High Level Play - The Eternal Question

[Coroc]

Another aspect: imho very good systems for long running campains are those without levels, CoC, Symbaroum, Delta Green, or those with slightly other mechanics like DSA.
D&D in all of its editions either was getting imbalanced (original, 1e, 2e) or just linear wit more and more effort to handle encounters (3,5e and i guess 4e). 5e i do see as less problematic than all of those former editions, if you handle it well and do not use the ssumptions of the former editions. It still can get derailed pretty easy and reuires loads of prep but less effort on the table.

 

[dbm]

I selected ‘I enjoy high level play’, however the situation is of course more nuanced than that.

I would agree that D&D (especially later editions) is pretty poor at supporting high-level play. As you level up, you mostly just get a bigger gun to shoot things with / stick to whack them with. BECMI at least pointed out the way that adventures were expected to shift focus from the dungeon to wilderness to realms and ultimately planes. I don’t see a huge amount of that in 5e but I could easily be missing things in some of the adventures.

There are other systems which handle this well, for sure. With its ‘troupe’ style play Ars Magica makes having essentially high-level characters (the mages) and low-level characters (grogs) side-by-side work and the play can focus on either direction based on what is happening. The system encourages a very diverse range of adventures with investigation, exploration and intrigue being more important which also helps with that multi-level feel IMO.

Another system which handles this well IMO and with a different approach, is Savage Worlds. As a default, Savage Worlds characters start of capable and end up somewhat heroic but they never reach super-heroic capabilities. So the character progression is flattened and ‘high advance’ characters can’t routinely ignore stuff in the same way that high-level D&D characters might. But the interesting trick is how Savage Worlds has implementations that shift this power curve while retaining the contained span. Using the Super Powers Companion you can start off with city-level powers or higher and the span of growth is still there but it doesn’t overwhelm the game engine. Savage Rifts is another example, in that implementation a starting character could be a baby dragon or a glitter boy with tank-busting armour and the system still allows for growth without collapsing.

So I definitely enjoy high level play. I just make sure I look for systems which are set up well for it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It can be fun in a fantasy setting if it's earned. If the PCs have grown from 1st-level to high level by great RP from the players (and a lot of luck), that can be rewarding.

Our table is experiencing this now...
10-year campaign, lost 3 of the original 5 players (they have been replaced of course) but their characters still play a role within the storyline - directly or indirectly, lots of history and previous story elements to draw from.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't find very high levels satisfying. I also don't find very low levels satisfying.

As a player, I enjoy playing complex characters, and typically at very low levels I purposefully choose feats or abilities that increase the complexity of play, especially when I have chosen a class that isn't a spellcaster. After a certain level however the amount of character stuff becomes unwieldy to manage, and there are few opt-out options. I just don't like having to wade through too many choices, but I also don't like giving up and ignoring part of my abilities, whether because it takes too much time/effort, or because some of them have become too weak to be relevant. What makes it even worse, is that the last few editions of D&D have made level advancement linear with number of game sessions, and this often doesn't give the players enough time to properly learn how to play really well with their abilities at a given level... because it's soon time to level up again! IMXP almost every player ends up downplaying their character somewhat... even though this is compensated by the DM downplaying the monsters which also are sometimes too complex at very high CR.

On the other hand, I do want high level adventures to be more challenging than low level ones. That used to be the principle of "levels" in the games I grew up with: the higher the level, the better player you needed to be to succeed. But just increasing the burden of bookkeeping or managing a large character sheet or endless spellbook doesn't quite cut it for me in terms of the kind of challenge I would want, so the frustration that comes with it makes it not worth.

I also generally had enough of "save the world scenarios" which are a staple of high level play, just like I had enough of "clear the cellars from rats scenarios" of very low level play. Both of them seems to be very popular, but it is for very different reasons. I don't want for sure to play at high levels the same stories we play at low levels, but certainly there has to be room for different narratives than saving the world.

Looking at this from a DM's perspective, it just feels as burdensome. I don't want to give my players a "save the world scenario" but I am not good enough to come up with truly inspiring and compelling stories. I want them to encounter bigger challenges that require more difficult decisions compared to what is good enough at low levels, but end up just having a scaled-up game of doing the same things. All the while I am also very afraid of running high-level monsters either too poorly (with underwhelming results) or too properly (while the players maybe aren't doing the same and end up badly).

For these reasons, I tend to stay in my goldilock levels, maybe something starting with Tier 2 and ending somewhere in the middle of Tier 3, in the current edition it could be level 3 to 12.

 

[GrimCo]

Personally, i like high level play in small doses, be it as DM be it as Player. On DM side, if i run high level game, it will be one shot or short (4-6 sessions) adventure. In those cases i encourage my players to go all out, make most broken uber combos and channel full power of their inner munchkins. As a player, i like those games to test out multiclass builds and concepts.

For longer campaigns, high level play takes much more effort. First off, characters have way more abilities for people to learn and remember to use. On the DM side, encounter bulding requires more nuance, taking into consideration party composition and such, so not to go too much on eather side (too deadly or too easy). Then there is world building. I just don't dig worlds with bunch of high level NPCs and critters going around. That's why i never particularly liked Forgotten Realms. So, in my settings, lv 12+ characters are movers and shakers, when they speak, even nobles and rulers listen (cause that lv 18 wizard, a joe nobody lowborn peasant, is walking talking nuclear bomb that can decimate whole regiments alone). Factions, plots, politics, intrigue, all the stuff D&D is not good at, that is bread and butter of high level play, at least in my settings. They don't go into dungeon, the are ones sending low level adventurers into dungeons.

I won't say i prefer low level, so much as i prefer low power, more grounded, dark fantasy. I like characters that are competent, imposing in 1v1 combat, but still "weak" enough to feel like regular mortals. In comic talk, power level up to peak human/low superhuman. In 5e, that would be levels 3-8.

 

[the Jester]

To be clear, I'm talking about epic levels here, whatever that means in a given edition.

I love high level play. I wish it was better supported- the edition that had the best high level support is also, sadly, the least-loved (4e). But it really had the basic premise where I want it for DnD- the pcs are larger than life and are moving toward a sort of campaign immortality. One of the old 4e pcs from my game, for instance, is the ruler of the 2nd Hell. Another is lord of a moon. That kind of thing.

The thing is, it's really hard to support high level play with published material because it should reference the entire campaign up to that point. It should be the culmination of what has come before. High level adventures should be very tightly tailored to the specific pcs involved. A generic epic level adventure might be a great adventure, but is it great for a specific group?

 

[sevenbastard]

I won't say i prefer low level, so much as i prefer low power, more grounded, dark fantasy. I like characters that are competent, imposing in 1v1 combat, but still "weak" enough to feel like regular mortals.

Agreed.

I ran a long 5e campaign and we got to level 12 and 13 and it was fine. Because it took over 100 sessions to get there the power felt earned and they could play there charachters efficiently, but it was a lot of teleporting and ither magical shenanigans that just didn't fit the vibe I was going for.

The campaign was at its best in the mid levels when it felt powerful but not super powers

 

[Vrindlevine]

Factions, plots, politics, intrigue, all the stuff D&D is not good at, that is bread and butter of high level play, at least in my settings.

I do this stuff all the time, both when I primarily used DnD and now using a system that is at the very least DnD adjacent, I never really felt it was bad at it. Most of that faction/plots/social what-have-yous involves roleplaying which basically every system is good at. I would say the greatest factor in that sort of content is the GM, players and scenario, not the system.

To be clear, I'm talking about epic levels here, whatever that means in a given edition.

Epic levels are sort of a totally different story then high-levels. I should do a threat on that at some point, its also pretty much a DnD only questions, or at least I only have experience with epic levels in DnD.

I love high level play. I wish it was better supported- the edition that had the best high level support is also, sadly, the least-loved (4e). But it really had the basic premise where I want it for DnD- the pcs are larger than life and are moving toward a sort of campaign immortality. One of the old 4e pcs from my game, for instance, is the ruler of the 2nd Hell. Another is lord of a moon. That kind of thing.

The thing is, it's really hard to support high level play with published material because it should reference the entire campaign up to that point. It should be the culmination of what has come before. High level adventures should be very tightly tailored to the specific pcs involved. A generic epic level adventure might be a great adventure, but is it great for a specific group?

Aye outside of Paizo there is little support for published high-level adventures. Which I think reinforces both lack of content and lack of experience being a big issue.

I won't say i prefer low level, so much as i prefer low power, more grounded, dark fantasy. I like characters that are competent, imposing in 1v1 combat, but still "weak" enough to feel like regular mortals. In comic talk, power level up to peak human/low superhuman. In 5e, that would be levels 3-8.

This is certainly a challenge I am running into with one of my current game. Its tough to run something more grounded when the world has to hit back so hard to match the players.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I had a couple of segments on my Talk Show this week about Deadfall, WOTC's latest adventure which starts at 11th level, and my own tips for running high level 5e games.

One argument that completely falls apart for me is the "there's not enough high level support for D&D 5e or more people would play it" argument. This is false in a lot of ways:

• The core books all go to 20th level and have content for all those levels including lots of huge CR20+ monsters.
• WOTC has now released four high-level campaign adventures: Rise of Tiamat, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Vecna Eve of Ruin, and now Deadfall. There are plenty of high-level adventures.

In my opinion, high level 5e is a pain in the ass. Mostly this comes from the massive shift DMs have to take to keep the story interesting and challenging as the characters gain new world-breaking abilities. This starts as early as level 7 when we start to see huge monsters banished on a single bad saving throw or polymorphed into a gopher or whatever. DMs have to really rethink what adventures really are as characters travel up the levels and that takes a lot of work. Also, the game slows way down which makes table management harder.

I have more thoughts and tips for running high level stuff in my video:


or the ad-free podcast!

Arcana Unleashed Deadfall — Lazy RPG Talk Show | The Lazy RPG Podcast - D&D and RPG News and GM Prep from Sly Flourish

D&D and RPG news and commentary by Mike Shea of https://slyflourish.com Contents 00:00:00 Show Start 00:00:57 Sly Flourish News: Procedures and What Excites You 00:04:19 Patreon Spotlight: Tomb of the Red Headsman 00:06:26 Kickstarter Spotlight: Good Society Second Edition 00:09:35 Kickstarter...

slyflourish.podbean.com

I also bet @mearls may have some thoughts about it.

 

[Vrindlevine]

One argument that completely falls apart for me is the "there's not enough high level support for D&D 5e or more people would play it" argument. This is false in a lot of ways:

I think that argument that I typically see is twofold.

1. That scenarios were not there at release, as you say this has been partially solved now though 4 adventures is not a ton. IIRC Rise of Tiamat (the one out on release) only goes to 15 which is generally considered just the start of high level play and 5e had poor monster balance in the early days (just like 4e!). Both Vecna and Deadfall came out over 10 years after 5e's initial release. That is a pretty big gulf.
2. There is not a lot of support for teaching GM's how to design and run there own high-level content, something like the Epic Level Handbook for 5e would have done wonders. Maybe the DMG has some decent advice, though I have not read 5e's iteration, 3.5's did I think.