What's with high-powered campaigns?

[Li Shenron]

Standard D&D characters are not weak, but neverthless the tendence of gaming groups is to want to play so called "high-powered campaigns", and the PHB/DMG/UA suggest for example alternate score generation methods to have more powerful characters.

I confess that I have also given the PCs something extra (bonus feats or skills) or used point-buy with up to 32 points. But sometimes I wonder what's whole point of it? What is really a high-powered campaign? Isn't it so that the DM gives PCs something more or better than normal because the adventure is more difficult? Or is it actually a lame attempt to pursue the exact opposite, an easier game because you are more powerful? I wonder this because soo many people around this very board seem to run/play adventures with boosted characters, but it doesn't sound like the monsters are boosted up as well, or are they?

A few players I've gamed with were quite obsessed by computer games and I think they learned from those to have more fun if their characters had an easy time in every battle, bashing everything with ease and minimal strategy. In a way, it seemed like they believed that the more experience they had in a game, the more they were entitled to be powerful... shouldn't it be the other way around? Normally, the more experienced you are in any hobby (or work), the hardest challenges you are looking for to be more satisfied.

So my question, why aren't we ever looking forward to play a low-powered campaign? I mean adventures where you are less powerful than the challenges you have to face...

 

[Quez The Lame]

It's just a guess, since i'm more into skill oriented wanderer-like characters. By getting more experienced with the rules one might be attracted by more complicated character concepts including heavy use of prestige classes and multiclassing. The more you know the rules, the more you discover to minmax. As you discover prestige classes, feats, spells and the like, you discover ways to get them und try them.

To summarize it: If the characters grow in power along with the players' knowledge of the rules, it's likely to be a "I do it 'cause i can" thingy. At last that's what i saw in my gaming groups.

 

[UniversalMonster]

My theory: It's not the goal so much as it is the journey. I can think of a few reasons players like high-powered campaigns:

First: your character gets something cool at every level, and by the time you reach 20th, it's like youv'e got a member of the Justice League. And that's kind of cool. Even if you aren't thinking of 20th, when your 4th, your'e thinking about what happens at 5th- new spells, maybe a new ability or a bonus feat.. And then you get that, and pretty soon your'e starting to imagine how much cooler 6th would be. It pretty much goes on until the campaign ends.

Some of the interest in campaigns that go up to high levels is in the fact that you get to experience the more difficult and interesting monsters and challenges and get into really complex tactics. Characters below 9th level or so are probably never going to get to fight a Nightwalker, for example. Or be in a battle where she can throw down a hasted web and a hasted evards black tentacles in the same round. The tactical battle part of D&D encounters is a game within the game in itself, and unlike in most roleplaying games- player skill really shines.

Then you have the 'empire' builder types who are investing money in a stronghold or a flying fortress or a complete set of magical vestments or whatever. That stuff costs money! And money comes from killing monsters! And killing monsters gets you XP! And that makes you go up levels!

At low levels, you (usually) get involved in adventures that have to do with local events and such. But when you get more powerful, you sometimes get involved in adventures of regional or even cosmic significance, and thats kind of cool too.

Anyhow, thats my thoughts.

 

[Psion]

I don't like to play characters with scores below 10 and like 1 or 2 16+ scores, so I don't make my players play anything I wouldn't play.

As for challenge... of course they are challenged. My players aren't twinky, so sometimes I have to tone things down a bit (but sometimes they surprise me.)

 

[Noldor Elf]

With very limited experience of the "high-power" play (only one campaing ever reached douple digits), I have to go with the gut feeling here...

I think that one point of the high-power campaings is to be able to try those combinations and ideast that require (by the rules) more feats/abilities/skills to be effective. Also by the rules you need a little bit more power for more cinematic action.

In my group we have played with higher than average attribute values and background points, which could give a feat, minor special ability, magical item or similar. For us there were two reasons: first of all, we game quite seldom, so it is important to be able jump directly to the action at the beginning of the campaing. The other reason is to compensate our generally lowerer amount of magic items, which of course leads to conclusion that our campaing is not really high-powered.

 

[Akrasia]

Welcome to the 3.x mentality!

Sarcasm aside, it really has little to do with 3.x D&D.

It is all about inflation. If you give the PCs super abilities, only super enemies will challange and interest them.

Force them to play 'normal characters', and give them appropriate challenges.

(It is funny how the old arguments about 'Monty Haul' dungeons come back again, 30 years later.)

 

[Li Shenron]

My theory: It's not the goal so much as it is the journey. I can think of a few reasons players like high-powered campaigns:
...
Anyhow, thats my thoughts.

This was not exactly what I was thinking about I didn't mean "high-level campaigns" but instead campaigns where characters are created with stats higher or much higher than standard. Or when classes/races are twinked with the specific purpose of "buffing up the PCs".

When I myself "buffed up" the PCs, at least I tried to give them more feats or skills, to expand their tactics or to cover more roles (usually the reason for this was that I felt the PCs were too few in number!).

What makes me frown is: what's the good point in having characters with more or less all stats increased? Does it really give more edge to the game? The only thing coming to my mind would be feats prerequisites which sometimes depend on stats, but nothing else.
For me, a PC with and extra 4 points in strength doesn't make the game more interesting, it makes the game more easy, so it actually fits beginners more than veteran gamers

 

[UniversalMonster]

Force them to play 'normal characters', and give them appropriate challenges.

But.. Why would anyone want to be forced? Unless by normal you mean, according to the rules. In that case I completely agree with you. I pretty much agree with the standard character creation rules. We house rule some stuff but it's all fairly minor.

Forcing a more mundane roleplaying experience sometimes causes players to be frustrated. It's a question of group dynamics: as a DM you really serve the group, not the other way around. The group can and will disinitegrate, leave, go join other campaigns. I've got some players who drive 30 minutes each way to my campaign, and thats every week.

As a DM I want to figure out what makes them want to play, provide that, and still fulfill my own creative needs. And this doesn't involve forcing anyone to do anything. Now- there are times when I've run into players who simply want something that is incompatible with what I want, and in that case I have let players go (and on one ocaission, quietly closed down a campaign due to someone causing real trouble).. but in general the winning strategy is to get everyone on the same page and avoid forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[UniversalMonster]

This was not exactly what I was thinking about I didn't mean "high-level campaigns" but instead campaigns where characters are created with stats higher or much higher than standard. Or when classes/races are twinked with the specific purpose of "buffing up the PCs".

When I myself "buffed up" the PCs, at least I tried to give them more feats or skills, to expand their tactics or to cover more roles (usually the reason for this was that I felt the PCs were too few in number!).

What makes me frown is: what's the good point in having characters with more or less all stats increased? Does it really give more edge to the game? The only thing coming to my mind would be feats prerequisites which sometimes depend on stats, but nothing else.
For me, a PC with and extra 4 points in strength doesn't make the game more interesting, it makes the game more easy, so it actually fits beginners more than veteran gamers

In this case, I completely agree with you. I don't give extra stats or skills, and IMC players roll the standard 4d6, drop the lowest. Stats really aren't a problem (I've seen people roll up legitimately- some insanely high stats).

Giving extra feats or skills is going outside of the rules though and potentially damaging/game-breaking. My feeling is - don't ever do that! You'll be very sorry. It gives no edge, and it won't make it more fun. It will probably cause the opposite.

 

[Li Shenron]

But.. Why would anyone want to be forced?

This causes players to be frustrated. It's a question of group dynamics: as a DM you really serve the group, not the other way around. The group can and will disinitegrate, leave, go join other campaigns. I've got some players who drive 30 minutes each way to my campaign, and thats every week.

As a DM I want to figure out what makes them want to play, provide that, and still fulfill my own creative needs. And this doesn't involve forcing anyone to do anything. Now- there are times when I've run into players who simply want something that is incompatible with what I want, and in that case I have let players go (and on one ocaission, quietly closed down a campaign due to someone causing real trouble).. but in general the winning strategy is to get everyone on the same page and avoid forcing anyone to do anything.

Forcing??? I was just thinking of using the standard character creation rules! If players are "frustrated" or leave the group because the are told to roll 4d6-drop, whose fault is it?

I am both a player and a DM. I am making these consideration more as a player actually, because I have played as well in games with uber-stats, but that didn't seem to make the game more interesting. At the same time, as a DM I feel I not only have the resposibility to provide fun as you said, but also the responsibility to give examples of mature gaming... obviously I may be giving a bad examples sometimes, that's why I'd like to discuss here first

edit: I saw your last post only after...