kaomera
Explorer
So when I first got into 1e AD&D I took my cues for what levels NPCs in my campaign should be from the listed level titles. So, for instance, your average land-owning Noble would be a level 9 Lord. Since he needed vassal landowners, they would be 7th or 8th levels (Champion and Superhero), as would some higher-level knights. Knights might actually be anything from 6th level (Myrmidon) up, but “Swashbuckler” (5th) didn't seem to fit for a landed knight. A Duke or something similar would be 10th level, which would make a King 10th, with a “High King” or “Overlord” being 11th or 12th level.
Likewise this extended to other classes of NPCs, and from there to the kind of things it was normal for different levels of PCs to be doing: 1st and 2nd level PCs mostly tried to (and often failed) not die, 3rd or 4th where local heroes, often questing for fame and gold by exterminating bothersome local monsters, 5th and 6th level characters would start becoming involved in local politics, and it seemed entirely reasonable for them to “knock over” a small city (not in the sense of actually conquering the place by main force, but a smart bunch could leverage their fame, power, and wealth to gain at least an equal footing with local Mayors, Sheriffs and such). Beyond 7th level I expected PCs to start taking on threats to the campaign world as a whole...
Now, I'm semi-convinced that you can just about double 1e levels to come up with a 3e equivalent. Now early on in 1e we tended to retire most characters well before they reached name level, and often only brought them back into play for one adventure at a time. Later on I ran some games than went straight from 1st to 11th or even 12th level, and these shared a lot of the goals as the 3e games I run: the players wanted well-developed characters with backgrounds that they had worked out in advance rather than just using what happened at the table as the character's only background, and we wanted to play the same party without having to kick players out. We sometimes started at 2nd or 3rd level, used 4d6 drop the lowest for Abilities, and we started bringing in replacement characters in for those lost in play. So, using this conversion I should now be running groups up to early Epic levels with no problems, right?
Well, somehow I can't actually think of anything much to do with higher-level 3e characters. Part of it is that I tend to rely on the players to come up with things to do, to give the campaign direction and to push the game along; and I don't end up getting that much. But I think that's really only part of the problem, and I'm afraid that by focusing on that part of the issue I've been skirting my own responsibilities as DM a bit. The last game I ran to higher levels stopped at 17th, which I don't think is all that bad. However, I also think I really should have dropped the game at about 13th. Beyond that point I don't think anyone at the table really had much idea what was going on, and I was often given to handing out “level-ups”, in part I think to cover when I really just didn't have anything for the PCs to do (ie: you guys go off and pick feats and do maths while I try and brainstorm something).
Now I should point out that I think I'm at my best as a DM when I'm improvising. I have a lot easier time pulling something out of my hat at a moment's notice than I do actually sticking to written material, especially when it's not my written material. I usually run the game with a few pages of scribbled notes (typically 75%+ being names, which I'm bad at and will just plain forget otherwise), and a pile of statblocks on index cards. I usually don't prepare dungeon maps, etc., because for me that just makes it harder to get it down on the battlemat (or nowadays dungeon tiles).
I've seen the posts regarding the four stages of D&D, but while that's nice for finding a “sweet spot” I don't think it helps me much. I'd much prefer to play between 5th and 7th levels (the same as in 1e, really), but when I DM I want to run something my players want to play. And they've repeatedly said they really want their characters to get “all the way to 20th”. However, while I want to provide the players with what they want in the game I need to be able to do it in a way that doesn't ruin my fun as DM. I suppose part of the problem is simply pacing, but at higher levels I really don't want every single adventure to be about saving the world (or if they are they should be some kind of multi-level-spanning super-adventure), but it also doesn't really seem right for the characters to just be doing the same old stuff they where doing at 3rd or 4th levels...
In the Eberron game I ran (the same game mentioned above) the PCs decided to buy a tavern at about 10th level or so, and at least some of them seemed to be playing their characters as perfectly content to just retire at that point, even while the players where asking for more adventure. And what exactly does a 10th-level party do with a tavern that's really all that interesting? I mean at maybe 5th or 6th levels I could see some interesting stuff, but it all seems very mundane for a party that can toss around 5th-level spells...
So I guess my question is in two parts: One, what do different levels mean to you, in your game; and two, what do you actually do with higher-level characters?
Likewise this extended to other classes of NPCs, and from there to the kind of things it was normal for different levels of PCs to be doing: 1st and 2nd level PCs mostly tried to (and often failed) not die, 3rd or 4th where local heroes, often questing for fame and gold by exterminating bothersome local monsters, 5th and 6th level characters would start becoming involved in local politics, and it seemed entirely reasonable for them to “knock over” a small city (not in the sense of actually conquering the place by main force, but a smart bunch could leverage their fame, power, and wealth to gain at least an equal footing with local Mayors, Sheriffs and such). Beyond 7th level I expected PCs to start taking on threats to the campaign world as a whole...
Now, I'm semi-convinced that you can just about double 1e levels to come up with a 3e equivalent. Now early on in 1e we tended to retire most characters well before they reached name level, and often only brought them back into play for one adventure at a time. Later on I ran some games than went straight from 1st to 11th or even 12th level, and these shared a lot of the goals as the 3e games I run: the players wanted well-developed characters with backgrounds that they had worked out in advance rather than just using what happened at the table as the character's only background, and we wanted to play the same party without having to kick players out. We sometimes started at 2nd or 3rd level, used 4d6 drop the lowest for Abilities, and we started bringing in replacement characters in for those lost in play. So, using this conversion I should now be running groups up to early Epic levels with no problems, right?
Well, somehow I can't actually think of anything much to do with higher-level 3e characters. Part of it is that I tend to rely on the players to come up with things to do, to give the campaign direction and to push the game along; and I don't end up getting that much. But I think that's really only part of the problem, and I'm afraid that by focusing on that part of the issue I've been skirting my own responsibilities as DM a bit. The last game I ran to higher levels stopped at 17th, which I don't think is all that bad. However, I also think I really should have dropped the game at about 13th. Beyond that point I don't think anyone at the table really had much idea what was going on, and I was often given to handing out “level-ups”, in part I think to cover when I really just didn't have anything for the PCs to do (ie: you guys go off and pick feats and do maths while I try and brainstorm something).
Now I should point out that I think I'm at my best as a DM when I'm improvising. I have a lot easier time pulling something out of my hat at a moment's notice than I do actually sticking to written material, especially when it's not my written material. I usually run the game with a few pages of scribbled notes (typically 75%+ being names, which I'm bad at and will just plain forget otherwise), and a pile of statblocks on index cards. I usually don't prepare dungeon maps, etc., because for me that just makes it harder to get it down on the battlemat (or nowadays dungeon tiles).
I've seen the posts regarding the four stages of D&D, but while that's nice for finding a “sweet spot” I don't think it helps me much. I'd much prefer to play between 5th and 7th levels (the same as in 1e, really), but when I DM I want to run something my players want to play. And they've repeatedly said they really want their characters to get “all the way to 20th”. However, while I want to provide the players with what they want in the game I need to be able to do it in a way that doesn't ruin my fun as DM. I suppose part of the problem is simply pacing, but at higher levels I really don't want every single adventure to be about saving the world (or if they are they should be some kind of multi-level-spanning super-adventure), but it also doesn't really seem right for the characters to just be doing the same old stuff they where doing at 3rd or 4th levels...
In the Eberron game I ran (the same game mentioned above) the PCs decided to buy a tavern at about 10th level or so, and at least some of them seemed to be playing their characters as perfectly content to just retire at that point, even while the players where asking for more adventure. And what exactly does a 10th-level party do with a tavern that's really all that interesting? I mean at maybe 5th or 6th levels I could see some interesting stuff, but it all seems very mundane for a party that can toss around 5th-level spells...
So I guess my question is in two parts: One, what do different levels mean to you, in your game; and two, what do you actually do with higher-level characters?
