Worlds of Design: Tough Times at the Top

I’ve always thought that combat-oriented Dungeons & Dragons-style tabletop role-playing games become less fun to play as characters reach double-figure levels of power. Here’s why, and how to fix it.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The “Who Shoots First” Problem​

A major reason is the “who shoots first” problem. Analysis of tank battles in World War II shows that whoever shot first tended to win the tank battle. You can see why that might be likely, because the defenders can conceal themselves, not needing to move. The attackers turn up and are likely to get nailed by initial shots. On the other hand, if the attackers detect the defenders from a distance or even just suspect, they can call in air strikes and artillery barrages (if they have the capability) and likely that's going to reveal the defenders and also damage or destroy some of them—the attackers shoot first.

This is not so bad at lower levels in RPGs, but as characters get stronger and stronger, the first shot becomes more devastating. They have such great offense in the form of magical “artillery” (area effect spells) or other kinds of spells and occasionally non-spell offense, that they can devastate the other side before that side gets a chance to do anything. In effect, time moves faster because high level characters can do so much in a small slice of time. That is true even if there is no punishing surprise rule such as the rule in AD&D 1e (surprised 33% of the time, surprised cannot do anything for what seems like forever). A designer could greatly strengthen defense as characters reach higher levels, but that can get ridiculous; worse, you may end up with very long battles when no one gets the drop on the other side.

Moreover, super-powerful characters (such as high levels) don't fit the standard fantasy or science fiction stories where the hero, at least at first, is a relatively normal not-so-powerful character. In other words, people can’t identify with those very strong characters; although you can counter that by saying people can identify with superheroes in superhero gaming, so why not in fantasy or science fiction? But superhero stories (comics) are quite different from fantasy and science fiction stories. (In particular, there’s a tendency to have lots of one-on-one matchups in superhero fighting, by design.)

Is there any solution? I can think of several.

Stop While You’re Ahead​

You could stop playing when the characters get too powerful, and start a new campaign, or start new characters and only use the super-powerful characters in a really extraordinary situation. I’ve always preferred that each player have several characters available to play, so that an appropriate party can be gathered for any prospective adventure.

That's not so much a solution as a palliative, but it's the nature of the game; and I would say that if you have any kind of combat game, not just a role-playing game, where you have a strong progression of capability, you can have these problems of shooting first and overwhelming offense. On the other hand, if people are playing for the story and are not actually worried about losing, they may not take advantage of these two problems.

This is why, at the start, I specified a combat RPG. Another kind of RPG may not suffer this problem. Or the designer may have insured that the adventurers are always “human not superhuman." (See Human vs Superhuman: Functional vs Emotional Modeling)

Take Time to Get There​

Another solution is to make sure it takes a huge number of adventures to reach the rarified air of great combat power. That’s my preference, but it may not be for everybody: with each iteration of D&D, advancement has sped up so that there’s an expectation that characters level up quickly. Unless you’re using milestone leveling or some other system not tied to gaining experience points from combat, players will expect a steady progression. Slowing things down requires a conversation with players beforehand so they understand that they will level up at a slower pace than they might expect.

It’s Not the Destination, It’s the Journey​

Another solution would be to make sure everyone understands that their characters will almost certainly die before reaching the super-powerful levels. If it takes a telescope (so to speak) to look up to the next level, then players may pay attention to the journey more than the destination. So enjoy life and heroism while you can!

Your Turn: How do you manage high level characters in your campaign?

 

[Raith5]

Hey, neat, never even heard of someone other than me who went all the way through 4e to level 30. Nice! I did find that by epic tier most creatures couldn't deal with the amount of control that players brought. I found myself giving most creatures extra abilities based on their rolls, and adding "leader" style abilities to one creature to grant saving throws or a boost to hit..

I was a player and one thing that I know our DM did was throw very hard fights at us that were 4 or 5 CR higher than our level (I remember a fight with Orcus and about 6 high level demons when we were about 28th level). One other was to really string out the long rests (and reset of healing surges). This made us think really carefully about going nova and made us think about the trade offs between saving healing surges vs using dailies to shorten the combat.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I'm going to concur this article seems to either be unaware of or have not seen some versions and offshoots of D&D. I found higher level 4e a little too busy (in that I had more options than I could easily keep track of) but it was not boring nor too easy. PF2e has some elements of being busy, but less severely so, and I've not found its higher levels any worse than lower, either. It also wasn't true with Shadow of the Demon Lord, and doesn't appear to be the case with 13th Age, though you can make a semantic argument about those not having high levels.

 

[Hussar]

Hey, neat, never even heard of someone other than me who went all the way through 4e to level 30. Nice! I did find that by epic tier most creatures couldn't deal with the amount of control that players brought. I found myself giving most creatures extra abilities based on their rolls, and adding "leader" style abilities to one creature to grant saving throws or a boost to hit.

The odd thing about very high level 4e combat was that so much of the action moved to other peoples turns. Between reaction abilities and leaders granting move or attack to other members of the party, half the time it felt like you did more on other people's turns than your own.

I do think that this was a problem with 4e's action system. The proliferation of off turn actions combined with the proliferation of status effects got insane towards the end. Like you said, it was almost as if you did more stuff on other poeple's turns than on your own. I do think 5e went a touch too far the other way and stripped away too many off turn actions, meaning that it can be a long time between turns in 5e - not as bad as 3e, but, that's damning with faint praise.

There really should be a happy medium.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also have to note an issue one has to engage with:

At least to one degree or another, a lot of these games want there to be a difference between what a poor set of tactical player, a mediocre set and a good set do in a fight. This means that most encounters are scaled so at least the medium capability group can work their way through it.

The net effect is that, even in games that don't pile up the bricks that higher over time (which was absolutely an issue with D&D 3e and with PF 1e), over time the players will likely learn more about how to use the kind of tricks their characters have, over and above getting more tricks (not necessarily vastly better ones, at least proportionate to the opponents you expect to hit). This means its entirely probable that players will, indeed, do proportionately better at higher levels simply because they know what they're doing better.

(Of course you can run into issues that are not systemic, too; for example with 4e, one of the well known issues was that the first Monster Manual for 4e had some design problems, and it wouldn't surprise me that applied to some of the higher level monsters; if some of these made the monster involved too weak, its going to be seen as an aspect of the character's levels rather than the monster most likely).

 

[MarkB]

I also have to note an issue one has to engage with:

At least to one degree or another, a lot of these games want there to be a difference between what a poor set of tactical player, a mediocre set and a good set do in a fight. This means that most encounters are scaled so at least the medium capability group can work their way through it.

The net effect is that, even in games that don't pile up the bricks that higher over time (which was absolutely an issue with D&D 3e and with PF 1e), over time the players will likely learn more about how to use the kind of tricks their characters have, over and above getting more tricks (not necessarily vastly better ones, at least proportionate to the opponents you expect to hit). This means its entirely probable that players will, indeed, do proportionately better at higher levels simply because they know what they're doing better.

That's true enough if you've played all the way up from low levels. More so in 4e than 5e in my experience - in 4e the ways some classes' features could synergise with each other made it possible to wind up with a highly integrated team who would be far more effective than a set of characters that were each built in isolation.

That's less true in 5e, but still a factor.

When starting a game at mid-to-high level, on the other hand, characters begin with so many options (not even counting spells) that it may be weeks of play before the players even have a good grasp of their own characters' full capabilities, let alone each other's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's true enough if you've played all the way up from low levels. More so in 4e than 5e in my experience - in 4e the ways some classes' features could synergise with each other made it possible to wind up with a highly integrated team who would be far more effective than a set of characters that were each built in isolation.

That's less true in 5e, but still a factor.

When starting a game at mid-to-high level, on the other hand, characters begin with so many options (not even counting spells) that it may be weeks of play before the players even have a good grasp of their own characters' full capabilities, let alone each other's.

Absolutely true. I tend to assume playing from the ground up (just because its such a compulsion among people in the D&D-sphere) unless specifically indicated otherwise.

 

[John R Davis]

In 5e there are loads synergistic pc abilities

 

[Stalker0]

My few thoughts on the issues of high level (and I will use 15-20 as my mark for high level in this context".

The Plot
I would say that the vast majority of plots that DMs use for lower level PCs are no longer suitable for high level. So for most "organically grown" parties, there needs to be a tonal shift at some point. Aka they beat their original BBEG, they saved the world, etc etc... they finished the original plot, and have decided to go "high level" with a new plot.

Now that doesn't mean the original plot can't serve the high level plot. Perhaps the BBEG they fought to save the world actually worked for a person trying to control the entire multiverse.... no problem there. Or maybe the original BBEG was able to ascend to godhood and now is a universal threat. But the idea is.... the old plot baggage is left behind, and the scale of the game has clearly changed. High level people shouldn't be dealing with murder plots of kings, or villains threatening continents. Its world scale....probably more multiverse scale at that point....anything less just doesn't jive with the power those players have at their disposal.

I also think DMs need to think seriously if they want a second "high level plot" in their game. I think high level works best when you get that one big new world/multiversal danger, the PCs defeat it.... and the game ends. Introducing a second world/multiversal threat, and then a 3rd, etc etc starts to lose some of the epicness of the game at that point. Though it can be done, DMs should seriously ask if they really want it to be done.

Big Things under Time Pressure
All of my experience DMing high levels has taught me one thing above all others.... the best way to challenge high level players is time. Give the party a week, and they will find ways to subvert and trash anything you can throw at them. Give them only a few days, or heck even a single day (no long rests) and suddenly things get interesting again.

This is also a fun way to show off epicness and still use old plotlines....use a more midtier plot....but require the party to do it in a day. Example, maybe the party saved their own world from a BBEG....after months of work and planning. Have them go to a new world, with a new world ending badguy....and say "you have 1 day". Similar to throwing a softball encounter to make the party feel really strong, throwing out an old "campaign length plot" as "just all in a days work" can really highlight how powerful the party is nice.

Of course use that sparingly, I mean how many worlds need saving every day, but its a fun change of pace.

Temporary Nerfs are Fine
A lot of high level guides say things like "don't get in the habit of nerfing things just because it thwarts your plot". I think that's good advice but its incomplete. I think nerfing things is completely fine, as long as your mixing it up.

For example, teleports, one of the things high level DMs that aren't as experienced love to nerf. There is no issue with having an adventure where the party goes to a realm where teleports don't work..... just don't remove teleports ALL the time. The next time they face a bad guy with a lair repulsion effect against all metal (aka no metal armor and weapons). Then the next time they go to a fire plane where everything is highly resistant or immune to fire. The next place has a weird effect where all divinations only show you the past instead of the future (which can be fun roleplaying).

In each case I am nerfing some mechanic to shake up the adventure and have the party get creative, the key is just not to nerf the same stuff all the time.

Bring in the Referees
One issue that some DMs can have when they first get to high level is this notion that the players just can't be stopped. They can go where they want, alter reality, divine any secret you could come up with. This can give DMs a feeling of powerlessness if they don't learn how to control it.

One idea that can make for great roleplaying, is to call in the universal referees. The players are no longer just capable of shifting the sand around, they can actually break the sandbox....and some entities are not ok with that.

Perhaps a player decides "ok, I am going to finally figure out the world secret that we have heard about for like 12 levels!".... and then an agent of Vecna (or hell Vecna himself) arrives to go "yeah...no, we are not ok with that". Maybe the agent threatens, maybe they bribe the player with a grand thing (but with some permanent geas that prevents them from looking in on the secret).

This is the notion of "succeed sideways". The player didn't technically get what they were looking for, but they did get a cool encounter and maybe some other fun knowledge or treasure.

Like most things its all about degrees. As a once in a while reminder to the party that they are not all powerful, its fine. But if your doing it everytime a 9th level spell is cast then your going to have a problem.

One Note on Initiative
One thing I do agree with in the original guide is that initiative at high levels can be everything. It doesn't matter how awesome your BBEG is, if he goes last in the initiative....he may get wrecked before it even gets to go.

One houserule I have tried a few times is this: "Legendary Monsters can choose to take 10 on the initiative roll"

This means I'm giving up on the idea the monster goes first, but I'm ensuring the party at least goes generally in the middle, giving the party some chance to hit them first but ensuring the monster is never dead (and I do mean dead) last. This can add a bit of consistency especially when the party is going for the really big fight, and you truly don't want the fight to be ruined by one single bad initiative roll.

 

[MarkB]

The Plot
I would say that the vast majority of plots that DMs use for lower level PCs are no longer suitable for high level. So for most "organically grown" parties, there needs to be a tonal shift at some point. Aka they beat their original BBEG, they saved the world, etc etc... they finished the original plot, and have decided to go "high level" with a new plot.

Now that doesn't mean the original plot can't serve the high level plot. Perhaps the BBEG they fought to save the world actually worked for a person trying to control the entire multiverse.... no problem there. Or maybe the original BBEG was able to ascend to godhood and now is a universal threat. But the idea is.... the old plot baggage is left behind, and the scale of the game has clearly changed. High level people shouldn't be dealing with murder plots of kings, or villains threatening continents. Its world scale....probably more multiverse scale at that point....anything less just doesn't jive with the power those players have at their disposal.

I also think DMs need to think seriously if they want a second "high level plot" in their game. I think high level works best when you get that one big new world/multiversal danger, the PCs defeat it.... and the game ends. Introducing a second world/multiversal threat, and then a 3rd, etc etc starts to lose some of the epicness of the game at that point. Though it can be done, DMs should seriously ask if they really want it to be done.

Yeah, I had an Eberron campaign founder in the early-teens levels last year because I just couldn't make the pivot. The players had foiled the plot that had been running from the start of the campaign, and gone through investigating a secondary thread and found leads to a larger threat, but when it came to actually detailing those new foes and bringing it all together into a new scheme for the PCs to foil, I just hit a complete block.

Wound up putting the campaign on hold for a few weeks thinking I'd pull something together and carry on, before finally cancelling it after inspiration stubbornly failed to strike. A very unsatisfying end to an enjoyable campaign.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I had an Eberron campaign founder in the early-teens levels last year because I just couldn't make the pivot. The players had foiled the plot that had been running from the start of the campaign, and gone through investigating a secondary thread and found leads to a larger threat, but when it came to actually detailing those new foes and bringing it all together into a new scheme for the PCs to foil, I just hit a complete block.

Wound up putting the campaign on hold for a few weeks thinking I'd pull something together and carry on, before finally cancelling it after inspiration stubbornly failed to strike. A very unsatisfying end to an enjoyable campaign.

Sometimes campaigns have a logical conclusion. One possibility which may or may not apply/help is to consider setting a new set of adventures years after the PCs "retired" from the previous campaign. Something happens - possibly completely unrelated to the original campaign - and it's time to bring the old group back together one last time. Another option is to tie in a completely unrelated threat that is affecting old allies or even old enemies.

Or not. Sometimes campaigns just end and if it ended on a whimper instead of a bang you try to plan a little better next time.