The 14th level PCs have slain their thousands, the 18th level PCs their ten thousands

Or: some thoughts on DM expectations of PC competence

So, I was having dinner in a restaurant next to a video game store today, and I could see a trailer for some video game playing on one of the screens in the store. It seemed to be for a game similar to Ninety-Nine Nights, in which one PC effectively takes on an army and wins (given sufficient skill on the part of the player, of course).

It occured to me that given the standard assumptions of gear and so on, high-level D&D PCs will eventually be able to perform such superheroic stunts. However, such a high level of competence may come as a nasty surprise for a DM who fails to realize how much more capable the PCs have become after gaining just a few levels.

So I guess, in a rather round-about way, what I'm wondering about is this: should the game be more explicit about what PCs at each range of levels are likely to be able to do? Should certain types of challenges have a "trivially easy to overcome by a party of level X (or a level X [class])", e.g. once you have a 5th level cleric in a standard four-person party, starvation is almost never a problem.

The standard D&D paradigm of PCs acquiring ever-increasing levels of competence also might not suit all DMs, and an explicit breakdown of what the PCs are expected to be able to do would allow DMs to decide on their individual "sweet spots" where they can end or drag out their campaigns.

What do you think?

It's funny how expectations change. In my game the other night, a player actually said, "I'm almost tapped out. I'm down to two miracles." Sure, he's 22nd level - but his basis for comparison has really changed since 5th level.

I'd love to run a campaign from scratch and keep track of exactly how many creatures the PCs kill.

I agree with you. I think that indeed there are expectations that the user, be it DM of player, comes to know about the game, i.e. locks don't stop PCs of a certain level (if ever), they will have teleportation, wish, miracle available at these levels, be able to read thoughts early on, et cetera.

These expectations are discussed in the DMG, if memory serves, but I don't think they are clearly spelled out and analyzed to provide potential solutions for the reader, which is something lacking.

I've been advocating for a "High Level Campaign Guide" for a long time now, something that would add to the DMG and describe step by step how to run high level and über high level campaigns, debunking all these potential trappings, helping DMs to understand different high-level group configurations, build adventures, dungeons and otherwise, and so on, so forth. I am NOT speaking of an "Epic Level Handbook" - i.e. not so much a need for new feats, crunch, rules, though I'd expect you just can't avoid it if you want the book to sell, but really a complete deciphering of high-level gameplay. The ultimate "how-to", an entire "Behind The Curtain" volume, really.

That'd be awesome.

It will most definately depend on what kind of campaign you would be running.
I can easily see this if my PCs are in a war campaign where they can run through armies of low-leveled soldiers as they advance to higher levels

But i can't really see this if i'm running a epic hero kind of campaign where i would place my PCs against appropriately leveled villains and minions as they advance to higher levels.

I think the DMG also mentions as a guideline that 5% of the encounters in an adventure should have an EL that is easily overcome by a X level party, which supports your paradigm.

questing gm said:

It will most definately depend on what kind of campaign you would be running.
I can easily see this if my PCs are in a war campaign where they can run through armies of low-leveled soldiers as they advance to higher levels

But i can't really see this if i'm running a epic hero kind of campaign where i would place my PCs against appropriately leveled villains and minions as they advance to higher levels.

Click to expand...

I think it's less a matter of how many guys PCs actually kill, and more a statement of capability.

Of course, depending on the campaign, high levels may mean less. If the world is running at a higher level baseline, then powerful characters are less capable in relative terms. Some people seem to peg mature adults at more like 3rd or 5th level instead of 1st. Of course, those kinds of assumptions could (and should!) be discussed in this hypothetical high level campaign guide.

The old second edition High Level Campaigns book still has some good advice, even if much of the mechanical considerations are obsolete.

Odhanan said:

I've been advocating for a "High Level Campaign Guide" for a long time now, something that would add to the DMG and describe step by step how to run high level and über high level campaigns, debunking all these potential trappings, helping DMs to understand different high-level group configurations, build adventures, dungeons and otherwise, and so on, so forth. I am NOT speaking of an "Epic Level Handbook" - i.e. not so much a need for new feats, crunch, rules, though I'd expect you just can't avoid it if you want the book to sell, but really a complete deciphering of high-level gameplay. The ultimate "how-to", an entire "Behind The Curtain" volume, really.

That'd be awesome.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That sounds like a really great idea. Another possibility is to take it from the other end - a list of low-level challenges that become obsolete after certain abilities are gained. Then, DMs who like running these types of scenarios will know where to stop their campaigns, which classes to exclude, or what abilities to avoid or change.

As an idea, they did do that back when the 2nd edition Options books came out. I think it was called DM's Option: High-level campaigns. From what I can remember (it is at home and I am not) it did a lot of the behind the curtains stuff. It discussed making lowly beasties into fearsome opponents and the issues facing higher level play. The mechanics are not 3rd, but since the book does not concentrate on mechanics it should not be an issue.

Later!

mirivor said:

As an idea, they did do that back when the 2nd edition Options books came out. I think it was called DM's Option: High-level campaigns. From what I can remember (it is at home and I am not) it did a lot of the behind the curtains stuff. It discussed making lowly beasties into fearsome opponents and the issues facing higher level play. The mechanics are not 3rd, but since the book does not concentrate on mechanics it should not be an issue.

Later!

Click to expand...

I have that book and there's some good advice in it (as well as some pretty useless chapters too), but we need something for 3.x!


Richard

Victim said:

I think it's less a matter of how many guys PCs actually kill, and more a statement of capability.

Click to expand...

Well, i didn't mean to take it very literally. What i was trying to say was if whether the scope of the campaign shows the relevance of expected high-level capability.

As for how to handle high-level gaming, i would first admit that i have not much experience in that field since my players rarely get up to high levels.

But...maybe we can use this for starters ?
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=192739

Victim said:

Some people seem to peg mature adults at more like 3rd or 5th level instead of 1st.

Click to expand...

I tend to do that, although they tend to be 3rd-5th level commoners with average to sub-average attributes and no combat skills to speak of. Still, I'm not adverse to the notion of a whole army of 3rd level fighters, albiet again with near average attributes.

This practice came about from the proposition that training and practice ought to be worth something in terms of experience. I started with the proposition that an adult might earn 1 xp per day on average, and might work 300 days a year. In ten years, you'd have 3000 xp. In 20 years, 6000 xp and so forth.

Of course, this proposition worked alot better when the distance between levels was exponential. In third edition, this proposition if it were general leads to problems with really long lived races being average 15th level or some such.