I'm having several ongoing discussions with people on Discord, among my own players and in general about "High Level play" and the scaling power, alongside the expectations of a given system.

I'm currently running Savage Worlds Pathfinder (Modified to play as 1e Greybox Forgotten Realms) - current group is Veteran rank. In DnD terms this is around 7th-9th level, and the PC's are definitely hitting their stride. They're starting to put down roots, they're building a keep, and challenging powerful enemies of the Realms.

I'm seeing definitely differences in terms of PC capacities, but these were expected.

1) I run sandbox, so there is no expectation of non-stop combat "because" it's a game session. It combat happens when it happens, and that means Casters in the party are less conservative near home, and go hard. When out and about things are more fluid.
2) Magic item acquisition leans a "normal" for me - I completely eyeball it. I never put in things that I think are wildly out of the blue, unless I think I can come up with some interesting backstory for it. A quick tally of items and their respective values surprisingly was very close to the "assumed" amount of treasure from the 5e DMG (this surprised me as I thought I was going a little heavy). So the PC's are beefy.
3) Heavy Damage. Or as Rifts aficionados call it - Mega-Damage. At Veteran specialist Wizards can modify their spells to do the Heavy Weapon modifier. As such - I've modified the rules inline with Savage Rifts where such attacks cause extra effects to those without Heavy Armor (which isn't really a thing in D&D - but that will change soon enough with a few additions of True Adamantium or something like that). That said, I raised the cost of the Heavy Modifier - as well as granting it to creatures that should have it.

It's going very well thus far... but I don't consider any of this "High Level Play".

To me we're entering the sweet spot of D&D, where things start ramping up in terms of scale of quests and danger commensurate to those quests and goals. D&D starts creaking under the weight of itself at 14+ for me. At that point, regardless of edition, cracks start showing. Some editions are much more durable - for me 1e/2e 14-16 is pretty easy, 3e is a nightmare. 5e feels anemic.

But the goals of the game shift - at least for me, to players running Nations/Organizations, they have NPC delegates, allies and peers across the continent/globe or even Planes - that call upon them for crazy ass requests.

By 14+ literally every aspect of TTRPG's are on the table. Gods getting killed, Pacts and Double-dealing with Demons, crusades into the netherworlds, dethroning Liches, slaying of Kaiju-sized Dragons etc.

My observation is few people play D&D (and its derivatives) at this level. Like me they talk about it - and I confess, every single campaign I run D&D or otherwise, I'm shooting for this level of play. And my success rate at nurturing campaigns to that level of play is spotty. Because I demand detail and investment from the start, sometimes the drama and machinations take their toll and end in a TPK and it's back to the sawhorse and drawing board.

While I'm using D&D as an example, I'm not trying to shit on it, I'm using it as a reference point. There is always that slight deflation I feel at running D&D at 13+ because I don't feel in 3e or later editions there are good handholds for sandbox play that don't require a lot of effort on the GM (not that I'm unwilling - I just have better options). I always think their campaign AP's and modules  are so narrowly designed they're almost a cop-out of what I conceive high-level play to be. And I don't think the mechanics of D&D do well at this scale.

Right now, my players are skeptical about the power-level as we creep into that level of play, as if Savage Worlds isn't going to handle it. Yet, I'm feeling excited about the prospect, because the fact that Savage Rifts exists and I already know the power-level there is CRAZY insane levels of power more than Savage Pathfinder played at Legendary rank. For me - it's almost a foregone conclusion that I can feel the momentum of the game getting *better* as the PC's level up, knowing the ceiling is still radically higher than they can reach yet.

For me - I want that span of that 14+ levels to be YEARS in game-time. Not a module that takes place over weeks or months, where at "story breaks" in the adventure the PC's "Level Up" with a "DING!".

Which gets me to my main question - within the context of what you conceive of "High Level Play" - do you even engage in it? And if so what are the differences you feel about the system you're using?

I'm interested in OSR players that might engage in the CMI levels of play? I almost never see discussion threads about it. Do many of you engage in the long span of play across those levels in OSR games? What are the end-game conceits?

Do any of you that play high-powered games skip the transition of Zero, and go straight to the Hero - and play Exalted or some other system/setting where the PC's are assumed to be "High Level" in power from the start?

I've gone the full "zero to epic hero" gamut exactly twice in 41 years, with any game system.  Didn't stay long in the epic hero part either time.  As a rule, I don't much care for very high-level play, and only really do it because at various times players have wanted to.  Usually, it is accomplished by starting the game there and playing however long we want to do that. 

I did edge into it a few times with Fantasy Hero games, though in D&D terms those games were starting already in the mid-levels, deliberately handing out inflated (about double) XP, with a goal of ending the game just shy of epic.  When we really wanted to do epic with Hero System, we'd just play Champions.

Even in long-running D&D campaigns, we tend to have each player handling multiple characters, which definitely slows down the pace.

I've been running a campaign recently (it's been on hiatus for a bit and not clear if we are going to pick it up again) that has felt like it has had at least one of the hallmarks of what I think of as high-level / domain style play:

A lot of battles with units of various sizes clashing. This has been anything from 15-30 man units to ones with hundreds to a thousand. With PCs decide which unit to stand with and taking various actions to make a difference in the outcome.

Is this the sort of thing your thinking of?

I like epic play, and I regularly play at that power level, but it's usually a super-hero game. Which is rather different, but I think it might be useful to highlight both the similarities and the differences. There's less focus on leveling; characters are usually pretty static. Power differentials within the party exist, often very steep ones, rather than everything being balanced. There isn't a chase after items or new spells. From a combat standpoint, I find this means characters put less emphasis on their stats, and more on trying to come up with interesting solutions. This is a bit of a shift from a gamist mentality, to more of an exploration or perhaps a problem-solving perspective. From a party standpoint, it's less about absolute power and effectiveness, and more about everyone having something unique they can do to contribute. It's also heavily based on relationships and pathos. Characters take stands, even when they shouldn't, because the game is more forgiving. Since there's not all this stuff to collect, whether it's levels or gold or magic items or spells, it's more about relationships and roleplaying. Recurring NPCs, including villains who don't die in the first fight, also lean in this direction.

OTOH, supers is a modern genre. So it tends to be more realistic, more grounded, and heavy on science and self-awareness. So in a lot of very obvious ways, it lacks the overall feel of, say, the Silmarillion. But in some ways, it's a lot closer to that feel than D&D.

I prefer the B/X level range, because things tend to become somewhat squirrely after that point. There are mechanical issues with high level D&D, both old school and third edition. While I think both are manageable to some degree, they do require a lot more effort (for 3e), or (for both OS and 3e) a more active DM's hand. Which probably relates to your comments about sandbox, because a sandbox where the world exists on its own rather than adjusting to the PCs, works better with more robust systems. It's often blink-and-everyone's-dead, whether from 20d6 fireballs or targeting a weak save.

I'm going to start with an image so you can visualize what I'm talking about. Imagine this is a graph showing your player's overall enjoyment for each session.



In my experience, players tend to enjoy the period shortly after the campaign starts best, after they've broken their characters in and are starting to learn the world and plot events. This tends to be the highest peak of player enjoyment in any given campaign, and for groups I've been in, it typically ranges from Session 3 to Session 7, but where it falls specifically is often unique to each group and campaign.

This is followed by a lull where inevitably enjoyment declines. Certain things can create an uptick in enjoyment which tend to last between 4-6 sessions. Wrapping up the story almost always contributes to this (often with bittersweet feelings) but so can applying a twist to the campaign. The problem with campaign twists is that if they become predictable, either in content (one BBEG replaces another) or in time (you apply a twist every 6-8 sessions) they start to not increase player enjoyment as much as they used to.

I'm not saying this is a universal pattern which must be true, but in my experience, while the timing and the dips and peaks might be different for each group, the general trend has been true more often than not. The best campaigns for my particular group has tended to be between 10 and 20 sessions long; this campaign length typically gives you enough space to enjoy both peaks of player enjoyment, doesn't stretch things out so far that you need to apply multiple twists to keep things going, and usually doesn't let player enjoyment fall far enough to allow for many off-note sessions.

This makes ultra-long campaigns a bit of a paradox. To actually keep quality up for 100+ sessions (which I have been in exactly once and never had happen again) you will probably need to take several "season breaks" to cool the campaign off and do other things. But RPG campaigns are living things, and each time you hang up the hat for a season break, there's a significant chance you'll never return to it. No matter how you cut it, the long campaigns required to get to high level the old fashioned way are just as much a product of luck as they are a matter of good GMing and a cohesive group.

I also have one other opinion on high level campaigns specifically; while I am usually up for breaks from the norm, almost invariably the best roleplay comes when the party is forced out of its depth in some way. This doesn't really happen at the ultra-epic level, so high level campaigns are in the process of transitioning from a heroic fantasy you can have as your everyday RPG experience to an epic fantasy which is a pallet cleanser of sorts.

Personally, I no longer aim for long or high level campaigns. Ultra high level campaigns tend to stress systems out mechanically, the story inevitably hits off notes purely from the length, and it is difficult to keep player enjoyment consistently high. I will plan to end campaigns at around the Session 15 marker (give or take) and I will run sequel campaigns after cooling it off. If I build a high level campaign with 6-8 sequel campaigns, I won't complain, but considering the headaches involved at that point, I'm not going to push too hard to make it happen. The campaign series lasts as long as it lasts, and I try to enjoy it for what it turns itself into.

I did a semi high level game, running 3.5, where I got the campaign from 1st to about 13th level.  But like you said, the system started to fall apart.  I had PCs running around with multiple attacks, combat took FOREVER, and some of the players were getting a bit into the worldbuilding/domain running aspect of the game, which I like but not much- I set the campaign up around the City of Greyhawk. 

I had a big planar quest that fell apart, and I lost the enthusiasm to continue.  In those days I wanted to do everything "correctly", so I would try to completely stat up a monster- and drive myself insane in the process.  3.5 and Pathfinder is maddening to run.

Now I GM Ars Magica.  While developing a PC takes time, creating a monster is a snap, and every character has exactly one action.  Which I like.  And the domain-game is baked in from the get-go.  So the "high-level" aspect is already geared up.  My current group of players are playing wizards just out of apprentice-ship, but eventually they'll be movers and shakers in England, maybe all of Europe, who knows, which will be fun.

I ran an ultra-high level game for about a year before it (that is to say "I") fell apart. The system was Pathfinder, and the characters were all 4th-6th level.

I switched to SW from PF at level 11 because it fell apart.

Characters just have too many abilities that are OK by themselves, but stack together to become unweildy.

Greetings!

I have always liked High-Level Campaigns. I have run a good number of them through the years. I currently have a high-level D&D 5E campaign going.

High-Level Campaigns embrace a number of dynamics and elements that are distinctly different from low-level campaigns. My groups routinely get involved with building and developing realms, expanding cities, building fortresses, organizing armies, conducting high-level diplomacy, and engaging in large-scale war.

Besides all of this, there are high-level dungeons and mega-dungeons to explore; strange and wondrous frontiers to explore; and mysteries to investigate. In addition, there is typically also lots of dynasty-building, politics, and romance going on as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I went through the full Rise of the Runelords AP for Pathfinder. Played a sorcerer.

After about 12-15th level, I think you're going to start seeing the issues mentioned here. Competent players with only a few tools can hash many encounters; competent players with access to high level abilities are going to massacre whole scads of bad guys unless the DM tailors the encounters for a challenge.

Quote from: SHARK on February 01, 2022, 03:39:25 PM
Greetings!

I have always liked High-Level Campaigns. I have run a good number of them through the years. I currently have a high-level D&D 5E campaign going.

High-Level Campaigns embrace a number of dynamics and elements that are distinctly different from low-level campaigns. My groups routinely get involved with building and developing realms, expanding cities, building fortresses, organizing armies, conducting high-level diplomacy, and engaging in large-scale war.

Besides all of this, there are high-level dungeons and mega-dungeons to explore; strange and wondrous frontiers to explore; and mysteries to investigate. In addition, there is typically also lots of dynasty-building, politics, and romance going on as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Was it you that had that ENWorld thread in the early 00's that had a succubus fall in love with a paladin? I can't recall who that was but it involved very high level amounts of interweaving and kingmaking.

I've DMed a few 2e campaigns that reached high level.  With that system what I would define as 'high level play' starts somewhere around 9th - 10th as the PCs start to acquire small armies of followers, and really kicks in at 11th - 12th as spell casters get access to 6th level spells, which start to drastically change the dynamics of the game. 

For me the big change with high level play is that the players can dictate the terms of the game within the game's fiction.  They can teleport, they can raise the dead, they have the wealth to fund armies, castles, etc.  There are very few environmental factors the DM can introduce that are even going to slow the PCs down.  Instead, I found myself leaning more and more on various antagonists who had access to the same sort of world-cracking power the PCs did.  At that point (for me) the game started to devolve into an arms race, but the players seemed to find battling legions of demons and drow arch-mages riding dragons endlessly entertaining.

All of these campaigns took place in the 90s when my friends and I had the time to sink hundreds upon hundreds of hours into role-playing games.  Also, this was junior high and high school, I may have lacked the intellectual sophistication to properly craft high level adventures. 

The OSR has embraced high lethality and the mantra of 'the answer is not on your character sheet'.  While the games I played back in the day were highly lethal, Raise Dead was always readily available.  Without that, few characters will ever survive to high level.  Equally, with all the items and power a high level character has, the answer in high level play is often on your character sheet.  Because of this I think there is some tension between the mainstream of OSR thought and high level play as presented in any pre-WotC edition of D&D.               

Many of my long time gaming friends love(d) Exalted.  I was never a fan.  The setting had some neat ideas, but I found the power level rendered too much of the world irrelevant.  Similar things happen with high level D&D, but at least you have to get up to that power.

I feel like the challenges of high level play have never been 'solved' in the way low level play has, for any system really.       

Quote from: SHARK on February 01, 2022, 03:39:25 PM
Greetings!

I have always liked High-Level Campaigns. I have run a good number of them through the years. I currently have a high-level D&D 5E campaign going.

High-Level Campaigns embrace a number of dynamics and elements that are distinctly different from low-level campaigns. My groups routinely get involved with building and developing realms, expanding cities, building fortresses, organizing armies, conducting high-level diplomacy, and engaging in large-scale war.

Besides all of this, there are high-level dungeons and mega-dungeons to explore; strange and wondrous frontiers to explore; and mysteries to investigate. In addition, there is typically also lots of dynasty-building, politics, and romance going on as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm similar - probably on a smaller scale than SHARK, but I've played two 5e campaigns up through 20th (Wilderlands and Golarion) and running another (Primeval Thule) at 17th currently - with 9 PCs. I think 5e handles high level really well, it doesn't feel anemic to me. I don't like high level 3e/PF. High level 4e was fine at 11th-20th, but gets sloggy at 21st-30th.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on February 01, 2022, 04:33:42 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 01, 2022, 03:39:25 PM
Greetings!

I have always liked High-Level Campaigns. I have run a good number of them through the years. I currently have a high-level D&D 5E campaign going.

High-Level Campaigns embrace a number of dynamics and elements that are distinctly different from low-level campaigns. My groups routinely get involved with building and developing realms, expanding cities, building fortresses, organizing armies, conducting high-level diplomacy, and engaging in large-scale war.

Besides all of this, there are high-level dungeons and mega-dungeons to explore; strange and wondrous frontiers to explore; and mysteries to investigate. In addition, there is typically also lots of dynasty-building, politics, and romance going on as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Was it you that had that ENWorld thread in the early 00's that had a succubus fall in love with a paladin? I can't recall who that was but it involved very high level amounts of interweaving and kingmaking.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yes, I had several huge threads on EN-World about epic level campaigns, especially before 2008. Huge armies, politics, weird romances with succubi, vampires and Paladins. Kingmaking. All kinds of crazy stuff going on!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon on February 01, 2022, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 01, 2022, 03:39:25 PM
Greetings!

I have always liked High-Level Campaigns. I have run a good number of them through the years. I currently have a high-level D&D 5E campaign going.

High-Level Campaigns embrace a number of dynamics and elements that are distinctly different from low-level campaigns. My groups routinely get involved with building and developing realms, expanding cities, building fortresses, organizing armies, conducting high-level diplomacy, and engaging in large-scale war.

Besides all of this, there are high-level dungeons and mega-dungeons to explore; strange and wondrous frontiers to explore; and mysteries to investigate. In addition, there is typically also lots of dynasty-building, politics, and romance going on as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm similar - probably on a smaller scale than SHARK, but I've played two 5e campaigns up through 20th (Wilderlands and Golarion) and running another (Primeval Thule) at 17th currently - with 9 PCs. I think 5e handles high level really well, it doesn't feel anemic to me. I don't like high level 3e/PF. High level 4e was fine at 11th-20th, but gets sloggy at 21st-30th.

Greetings!

Good stuff, S'mon!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK