I like high level campaigns and have done a fair amount of it over the years.  We took two parties in BECMI up to the cusp of Immortality, but I never liked the Immortals rules, so they just retired.  In AD&D I've done a lot of homebrewed stuff for 1e AD&D at levels 8+ and I'm currently writing a campaign for Castles & Crusades that will culminate around level 14.  We're also playing the BFRPG "Saga of the Giants" in our OSE Advanced campaign.  That was supposed to be the final adventure(s) for that group, but we're really having fun with it, so maybe I'll end up putting together something on my own for actual domain play.

I think it's feasible enough for simpler games, but I wouldn't want to run it for 3.5 or Pathfinder.  Even AD&D high level combats can slog on.  Having criticals definitely speeds things up.

As for domain play, I seem to be more into it than my players.  So we don't do too much of that.

Quote from: SHARK on February 01, 2022, 05:47:10 PM
Greetings!

Good stuff, S'mon!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yesterday the Primeval Thule PCs attacked and 'killed' the Great Old One Shar-Ngolyeth in its pit on the Gamidiri Bar, was a good fight. 

Assuming you play 1E by the book, I actually think the power curve starts to level out dramatically after 7th level or so.

Gamers who take on a playstyle susceptible to the 15-minute adventuring day aren't necessarily going to experience the leveling out. Because obviously an 18th level magic-user unleashing all their firepower in a single encounter can do an order of magnitude more damage and destruction than an 8th level magic-user. But if you have longer, "epic" quests, where you can't just stop every 15 minutes to recharge, and you actually have to conserve your resources over a longer period of time, things look really different.

If there's a time element to to the quest, there's a limit on daily down time. That imposes a limit on daily spell slot replenishment. That in turn puts a limit on daily heal spells. That in turn puts a limit on how many hit points you can lose in a day sustainably. And this number is far, far, far, far less than the number of hit points a fighter would have at that level.

The mode, median, and mean to the nearest integer of all ACs in the original Monster Manual is 5, and there's little to no correlation between AC and how powerful a monster is. A 7th level fighter with a +4 sword and gauntlets of ogre power can hit AC 5 on a 2. And doesn't get any better at hitting the majority of monsters in the MM beyond that point. And with every level up beyond that point, the list of monsters for which it matters shrinks.

So I don't find the game system breaks down at any level ever, because despite how big the numbers on a character sheet gets, the significance of those bigger numbers diminishes.

The real problem I see is in how the style of adventure changes. Those longer quests requiring many sessions where the party is far away from any base of operation, that's where the problem of how to handle PCs in a players absence begin to pop up. And also player attendance does suffer because of I guess you could say the increased attention span required for these long quests. The alternative is building castles and domain management, which a majority of players would regard as "Papers & Paychecks" and not something they have a lot of interest in doing.

Everyone wants to play a high level character, but few want to take on high level tasks.

Quote from: Lunamancer on February 02, 2022, 09:15:14 AM
Everyone wants to play a high level character, but few want to take on high level tasks.

Says you. I was MORE than happy to turf that motherfucker Karzoug. Watching his wail of the banshee bounce off my spell resistance made my night.

The power level of 1e *definitely* starts climbing at 7th. That to me is where the 1e and 2e really hit their sweet spot. By 13th the cracks start forming, but a decent GM can keep it together. Once you hit 15th, assuming you're doing sandbox-style play, you're going to be juggling a lot of stuff that fortunately 2e has a lot of content you can pull from that are helpful like Birthright, but you're going to definitely be dealing with casters, both Cleric and Wizard that will definitely have heavy impact on the content the PC's are dealing with.

I guess what I'm fishing around here for - Supers not withstanding and I'll address separately because Supers have their own considerations in terms of "High Level" play that I'm intimately familiar with - was how often GM's around these parts actually engage with high-level play on purpose, or is it "too much hassle", or do you just play the ball where it lands?

Personally, I'm always aiming for high-level play, I never start there. Because to me it's the fullness of gaming to let my players start wherever we start, and let the game go to the furthest maximum expression (wherever it leads) that we can all be satisfied with ending it. Sometimes it never ends.

Supers - I've run supers as a genre longer and at LEAST as consistently as fantasy. And specifically, I've probably run MSH more than any other specific TTRPG based on edition. Which is kinda scary for me to think about it, because I always considered MSH my fallback game, but it remains consistently in rotation at my table by request of my players, many of whom have never played a Supers game, and know nothing about comics. But once they get the taste... they keep coming back for me.

In the last 10-years that's what got me really thinking about the apparent bifurcation in what people think of as "high-level" play and the odd disparity of ACTUAL power afforded to players in game, depending on genre. Many GM's actively avoid high-level play because of how "difficult" it is, I contend this is a system-issue not a power-issue. Because Supers generally lets players start where the vast majority of other TTRPG's have long ended in terms of the power-scale, IN GENERAL.

Yet, Supers, while extremely popular at my table, are unpopular in actual reality. Which I think is a travesty, but one borne of the fact that it requires GM's to be real evangelists for the genre and have skills to pull it off. Supers requires a subset of genre knowledge that is hard to maintain a long-term campaign and manage PC's with veritable godlike powers, assuming you wade into Supers High-Level Play at all.

So I kinda don't "count" Supers when it comes to this discussion, because most people don't really engage in it (and Galactus bless those of you in this thread that do regularly - because we're a rare breed). But as it pertains to this discussion, Supers looms over it because it represents something that I'm trying to pin-down with non-supers players/GM's.

IF it's about power-level or is it about system-facility?

Would you GM high-level Fantasy (whatever you want to define that as) if the system gave you good mechanical control? Or is it more important that you stick with whatever system you're used to - D&D, RQ, GURPS, whatever, and never get into the high-level play unless your game evolves into that naturally? Or do you just avoid it altogether and call it a wrap?

I ask because it's curious to me if the reticence to engage in high-level play comes from actual desire to *not* run games because of the system, which reinforces that reticence due to bad past experiences. Or is it simply uninteresting? I'm polling because ultimately this is about system-loyalty over... I dunno what you wanna call it, "concept loyalty"?

Those that homebrew nearly exclusively probably understand this since they're homebrewing their rules to envelope the concept of their campaigns. But for those of us that use specific systems - that becomes the comfortable coat we like to wear to run those "concept campaigns" and we stick with them no matter what, especially if it's not a good fit. If I see another video come across my feed about how to play Marvel Super Heroes in 5e... GRRRR...

Anyhow I digress. I'm trying to figure out whether the conceptual cart is in front of the system-horse or not.

Most of my high level play experience comes from 2e (in the 90s), when we had enough time as teens to devote the hours of continuous play necessary to even reach those levels. I found that around level 10 or so play starts to break due to HP inflation and PCs being significantly more powerful than low level opponents, including regular peasants and town guards, which the PCs could just plow through and level an entire village if they really wanted to.

Level 7 or so was also the point where casters gain access to 4th level spells and enough spell slots to start doing some real damage as well, with access to enough area effect spells to wipe out a small town on their own. Plus access to Stoneskin to become invulnerable to guard attacks. PCs didn't necessarily do this in my game--at least, not to "civilized" race settlements (Orcs and other goblin spawn and the like don't count)--but that's pretty much what happened to large enemy groups below level 3 or so, and I could just see the writing in the wall if anyone decided to RP "Stupid Evil" aligned characters a that level.

The highest level we ever reached was around level 25 or so with a handful of characters before we semi-retired them and eventually stopped playing them organically. Most other characters never made it pass level 15 or so, and rarely even broke level 10 before ADD set in and we moved on to new PCs. The highest level fighter's effective THAC0 (including bonuses and such) was so insane, he could routinely decapitate humanoid enemies using Called Shot rules, he had like 5+ attacks per round, between fighter levels, weapon mastery, scimitars of speed (Haste) and two-weapon fighting. After a while we didn't see the point in continuing to level them, cuz AC only got so low (AC was decending in those days) and I couldn't just make every enemy AC -10 just so that one character could STILL decapitate them if he wanted to.

I never got into domain building stuff, cuz its too much bookkeeping and players never got really interested (forgot about it) in practice once PCs actually got to high levels (before that, it was like "Whoa, we can eventually build castles and attract followers and stuff!"). So the focus has always been more on dungeon crawlers and random adventures, exploring stuff, killing monsters and taking treasure along the way.

Yesterday I watched a video podcast called The Grand Campaign. The first episode just came out. The focus of this podcast is all about playing and managing campaigns that last year's of in game time as well as IRL time. Really good discussion. Made me realize what I've been missing in my gaming.

Quote from: tenbones on February 02, 2022, 11:29:04 AM
IF it's about power-level or is it about system-facility?

Would you GM high-level Fantasy (whatever you want to define that as) if the system gave you good mechanical control? Or is it more important that you stick with whatever system you're used to - D&D, RQ, GURPS, whatever, and never get into the high-level play unless your game evolves into that naturally? Or do you just avoid it altogether and call it a wrap?

To me, it's about setting.  Sure, the system has an effect on how power level and setting interact.  Played straight out of the box, I can go "higher" in conceptual levels in D&D 1E than D&D 3E in a campaign that starts "first and gritty".  Part of that, though, is because how and where 3E (and later) ramp up the power level.  And of course with 4E and 5E starting the characters off more powerful (in some ways), that moves the window too. 

That can all be worked around, with some effort.  I can envision a setting where it makes sense that there are lots of adventures for 1st level 5E characters and a bunch for 20th level 5E characters at the same time.  I just don't want to run it, and don't much want to play in it. 

But then, I like running different campaigns in settings custom designed for that campaign, which means that if I want to play a different power level, I can go do what I'm already inclined to do anyway, maybe even with a different system. 

As for supers, the reason we'd make the jump from Fantasy Hero to Champions at those power levels is because high-level Fantasy Hero might as well be Champions and vice versa.  In fact, before the launch of FH 1E, I was getting ready with a few friends to run a "Epic Fantasy" game using Champions rules straight, just flavored different.  Or put another way, really high-level fantasy is super heroes.

Greetings!

Hmmm...power level doesn't bother me. I have already Rule Zeroed spells like Fly, Teleport, Raise Dead, and some others. Beyond that, I have taken the DM scissors to any sub-class, class, or whatever, that provides teleportation, flying, telepathy, or plane-traveling, gate, and commune spells or abilities. I also restrict shapeshifting spells and abilities.

It isn't difficult to create creatures or opponents that have the players sweating, regardless of their level. I have always been aggressive with that as DM, especially after experience playing WFRP 1E extensively, as well as Rolemaster, for years.

I don't like *superheroes* of any genre, and certainly not in an ancient and medieval flavoured campaign world. And yes, I know there's a significant difference between a level 20 Player Character and a level 1 NPC--but the whole superhero vibe is just verboten for me. Heroes are good. Even "Mythic Heroes" to an extent. Superheroes? No.

I know WOTC has been pushing the superhero thing for awhile now, and it annoys me greatly.

System wise, I just make it work for me. That's what the DM's hammer is for, and the Viking Hat. If D&D has a rule I don't like--I change it. If D&D doesn't have a rule I think is necessary, I create my own rules to cover whatever it is that I want covered. I have a vision for how my world works. I've been running my world of Thandor for decades now--so I know Thandor better than Greyhawk, better than Forgotten Realms, better than any commercial world presented out there. I always make the rules fit the world, and not the world fitting the rules. The World comes first, and the rules serve the world. You have to be absolutely ruthless about this kind of thing, or every 6 or 8 years some group of "game designers" will write a bunch of stupid shit that can absolutely fuck up everything you have spent literally decades creating.

I remain the Dungeon Master, and am always in absolute command.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Nearly all our campaigns last around 2-3 years and ends up at the 15-20 level range.   Our current one (PF2), the PC's started off as kids (0 level nobodies) and after 43 sessions they just reached 10th level.   I fully expect the PC's all hitting 20th by the end of the campaign (unless a TPK happens which has nearly happened a few times).   I'm already prepping for my next one which will be Savage Worlds Pathfinder! Converting my homebrew races over was a breeze.   Now I'm left with just working out some minor details for my setting    I've already ran a SWP oneshot for my group and it went well so I know they will be ready when we jump over to the new system

I was digging through my old Ad&D 1e DMG guide the other day and found myself pulling out all my old books and I'm prepping to run a oneshot soon which I know our younger members of the group will enjoy (these guys enjoy PC games like Dark souls so enjoy challenging play) and my core group that I started play with in '83 will also get a kick out of it

Any campaign that I've run in D&D (regardless of edition) that has made it past 12th level, have been multi-year campaigns that I run weekly (I've never run less than weekly).

And it's become very clear to me, anecdotally, that the vast majority of players do not experience the multi-year campaign at the volume I'm running things, and even fewer experience actual long-term high-level play. Which I often wonder about from a marketing sense. Because there has always been the image of parties fighting gigantic dragons, and demons or whatever, and outside of a planned encounter in a module or something, and contextually in my own campaigns, such encounters rarely happen without a lot of buildup and machinations merely to get the PC's into the power-strata to 1) deal with such threats 2) such threats are not typically *stupid*, they know beings like the PC's exist and they tend to be very intelligent and I play them as such, so getting caught in the scenarios where you'd have such fights takes a *LOT* of work to whittle down their respective defenses/minions etc.

That journey are often long-term goals that takes many twists and turns over the course of a campaign that can dog my players for literal years. When I read a lot of the modern 5e/PF adventure paths, I often giggle at how silly/stupid they make their villains given the contextual power they actually possess. The contrivance of having this manicured progression for the sole purpose of shoe-horning players to high-level for the purposes of a curated experience designed to have that snapshot encounter filled with Macguffins to allow you to fight Tiamat or whomever with very little requirements placed on the players and their PC's other than making it from encounter to encounter as proscribed.

I've always contended that such experiences are useful if only to prime the pump for players wanting to have a more organic and deeper game where there are no hand-holds, no MacGuffins not designed by their own machinations, or at least they're emergent form their own organic interactions of the campaign. I'm wondering if that's true at all? Or is it such a rare experience that players don't know better because they're not really looking at gaming that way?

I know I get some good players that do the module-running thing for years, they're smart people. But when they hit my game, it's like they're loosed off the chain (often to dangerous and deadly ends) because they either can't believe all the freedom I allow for them to pursue whatever it is they wanna do in context with the setting - even other players have to tell them to "dude, be careful - this isn't a Disneyland themepark, one doesn't merely ignore the sign that says "Here Be Dragons" thinking the GM isn't deadly serious about there being a potential dragon there at 2nd level. Or is there? Or worse, I get a smart player that is indoctrinated into this "game-logic" where they react to everything like it's a movie-prop designed to push some narrative that only exists in their minds? Where they think that the Death Trap has to have some way out that I, the GM, places there for convenience for the Heroes to escape. No, when my NPC's decide to the kill the PC, I'm precisely as ruthless as I believe their intelligence and ability will allow them to be. So when I set up a deathtrap - I'm going to try and do it as efficiently as reasonably possible.

Likewise I play my NPC's as stupid as they might be. The tension keeps the players grounded, and they feel great that everything they possess they earned, even if it comes by opportunism (which is a big ethical and moral check in my games - how much to the PC's actually show a little mercy or contrition in their undertakings with their adversaries that don't always simply want to "kill" the PC's. Basically I try to make it feel dramatic with a healthy dash of "real" for verisimilitude. I don't like babying my players at all - and I find that those players, especially new ones, raise their game and like it. We aim to go as far as we possibly can in every campaign. We don't usually make it. But that's okay too. When we do, the real magic is there - that odd but awesome vista of "How the hell did we get this far from relative humble beginnings?"

But I'm starting to think that system plays a much larger role in this lack of experience - and obviously D&D looms large - because it's not some secret that high-level D&D play is uncommon because we know the system gets really unwieldy beyond 13th. I can't but help feeling that it's a put-off to GM's that stay in that D&D ecosphere - and I'm not limiting this to any particular edition. I wonder about GM's that started in Palladium Fantasy, or Rolemaster, or any other non-D&D system, do they do "high-level" play more/less?

For me - I know MSH tossed me into the deep end of the pool early on, but my forays into other non-D&D fantasy games (Talislanta and Palladium specifically) caused me to question a lot of assumptions because they are *much* higher octane in terms of power but also different enough mechanically from D&D they process that high-octane power more efficiently. But even then it took years for me to hit that stride in D&D. I just assumed *every* GM went through this. Now I'm thinking GM's that run these long-term campaigns that reach and hold at high-level for a good amount of time are rare unicorns that are basically invisible to the rest of the TTRPG game-o-sphere. To the point that not only are the way we run our games extreme outliers, but there is a fiction that everyone else believes about high-level play (the curated form ala Adventure Paths) that renders the way we run our games as practically impossible to really comprehend.

When others on this thread say "My campaign ran for 5+ years..." I know people at my LFGS that do *not* believe such things exist (and I'd generalize a bit and guess most of them got into the hobby in the latter-era of 3.x). 4e and 5e has only cemented this kind of attitude that high-level play only exists for a brief time you could count on a few encounters likely at the end of a Box Campaign set. At least that's the attitude I get from a lot of newer players.

Quote from: Krugus on February 02, 2022, 06:52:31 PM
Nearly all our campaigns last around 2-3 years and ends up at the 15-20 level range.   Our current one (PF2), the PC's started off as kids (0 level nobodies) and after 43 sessions they just reached 10th level.   I fully expect the PC's all hitting 20th by the end of the campaign (unless a TPK happens which has nearly happened a few times).   I'm already prepping for my next one which will be Savage Worlds Pathfinder! Converting my homebrew races over was a breeze.   Now I'm left with just working out some minor details for my setting    I've already ran a SWP oneshot for my group and it went well so I know they will be ready when we jump over to the new system

I was digging through my old Ad&D 1e DMG guide the other day and found myself pulling out all my old books and I'm prepping to run a oneshot soon which I know our younger members of the group will enjoy (these guys enjoy PC games like Dark souls so enjoy challenging play) and my core group that I started play with in '83 will also get a kick out of it

You are a Unicorn. This sounds very much like my own experiences.

A thing that has worked for me is asking that people have the next 3 months free in advance and also never skipping more then 1 week of game. Before long it becomes a habbit.

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 05:03:40 PM
Greetings!

Hmmm...power level doesn't bother me. I have already Rule Zeroed spells like Fly, Teleport, Raise Dead, and some others. Beyond that, I have taken the DM scissors to any sub-class, class, or whatever, that provides teleportation, flying, telepathy, or plane-traveling, gate, and commune spells or abilities. I also restrict shapeshifting spells and abilities.

I want to be clear here - for me, and I suspect what you're saying is the same - it's about context. Since I spend a lot of time in the Forgotten Realms over the years, (but I got decades of time in Greyhawk and other settings too). The important thing is putting what I want in Magic within those settings in context. I *do* not remove spells that I want to exist. If it exists, then it's there, what I do is make the act of learning such magic like I treat non-casters learning how to use weapons/armor for combat. They gotta work for it. And the more powerful it is, the harder they gotta work. One of the things I detest about modern D&D is the videogame logic of "I level up! ding! Here's my new powers. With zero context added to what "leveling up" actually means. Now this could be a montage, or whatever - that's fine. But if I place requirements over and above you getting enough XP to learn <X> from your "level up", well guess what? That's what it's going to take if you want "Fly" or to learn how to Specialize with a "Battle Axe".

This is ESPECIALLY true of magic. It grinds me a bit when spellcasters think everything is just automatic for their skills/art, while non-casters are assumed to be grinding all the time at getting better at their abilities. I demand roleplaying justifications at all times.

As a Supers GM, powers and the powerlevel of spells does not cause any hesitation for me at all. There is literally no spell that has ever existed in D&D that compares to having to deal with MSH's array of super-powers in use. Telepathy? Teleport? Flight? That's easy stuff. Try dealing with PC's that have Matter Rearrangement... LOLOLOL or Cosmic Awareness + a few other janky-ass powers that will put most GM's on their heels in a Fantasy setting. The key here is context. This is not to say that like you, I acknowledge these spells can cause ripples in the assumptions of a setting (Hello? Teleport would *completely* change the economy of any fantasy setting) - it becomes doubly important for me, if I'm going to allow such powers in the game, that I contextualize WHY they aren't fucking up entire aspects of the pseudo-medieval world's economy and political realities I find more important.

Or yes, you could just remove them heh.

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 05:03:40 PMIt isn't difficult to create creatures or opponents that have the players sweating, regardless of their level. I have always been aggressive with that as DM, especially after experience playing WFRP 1E extensively, as well as Rolemaster, for years.

I don't like *superheroes* of any genre, and certainly not in an ancient and medieval flavoured campaign world. And yes, I know there's a significant difference between a level 20 Player Character and a level 1 NPC--but the whole superhero vibe is just verboten for me. Heroes are good. Even "Mythic Heroes" to an extent. Superheroes? No.

I know WOTC has been pushing the superhero thing for awhile now, and it annoys me greatly.

Yeah - there is a difference. I also think the mechanics of the system should underpin the intent of the content. d20 does not do that well. (Mutants and Masterminds is an exception), but the notion of what we want "high-powered" to mean depends greatly on the setting. What's really funny to me is that their notion of what a "super-hero" in fantasy is, is such an outlier to their own setting conceits, I mean - okay yes, you'd need to be "fantasy super-heroes" to do the things in their AP's but those are such curated encounters that it doesn't really count to me.

Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 05:03:40 PMSystem wise, I just make it work for me. That's what the DM's hammer is for, and the Viking Hat. If D&D has a rule I don't like--I change it. If D&D doesn't have a rule I think is necessary, I create my own rules to cover whatever it is that I want covered. I have a vision for how my world works. I've been running my world of Thandor for decades now--so I know Thandor better than Greyhawk, better than Forgotten Realms, better than any commercial world presented out there. I always make the rules fit the world, and not the world fitting the rules. The World comes first, and the rules serve the world. You have to be absolutely ruthless about this kind of thing, or every 6 or 8 years some group of "game designers" will write a bunch of stupid shit that can absolutely fuck up everything you have spent literally decades creating.

I remain the Dungeon Master, and am always in absolute command.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Definitely true. I just look at it like this - D&D is Stone. I don't want to craft everything from Stone. I've contorted D&D in every imaginable way to do things it was never intended for. The payout for the effort was rarely worth it. But as a former tribalist, that was "My system of choice." Now? I want that option of pulling out my DM's Hammer (and Viking Hat) so I can bend, shape and work the mechanics of a given system with *maximum* efficiency. Which is why I've gravitated away from D&D (ideological reasons aside, which make no mistake is a big part of my leaving the d20 herd), because I've found other means to do what I want with better fidelity.

I'm still on a journey with Savage Worlds. My current campaign is going very well, I still consider it a test-run. What am I testing? Can I create the "DnD Experience" in a traditional "DnD setting" (1e Greybox Forgotten Realms) using Savage Worlds Pathfinder (retuned for 1e D&D - with all the Pathfinder-mechanics re-done), with the goal of organically hitting High-Level gaming with the option of going Spelljammer or Planescape and going *full* Demi-god mode if possible.

Doing this in native D&D would be very difficult without massively slowing down the XP curve, (which can be done) but I'll run into the mechanical realities LFQM and mechanical hurdles of post-13th level play which will vastly shorten the hang-time of high-level play. While with Savage Worlds, I can transition the analog 15th-level PC's directly into jaw-dropping power-scenarios by filtering in organically rules form Savage Rifts, that would allow my players to hang in God-Mode indefinitely. And I should be able to do this with **minimal** rules tweaking, since nearly everything is plug-n-play.

And thus far it's working splendidly. Plus it's forcing me to create some new sub-systems that are suitable for publication under the SW banner for my other projects (my own setting) which is another added benefit.

I think I could do this with Talislanta's system - which also has its own rules for high-level play that literally no one I know has ever actually survived long enough in Talislanta to use. But it would require more tweaking to modernize a bit.

I think WEG d6 could do this too since it has built-in scaling possibilities that could be re-worked for Fantasy play. This is definitely a lot of work, but I think the long-term payout would have more fidelity than D&D does at its own game.

I could probably name a few other systems that I think fit this bill - RQ6e/Mythras being another. My point being that system is a factor I want to adjudicate for the *lack* of high-level play as an unnecessary speedbump.

Consider how long you (and others here) have been GMing D&D and the contortions you've had to learn to do to get the mechanics to express the things you want IN your game. Vs. putting the game first and having the rules give you the heft and task-resolutions to do *anything* you want with minimal fuss, or maximum impact with a little work, but the end result is a game that give you far more hang-time at the deep end of the pool?

The REAL question is: Do people even want to play in the deep end? Or is it simple a place where people pretend they go, but campaigns die in the abyss?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 03, 2022, 11:53:51 AM
A thing that has worked for me is asking that people have the next 3 months free in advance and also never skipping more then 1 week of game. Before long it becomes a habbit.

When I get an open spot at my table - I'm very upfront about the time-requirements. This, more than anything else usually ends the discussion. I play with a group of professional people, everyone has fairly serious day-jobs, some married with kids, in different job sectors. So we take our weekend game "serious", which I liken to a very active bowling/softball league. We play once a week, from 4pm to Midnight and we try to pack as much in there as possible.

It's a *huge* requirement, I realize, but that's my primary demand. I've had to turn away a lot of potentially good folks that couldn't make that schedule, and frankly it weirded me out for years before I realized people don't play like that very much any longer.

But yeah, I don't have a checklist of how many sessions you miss, I mean life happens, right? But if it becomes noticeable thing, the axe has to fall, and I'll cut'em loose, no hard feelings etc. The Game(tm) must go on.