whether they're On Track or not by whether it feels like you've prepped for what they're doing. Which is sometimes a problem if players use that information to metagame.

I'd practice your improv skills. Have you tried joining a local improv theater group? If you're in college, it's A) a great way to develop your DM skills, B) a great way to develop your social skills in general, C) a great way to meet new potential players for your group, and D) a great way to meet hot and sexually liberated girls.