Ending the game at Name level?

[Plane Sailing]

Doug made this comment in another thread, and I didn't want to derail that thread but thought the question might be an interesting one to discuss.

High level play doesn't work, imo. The simplest solution would be to go back to the original system of ending the game at 'name level' - around 10th.

Did anyone here every 'end the game' at Name Level?

I know that we never did... and I didn't see any evidence that it was expected that people would end the game at Name level since from supplement 1 (Greyhawk) onwards there were spell levels known lists leading all the way up to 20th level.

I always played under the assumption that characters could continue to at least 20th level; the only difference with 'Name' level was that since the characters got the ability to build a fortress and raise troops at that point it seemed to naturally segue the game into a more epic 'kingdom building' game.

What about you? Who stopped their game at Name Level and who kept on going?

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

My old 1E group didn't play a 'campaign', so much as a series of unconnected adventures.

We'd get near to the end of an adventure, and we'd say "Does anyone have anything they want to run?", and someone would say "Yeah, I've got a 4th to 7th," and we'd all find a character who fitted the requirements. Some characters might be the same as were in the previous party, or it might be that none were - especially if last week was a 9th level adventure and next week was a 1st-3rd, say.

I don't think anyone ever created a character above 1st level - I know when I first started, I took a 1st level character into a 5th level party (and survived right until the last combat, when the BBEG opened with a fireball... I made my save and ended up at -13!), and for another mid-level game, my father passed on a 4th level cleric he hadn't played in a while.

So I can't really say that we 'stopped' at name level, but the nature of the group meant that more games were played in the 1st-10th range than above it. I can recall our main cleric player crowing about automatic turning of wights when he hit name level, so we definitely didn't consider it a retirement point

-Hyp.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I voted no, with a shift in the game, because that's how we did it the few times the campaign continued that long. However, I've been moving more towards the "prefer a shorter level scale" side of the fence.

I'm currently running an OD&D/Holmes game (just the three little books + house rules and some stuff from Holmes) where I've set the level scale as 1-10:

Most people are "normal men/0-level"
1 - 3 = more skill/experience than average
4 - 7 = you're a 'hero' with a reputation
8 - 10 = you're a 'superhero' -- you're Conan or John Carter

Levels above 10 are possible, but require special conditions (divine/infernal influence, lichdom or magical longevity, etc). There's usually some sort of price that has to be paid, in these cases. Individuals that exceed 10th level tend to be very driven, and often may be obsessed or unbalanced (e.g. mad arch-mages and such).

I'm also running C&C, which doesn't have a fixed upper limit, but has a basic range of 1-12.

 

[Particle_Man]

We just kept going.

 

[Aeric]

Most campaigns used to end around 9th-11th level--what one person I played with called the "glass ceiling" of AD&D. We didn't purposefully end them at that point, it's just that we either finished the grand story arc of the campaign or (more frequently) other issues came up that caused the game to end there.

These days (3.5), they frequently go into the 'teens. I've yet to see anyone actually hit 20, though, much less beyond.

 

[jinx crossbow]

Yes, because mastering above level 12 is to complicated for me!

Jinx

 

[diaglo]

by the time the PCs made name lvl in our campaign they were old. not just old as in we played them in real life a long time. but old as in much time passed in character in the campaign.

they were ready to retire.


although i did convince the group to pull them out of retirement to explore Tomb of Horrors. quickest adventure we ever played. over in 10 minutes realtime

 

[SWBaxter]

Did anyone here every 'end the game' at Name Level?

We usually had campaigns end somewhere in the 9th-12th range, but that wasn't a set-in-stone policy so much as a general realization that from then on some characters wouldn't get much from levelling while others would keep on getting lots of new stuff (mostly spells). We did occasionally play to higher levels, inevitably with parties heavy on the spellcasters.

 

[Flynn]

I tend to run campaigns where characters advance into their teens, if not higher. It's been that way ever since 2nd Edition for me. For that reason, I voted No, but with a change in focus. The game definitely shifts at that point, and we usually spend a level or so realizing that before making the shift in adventure focus. That's been our experience, anyway.

Here's a great thread on adventuring in this zone, what the OP of the thread calls "the sweet spot" of D&D:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170445

There's some great discussions in there in regards to preserving the flavor of that range, and as you read it, you'll probably see why some people feel that stopping at "Name" level is a good idea, at least for their games. I personally agree with a lot of their points, and am mulling them over as I consider my next campaign after burnout recovery.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

 

[WayneLigon]

Very seldom did we ever make it to those levels. In 25+ years I can only recall two campaigns I was in lasting until that point. The campaigns ended simply because it meant we'd been playing D&D for over 18 months and we had to play something else at that point.