D&D @ High Levels = No Problem?

DM_Jeff · May 15, 2008

I am one who has had no problem with grappling, attacks of opportunity, running monsters or all the other moaning pitfalls so many find fault with in D&D 3.X.

This deals with high-level D&D play. Not epic, just high level. What's wrong with me that my 3.X campaigns had one end at 15th level, one at 17th level, and one at 19th level and they ran to that point with no problems? Or, what am I doing right? So many complain that the game 'breaks down' after 10th level and usually point that the DM looses his mind and can't hack it.

It's not the work, because in two of those campaigns the work was done for me by running adventures I tweaked here and there. But one, the 17th level one, was me stringing together plots and sometimes running published adventures intertwined with stuff I had to make up. The combats got a little bigger, but only in that everyone had bigger weapons and spells to use. We never found combat taking any longer, it just moved everything up on the scale. It might be my players, who are mostly very table-savvy and don't abuse their high level status in the campaign.

If the DM can't be bothered to know what his players can do or be bothered to look up the new powers his monsters have that can't be blamed on the game system, can it? I mean, the stat blocks are bigger, but with a highlighter, a few minutes of homework and some strategy notes you're ready to rock.

You may even ask why did those campaigns stopped when they did. They stopped because the story/campaign arc was over! The only thing about high level play I may find problematic is campaign realism. In that you have to keep finding bigger and bigger things to hit the party with until eventually it dawns on you that this creature/thing/cult could have taken over a nation already. If you can solve that problem, then that's not an issue either.

So, ask questions, or tell us your foibles with high level play. Or even better if you have shortcuts or tricks to making high level play easier, let's hear it. Maybe we can all solve some problems.

-DM Jeff

Piratecat · May 15, 2008

Nothing's wrong with you, ya showoff! My high level game ran really smoothly, too. The math is starting to be a little annoying now that we're in the epic area (lvl 23-24), but I loved the levels between 15 and 20.

arwink · May 15, 2008

My take has always been this: Some high-level games certainly *seemed* like more work than others, but I think that has more to do with the fact that the work-to-fun ratio was out of balance.

High-level play is awesome when I'm running a game for a small, tight-knit group that's was interested in the campaign world and knew what they were capable of. The road-testing of abilities, changing tactics, and constant surprises as people pulled something new out of their bag of tricks made it fun.

However, running high-level DnD for a group that has players who aren't particularly interested in the mechanical side of things / engaging with the world or campaign arc means that the campaign seems like work. Not necessarily because people aren't having fun, but because I feel like I'm doing more paperwork in the background in order to keep people playing exactly the same game they could have been playing at lower levels.

boerngrim · May 15, 2008

I honestly can't say that I know if high level play is more difficult. Despite playing and DMing for about 16 years, I've never played or DMed a game that made it much higher than 10th to 12th level. I've wanted to, but it never seems to work out. It's been my experience that the problem is more with holding a group together long enough to reach high levels. My first groups were transitory because most of us were in the military, and people get reassigned, deployed or leave the service. I've also run into a problem with players and DMs with short attention spans, who want to try a new character, new setting, new story line, or even a different game. I would love to play in or run a long term campaign. It's one of the gaming experiences I feel I've really missed out on.

Chimera · May 15, 2008

boerngrim said:
I've also run into a problem with players and DMs with short attention spans, who want to try a new character, new setting, new story line, or even a different game.

Biggest problem I've run into, besides the "holding the group together long enough" issue he also mentioned.

My previous group, I quit because I never knew from week to week what game we were going to play. The GM kept dumping games and game systems to try something new. But then again, he also had some severe communications issues along the same lines. I strongly dislike not knowing what we're doing until I show up. Or repeatedly showing up to find the game has been cancelled and he didn't get around to telling me.

The game/group before that was only set to go to a certain level before the GM wanted to move on and play other games. A couple of previous games/groups were like that too. At a certain point, I start to consider it Bait-and-Switch. Like they're only playing D&D, or that specific campaign, to draw in new players. Once they know you and got you in their group, suddenly they decide they want to dump the game you're having fun with and play their super vicious grim-n-gritty dark world where you get killed every other week; or now they've had enough time to know that they're only going to invite two players of the six to their next game, which is an obscure Indy game that sold 600 copies.

To be sure, I've met a fair number of GMs who insist that the game is unplayable above a certain level - that being a fluid number that depends on the GM - and they won't even try to play above it. I find that really annoying, especially since a couple of people who've said that to me have no experience attempting to run a game at that level.

an_idol_mind · May 15, 2008

The only problem I've seen with high-level campaigns comes if the DM has a need to know every spell or skill rank that a given custom creature/NPC uses. Unless it's an NPC who will be around for a while, I usually make a note as to the main attacks and most used abilities, winging the rest of the stuff. For those who don't feel comfortable doing that, I can understand how the prep time could get overwhelming.

EDIT: I guess it might be worth mentioning that I do stop advancement at 20th level. Not because I feel that the game breaks down at epic levels, mind you -- I simply haven't tested that. It's mainly because I think the abilities available at 20th level mark a good peak of mortal power -- moving beyond that means moving toward godhood or something that simply can't be measured in levels. I would guess that some DMs have a lower threshhold of what they want to consider peak mortal achievement, be it 6th or 10th or 15th level, and that might influence their view of higher-level play as well.

ShadowDenizen · May 15, 2008

My previous group, I quit because I never knew from week to week what game we were going to play. The GM kept dumping games and game systems to try something new. But then again, he also had some severe communications issues along the same lines. I strongly dislike not knowing what we're doing until I show up.

Interesting.
My group routinely decides what we play on the day we play!
It doesn't phase any of us; we're lucky enough to have people willing to try anything.

We have an ongoing "Age of Worms" and "Savage Tide" games, and we're currently considering playing "Pathfinder [RotRL]", "Mutants and Masterminds", "Call of Cthulhu" and "Amethyst" (the new D20 setting.) If I can get a copy of "Dread", I'd love to spring that on the group as well!

I think the key is that we really enjoy hanging out together, and the gaming is just a bonus!

wolff96 · May 15, 2008

My issue with high-level game play is the time involved. A single, relatively short combat can take a great deal of real-time to resolve.

It doesn't help that several of my players love highly complex, highly tactical characters and are always looking for EXACTLY the right spell, grapple, full attack, or whatnot.

It's hard to maintain interest around the table for the entire group when each person's turn can take several minutes to resolve -- even *after* they figure out exactly what their character is doing.

I can deal with (what I see as) the super-heroic levels of power their characters have acheived. It just bugs me that if I'm running two or three combats, that's an entire session right there.

TerraDave · May 15, 2008

You are not getting responses, because we are all over in the 4E forum

Yes, I have found in 3E, as the level gets higher, the more annoying I find DMing. Prep is harder, combat swingier, and the players need to put in more effort to "get with it". I have come to intensely dislike the stat blocks in the MM (and other books) and all the cross-referencing required.

Some of this is not new to 3E (staying on top of spells and spell like abilities has always been a hastle), and I do think that 3E does scale (much) better then past editions. I can certainly challenge them, and I have some very strong non-spellcasting pcs...then again, at this stage they really, really need those spell-casters, but that is ok.

I any case, I do find it annoying, and I am looking forward to doing something else. Soon.

Psion · May 15, 2008

DM_Jeff said:
I am one who has had no problem with grappling, attacks of opportunity, running monsters or all the other moaning pitfalls so many find fault with in D&D 3.X.

This deals with high-level D&D play. Not epic, just high level. What's wrong with me that my 3.X campaigns had one end at 15th level, one at 17th level, and one at 19th level and they ran to that point with no problems? Or, what am I doing right? So many complain that the game 'breaks down' after 10th level and usually point that the DM looses his mind and can't hack it.

Never had a particular problem either. I figure it's some combination of exaggeration, histrionics, or simply different capabilities and preferences.