What's with high-powered campaigns?

[hong]

I've been in an ongoing high-powered campaign for the past 2 years now. The reliance on crunch is so prevalent, especially at the higher levels, is pretty shocking. The system feeds itself. The higher the level, the more crunch that's available and needed. It's essentially a power struggle between the players and the DM with respect to challenging the characters.

You really need to find yourself a better DM.

 

[GlassJaw]

Find yourself a better DM.

Thanks for the constructive comments. :\

He's actually pretty good. It's a power struggle in the sense that at the high levels (15-16+), the encounters are either a cakewalk or almost a TPK. That's the nature of the system. It's a lot more balanced at level 6-12. Once we hit the 14-15 range as a group did the power level really start to go haywire. The CR sytem and the options available (teleports, dave or dies, etc) just make encounters very difficult to predict.

Asking for some background next time may be more constructive than just throwing out comments.

 

[Carpe DM]

I enjoy D&D at all levels. That said, each type has its charm. At low level, the party is forced to do more with less. Realism and versimilitude are more easily achieved.

At high level, the charm is being able to do more than you could -- seeing the fruition of the character, and of your carefully-laid plans for advancement is fun.

So I'll make the case for this: You should start low, and plan to go high. The joy is in the contrast between the two.

When you are low level, you dream about what you'll do with that next spell, that next item, that next power. When you are high level, the enjoyment is being able to do those things where you weren't able to before.

It's no fun if you haven't earned it; it's no fun if you can't earn it.

So I suggest rejecting both "starting" fallacies: don't limit how high or powerful players can become, and don't start them off with stuff they didn't earn. Either way robs the characters of something.

best,

Carpe

 

[hong]

Thanks for the constructive comments. :\

He's actually pretty good. It's a power struggle in the sense that at the high levels (15-16+), the encounters are either a cakewalk or almost a TPK. That's the nature of the system. It's a lot more balanced at level 6-12. Once we hit the 14-15 range as a group did the power level really start to go haywire. The CR sytem and the options available (teleports, dave or dies, etc) just make encounters very difficult to predict.

Asking for some background next time may be more constructive than just throwing out comments.

I won't pretend that the system at high levels doesn't start collapsing under its own weight; heck that's one reason that I'm planning to give Exalted a shot if/when my current campaign finishes up. But really, what you posted originally had only marginal relevance to what you ended up saying. You can have power creep at any level. You can have an arms race at any level, a DM-vs-players adversarial mentality at any level, etc. It's not something inherent to high levels.

 

[Piratecat]

High-powered games are about stats. They have to be because in order to keep up with the inherent CR of the system, you have to have your abilities maxed out or have the shiny new widget just to be effective.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true. The last eight or so sessions of my (17th-20th lvl) game has been consumed by what is at heart a mystery and a philosophical question - should one of the PCs go through with an arranged marriage to a fiend, what is actually at stake? - and I've had to work like hell to actually include any combat. The last few months have been noticeably less reliant on stats than this point a year ago, or two years ago.

This doesn't mean that you're inherently wrong, of course. I think it indicates that the "beat up the monster and take their loot" philosophy breaks down as you get very powerful, so other alternatives may be more satisfying. the trick is finding those alternatives and crafting play around them.

 

[Voadam]

The original poster was talking about ability scores, and bonus feats, and higher powered classes or class options.

At low ability scores certain class choices are less viable than others. A 16 point buy character can make a focused wizard or sorcerer who is still comparatively good at their party role and about comparable in power and effectiveness with a 32 point buy one. Not so with a class that depends on multiple stats such as anyone who plans to get into melee as their schtick so they want three or more stats to be developed. A monk and a paladin see significant power differences between high and low ability point generation methods compared with other more focused classes.

For classes there is a continuum.

Low powered would be NPC classes, standard would be default PH and high could be Gestalt.

The more power means not only stronger but more options, a fighter is not simply tougher than a warrior but has bonus feats for more options as well. A gestalt simply adds on as well with a second classes' abilities.

These differences can be used to give a campaign a certain tone or to meet certain needs.

For example, high power to balance out something missing from the default, either magic, wealth, or people in the party. Or low power to get a grittier feel to the campaign. Or high power to have the PCs feel more like heros who stand out beyond the norm.

 

[GlassJaw]

you posted originally had only marginal relevance to what you ended up saying

Huh? What does that supposed to mean? I cited an example from my gaming experience. What's so difficult to understand?

You can have power creep at any level. You can have an arms race at any level, a DM-vs-players adversarial mentality at any level, etc. It's not something inherent to high levels.

Let me clarify. It's becomes MORE prevalent at the higher levels. Once you start introducing teleports, save or die spells, lots of attacks/round, etc. the power creep accelerates. The game changes at about level 14 or so.

The last eight or so sessions of my (17th-20th lvl) game has been consumed by what is at heart a mystery and a philosophical question - should one of the PCs go through with an arranged marriage to a fiend, what is actually at stake? - and I've had to work like hell to actually include any combat. The last few months have been noticeably less reliant on stats than this point a year ago, or two years ago.

Well I think your game is in the vast minority. Standard 3.X D&D, especially at the higher levels, is about numbers, stats, and crunch. Period. That's my point. Others may disagree but that's what I've seen OVER AND OVER AGAIN. The pepple, characters, DM, etc may change but the power creep does not. And WotC adds fuel to the fire with each new book they put out.

I think it indicates that the "beat up the monster and take their loot" philosophy breaks down as you get very powerful, so other alternatives may be more satisfying. the trick is finding those alternatives and crafting play around them.

I couldn't agree more. But have you seen many alternatives published by WotC? I can't. Once you start getting into those alternatives, you begin to move away from "standard 3.X." That's just the way it is.

It also takes a lot more effort on the DM's part to run a high-level campaign, especially one that doesn't rely on combat. It becomes a more precarious balancing act with each new level.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, I run a game with 32 point build, action points, Dork 20 (requires an action point to use), maximum hit points every level.

At the same time, I give major NPCs those benefits.

At the same time, I heavily restrict magic items though there are many unique or powerful ones that the party finds and a lot of fire and forget (potions of healing mostly).

At the same time, the party faces challenges that seem too powerful for a group of characters their level.

Occassionaly results in a TPK when the party does something absolutely stupid on several fronts, but otherwise, seems to work well.

 

[Aaron L]

It is completely a matter of what you want to roleplay. If you want to play powerful people or little people. I could just as easily ask "what's with low powered campaigns?" It's up to the group. I myself have no desire to play a common person muddling through adventures, but some people do.

I have never played in a game where feats or skill were handed out but high ability scores become less and less meaningful as your level increases.

 

[Piratecat]

It also takes a lot more effort on the DM's part to run a high-level campaign, especially one that doesn't rely on combat. It becomes a more precarious balancing act with each new level.

I've found the reverse, believe it or not. My prep time for non-combat plots is exactly the same now as it was at first level. The big swell in pre-game prep comes when there IS combat.

For instance, next game might be a six-way fight between angels, three opposed fiendish factions with different goals, the PCs, and a sentient nightmare-made-flesh. . . 36+ powerful opponents all at each others' throats. Making it so that it actually moves quickly and doesn't bog down is taking me a ton of preparation.

In comparison, the mindset for working out the intricacies of combat-light plots and sessions that still stay quite challenging turns out to be no more difficult than it was at low level. I spend a few hours of noodling time on it a week, but not really any more than that.

My point? I agree that prepping all that crunch in order to challenge the group is harder at high levels. I haven't found that inherent plot design is any tougher, though, and it's your plot that drives how much crunch is involved with the game.

One thing is essential at high levels is that DMs who like to tightly predict and control game flow need to relax and have more faith. When your PCs can cast gate on a whim, you can't always predict their actions, so it's not necessary to try. Instead, just worry about what the bad guys do if the PCs don't interfere, and I think the rest sort of takes care of itself.