I refuse to DM 3/3.5 past 7th level. How about you?

[Pants]

I've DMed a game up to level 14-15 before and it was still fun. The focus of the game changes, but that's to be expected.

I'd love to do it again, hell, I'd love to actually have a character get up to that level sometime. The amount of versitility you have and the foes you face at those levels is, IMO, great.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I just had a character in my campaign crack 22nd level, and the fun hasn't stopped since level 1 back at the turn of the century (I love using that phrase).

And I've been gaming since the mid 80's, but the old school ways of 1E and 2E don't interfere with the fun (for me, at any rate).

J. Grenemyer

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted that my limit is around 15, but I already get somewhat nervous around 12...

The two most significant problems I had when I tried to DM at high levels, have been:
(1) save-or-die spells/abilities possessed by the monsters; usually the players don't like to suffer these effects on long-running characters, but monsters get these abilities earlier than the PCs, and should use them at their best; sometimes it happened that I downplayed monsters and this is not nice for the players either
(2) high lever spells are supposed to be powerful, but some require careful plans from the DM because they can occasionally spoil the fun of the story (scry, teleport being the most famous)

If I have to cheat on the players (like forcing a "teleport is forbidden in this area" ad-hoc rule), then IMO it is better not to play high-level at all. I would play high-level only if I can afford to play the game as it is, without banning certain things or house-ruling others, but IMXP the majority of DMs tend to end up doing so.

 

[Ruavel]

voted for 15+, though I'm currently running (or resurrecting) a 19th-level game...

but at that level things seem to change... not sure what it is... maybe just a mind-set, but from that point on, things got hairy and less fun for me as GM...

 

[diaglo]

i refuse to referee it. Period.

 

[Umbran]

In the old days it was pretty standard to have high-level PCs with XP in the six-figure range.

That isn't a very meaningful comparaison. It only makes sense if an old-game XP is somehow worth the same as a new-game XP. The question isn't how many XP you have to get to a level - the question is how many tough encounters you have to go through to get to that level.

I'll DM pretty much anything, but I don't have a whole lot of personal experience with D&D at high levels. So, I'd do a much better job in the lower half of the scale.

 

[Henry]

I find I prefer levels 1 through 10, though I'm not averse to running higher; the prep time does increase for me, and having to plan major spellcasters becomes less "plan" and more "guesstimate" to keep the prep time manageable for me. Some players don't like this, but fortunately mine have no problems with it.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Well we are almost to 11th level and I havent hit any problems yet.
Combat is a little more complex but overall we are having a great time.

 

[Psion]

I find I prefer levels 1 through 10, though I'm not averse to running higher; the prep time does increase for me, and having to plan major spellcasters becomes less "plan" and more "guesstimate" to keep the prep time manageable for me.

Yup. If you have an int (wis/cha) modifier and a list of spells by level, you have a spellcaster.

 

[WayneLigon]

So far, the highest I've run is at 16-17th level, and didn't find any problems with it. Not really any harder or more prep time than lower level encounters; the only thing that throws me is an uncommon spell being used but that happens at every level.