30 and out?

[Number48]

Let me first say that I am positive that 5E will allow you to play either way, but what should the default be?

Do you like and think we should hold onto a targeted end for a campaign? 30 and out, although it might be 20 or 40 in 5E. Personally I like the planned end. Without it, some campaigns might never wrap things up and there is something satisfying about saying, "we finally did it." The alternative is that the campaign will break down before the story is done because the story is never done and the campaign will break down eventually.

 

[Gryph]

I don't think the rules should explicitly address it. Campaign end (at what ever level) is the purview of the local table.

 

[Herschel]

I liked when they brought 30 & out. Some campaigns ended after Heroic, some after Paragon, others at 30, or you could make stuff up to go farther if you want. There's always going to be an end to the published works so why not make it transparent?

 

[DEFCON 1]

30 and out worked for 4E because they specifically fluffed it that way. The whole point of choosing an Epic Destiny fluff-wise was to put you on a path towards your eventual ascension and/or retirement from the game. "You are trying to become a Demigod... here's the path you are taking to reach that point".

If you don't fluff a set of levels towards a goal or end point like that... sure, you could have the game continue ad infinitum. The question at that point though is what is gained by continuing, and not having a fluffed "wrap-up" for your character in place? Is it just to gain more "stuff" with each increase in level?

 

[Alzrius]

Let me first say that I am positive that 5E will allow you to play either way, but what should the default be?

Do you like and think we should hold onto a targeted end for a campaign? 30 and out, although it might be 20 or 40 in 5E. Personally I like the planned end. Without it, some campaigns might never wrap things up and there is something satisfying about saying, "we finally did it." The alternative is that the campaign will break down before the story is done because the story is never done and the campaign will break down eventually.

It's hard to say, because both ways have advantages and disadvantages, both in terms of mechanics and in the assumptions that go along with them.

3E had unlimited leveling, and 1E did as well provided that you were of the right race/class combination. This let you set your own end for when a campaign "should" stop (that is, you never had to cease playing because you hit the hard cap on levels). But as you leveled more, there were increasing assumptions about the relative power level in the campaign world. If you could reach level 40 in five years of in-game time, why weren't there level 100 mentors around? Why was a level 50 encounter considered a world-wide threat, etc.?

2E, 4E, and BECM (notwithstanding the I) had a hard cap on the levels you could gain (though 2E's wasn't stated in the PHB, but came later on). This allowed for a clear end-point to the campaign, and let you design the game world based on a clear universal designation of power (the Immortals set did this too, but simply stacked on top of fixed levels). However, it also meant that you didn't have the freedom to explore themes that couldn't be adequately addressed in the set structure of the game (e.g. you're just fighting bigger demons at level 30, but not an undead planet, since that's beyond what level 30 is built to handle). Likewise, it shut you down if you wanted to keep the game going past the limit.

Level caps, and their implications on world design and epic-level gaming, are like the rest of the game in that they don't have a "right answer." There are different play styles, and different gamers prefer different ones.

 

[SKyOdin]

I for one like the hard cap on levels at the end of the Epic tier that 4E had. It prevented the crazy power level creep that perpetually kept the most powerful foes outside of actual fightable range. 3E Eberron for example fell into game design trap where the major setting big bads were all level 50-100 or so; they just had random big numbers given for their levels simply to sound impressive on paper.

I for one prefer it when people create a setting or campaign and actually have their main villains in the realm of reasonable fightability without causing the game to invert itself.

 

[Alzrius]

3E Eberron for example fell into game design trap where the major setting big bads were all level 50-100 or so; they just had random big numbers given for their levels simply to sound impressive on paper.

You mean the Lords of Dust? They were designed using 3E's Deities and demigods, which did have internal design consistency. True, it was still a poor design, but the numbers weren't randomly generated, and weren't just to sound impressive. Sul Khatesh, for example, was designed to be a rank 7 lesser deity in power.

 

[Hassassin]

I don't think a campaign's end should usually have anything to do with a specific level.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I like having a central power scale (1-20, 1-30, whatever it is), but there probably should be some capacity to extend beyond it, for those who want it.

This was done (in my opinion) rather poorly for 3E. I think a new "epic level" book should bring in the fluff lessons from 4e - suggesting destinies and finishing scales and so forth - but they should be optional rather than required (just so the option is there for those who wish to theoretically gain levels forever).

And it should definitely be in supplemental material: I think the only issue for the "core" books is the size of the assumed level scope (1-20 in 3e, 1-30 in 4e), and the decision whether or not to state that a hard cap is mandated (which I think would be a mistake, best left to individual tables).

 

[howandwhy99]

There are a few ways for our game to end, by the player perspective.

The first, of course, is retirement. "I'm gonna stop playing Madscar" Okay, he becomes an NPC. Or whatever else you do to finish him up in the world.

The second is death, without resurrection or reincarnation, etc. Your PC dies; you start over with a new one. You can do both this and aim to rez your old PC, but death is one way to finish.

A third is natural death. This marks the end of the campaign and some of the game design itself and its balancing are based upon reaching this point. PCs start at the cusp of adulthood (or optionally later) and age until they reach the predetermined time at which they die. And there's no coming back from that (except maybe as an NPC ghost, messenger of the gods, etc.)