Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 2569645" data-attributes="member: 9254">I like starting campaigns out at lower levels but I see no reason a campaign should die just because they hit some arbitrary threshold.&nbsp; A GM who is unable to run high level games is, IMO, playing the game with the training wheels on.&nbsp; Note I said &quot;unable&quot; not &quot;dislikes.&quot;&nbsp; I think most groups hit that 10th level point, say &quot;...and they lived happily ever after&quot; and stop.&nbsp; It's my experience that if you can say that, your plot was either linear or totally focussed on one goal.&nbsp; I've done that; ran a campaign where the only reason the PCs were working together was to achieve a specific goal.&nbsp; When the goal was achieved I couldn't come up with a way to keep the PCs working together and it fell apart.&nbsp; This is if not a flaw, then a design decision.&nbsp; If all your campaigns end when you take out Lord Xykon, that's a design decision to have one critical bad guy.&nbsp; I've switch to a more &quot;organic&quot; plot where the party has literally a dozen different foes.&nbsp; Some are minor (one PC offended a local official who now goes out of his way to make the PCs life difficult in that city) others more motivated (like the behir who's mate and children they slew).&nbsp;&nbsp; Then there are the evil protagonists that have their own plans the PCs are expected to foil.&nbsp; Defeating any given individual, even in a permanent way, does not end the campaign. Only by resolving a majority of the plot threads at once could we even come close to calling the campaign finished.&nbsp; And yes, there is a critical event that could do that but the players know it would take 3-5 years to have any chance of it being successful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 2569645, member: 9254"] I like starting campaigns out at lower levels but I see no reason a campaign should die just because they hit some arbitrary threshold. A GM who is unable to run high level games is, IMO, playing the game with the training wheels on. Note I said "unable" not "dislikes." I think most groups hit that 10th level point, say "...and they lived happily ever after" and stop. It's my experience that if you can say that, your plot was either linear or totally focussed on one goal. I've done that; ran a campaign where the only reason the PCs were working together was to achieve a specific goal. When the goal was achieved I couldn't come up with a way to keep the PCs working together and it fell apart. This is if not a flaw, then a design decision. If all your campaigns end when you take out Lord Xykon, that's a design decision to have one critical bad guy. I've switch to a more "organic" plot where the party has literally a dozen different foes. Some are minor (one PC offended a local official who now goes out of his way to make the PCs life difficult in that city) others more motivated (like the behir who's mate and children they slew). Then there are the evil protagonists that have their own plans the PCs are expected to foil. Defeating any given individual, even in a permanent way, does not end the campaign. Only by resolving a majority of the plot threads at once could we even come close to calling the campaign finished. And yes, there is a critical event that could do that but the players know it would take 3-5 years to have any chance of it being successful. [/QUOTE]

Verification