Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 12:59:07 PM
I have trouble grokking the idea that there is some big problem with 5e D&D at high level. It seems to run very smoothly to me.  3e/PF certainly breaks down, but that is obvious from mid level, around 7th IME. Edit: Not seen a problem with 1e AD&D or BECMI D&D either, really. BECMI has a bit of an issue with Fireball being too powerful in the teen levels - it gets very eggshells-with-hammers -but this doesn't ruin the game.

I allow for anyone to become so fluid with an edition that everything just "breezes" along. 1e/2e is like that for me. 3.x was like that for me as well to a point...

MSH/CP2020/Talislanta - I could practically run these with just my dice and a notepad - to *any* scale of power/level with very little effort.

5e - I put in the same club as 3e. I could do it. I think it would run much better than 3.x does post-12th level. The problem is I don't think it's that fun. There are other issues - like HP bloat and frankly, I find the system mechanics boring. These are my personal opinions of course.

My real question is not simply about D&D, but I'm speaking about D&D as a reference point because it's ubiquitous to most TTRPG gamer's experiences. I'm more interested specifically in GM's *actual* engagement at high-level play, whether on purpose or organically the campaign just goes there. And I'm wondering about the impact of what we recognize (even you and I are in tacit agreement about some editions of D&D being *really* bad at high-level play) as systemic influences on people's opinions about high-level play.

Mines of Bloodstone runs really good in 1e/2e. It runs janky as fuck on 3e. It might run well in 5e. Post-Throne of Bloodstone as a sandbox and you'll be stretching 1e/2e to its limits but it could be done. 3e would be impossible to maintain. 5e? No idea... I suspect it would be anemic longterm.

But what if you ran it in Mythras? or d6? Then ran a full post Throne of Bloodstone sandbox, can it be maintained and obviously would such an experience change people's opinions on high-level play?

Or is sustained high-level play simply that rare that no one really knows outside the few of us that get there with any regularity?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 03, 2022, 03:14:03 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 03, 2022, 01:32:05 PMOn one hand, this is a game, not a job

Its like being part of a hobby sports team/ theatre play. People still depend on you.

This is precisely how I treat it.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 03, 2022, 05:55:24 PM
Damn!  I wish I lived in your neighborhood.  I'd love to be involved in a hardcore campaign like that.  The last "regular" group I played with was 10 years ago and that was seldom more than twice a month due to everyone's schedules.  And we rotated DMing so it was basically a series of modules or 1-2 shot home brewed adventures.  After I moved away they started a regular campaign that ran for like 8-9 years until it wrapped up last year.  Not sure what they're doing now.

I play with family mostly and they're much more casual about it than me.  So we might go months without playing, then play 3 times in a week.  But it's hard to keep momentum that way.  And they greatly prefer stripped down games.  So these days it's mostly OSE or White Box, which is totally fine by me, but I'd like to play more.  We're hoping to do more of a campaign style with The One Ring (using White Box) as they have enough sense of the world, albeit mostly from the movies, that we can keep going without them forgetting a bunch of setting specific stuff.

I personally would give up the hobby entirely if I only played every other week or less. What's funny, and a little odd to me, is hear this *all* the time from people online.

And it kinda bums me out a little people play short sessions, with larger gaps between. I suspect it's also because D&D has gone so mainstream the GM's out there are, relatively, less experienced. I know people that play in multiple groups online and none of them play more than twice a month in any of their games. It makes recruiting for my games that much harder because my schedule is seen as "hardcore"... when I tell those prospective players our schedule USED to be 12-noon Saturday until whenever the sun comes up Sunday...

Even in my old age I've gone soft.

And I think I'm pretty good at budgeting my time - I'm *super* busy all the time, between work, my pet projects, and other hobbies/volunteer-stuff I do and family (not in that order). So when I hear people say "I can't play at that schedule"... I'm rarely convinced, which is fine, I want people that really want to play and aren't looking for ways to convince themselves to not play.

Which is, I believe, part of why I can achieve and do sustained long-term campaigns that hit high-level and create some pretty wonderful memories. It's because my group is all-in and I don't take it for granted. It's funny because a lot of my players recently were discussing old campaigns - and the new guy(s) were realizing that some of my players have been with me for over 20-years... and a lot of those memories  and campaign stories are signposts of our friendship (much like I assume anyone else with long-term players has).

But you know, it says something when players stick around for the content you serve up as a GM. And my games are not for the faint-hearted. They're always challenging, and I know it can be a very big surprise to new players that have grown up in Post-3e world. Which again is why I suspect the D&D System itself has a lot to do with the reticence of high-level play (or even sandbox play).

I also think it's a mentality - most people like doing things casually. Especially in gaming. I have to put out the extra-effort to find people that want to play a *little* more hardcore than just casual. This is true of my videogame habits too - back before the Battlefield franchise ate shit, my BF4 squad was all 50-something old fucking men, and we got ranked into Division 1 (top 3% in the world) which shocked us all because we were just "casually" playing, having fun but being "serious" about it. Same goes with our TTRPG's.

Quote from: tenbones on February 04, 2022, 12:25:16 PM5e - I put in the same club as 3e. I could do it. I think it would run much better than 3.x does post-12th level. The problem is I don't think it's that fun. There are other issues - like HP bloat and frankly, I find the system mechanics boring. These are my personal opinions of course.

This is pretty much sentiment about 5e. I think the system has a lot of merit, despite my criticism of it, and in many ways its easier to play than most other editions of D&D. But I find the core mechanics too bland, HP bloat probably worse than any other edition (or at least more noticeable, since its the only consistent thing you get every level), and too much tracking of minor class features that add more to bookkeeping than they do to gameplay or character depth. And also emphasizes sticking to a class over character customization, which is the opposite of what I look for in a game.

I find 5e the worst edition for lack of inspiration beyond an appeal to nostalgia. It had not fixed any past issue in the game in any way, at most lessening them through heavy cost.

But its biggest sin are its atrocious core resolution mechanics. Thats what make it unplayable to me.

Quote from: tenbones on January 31, 2022, 05:07:50 PM
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?

Every single campaign I have played in, or run, started out from Zero. They have all also started with the dream that this is gonna be the next long-term multi-year campaign. Mostly hasn't happened, most all petered out somewhere in the middling levels. But there was one I played in that reached what I consider to be high level. It had a six year run from 1978 to 1984, starting with a mashup of OD&D and the MM, and then as the PHB came out and then the DMG, morphing into full on 1e AD&D. In general, we reached name level after about 3 years and the next 3 years was what I consider to be high level. When it wound up I was 15th (fighter), and the party MU was 17th. We were all phenomenally wealthy in the later years (but spent heavily on our pet projects, so we still periodically got low on funds).

Obviously, we spent a lot of time at high level but the game never palled. Play at this level was fantastic. It was, however, completely transformed. In the later years, combat and dungeoneering were quite rare. We all had our strongholds and estates, so in a way we were playing the domain game, but in a way not, not in the bookkeeping sense.

See, the game was a total sandbox and occasionally the party would split  for a while to pursue different goals. We tended to split along roughly the same lines each time, but that was fine, we'd get back together again after a while. Until during one of these phases, the DM rather artfully sowed some suspicion and doubt in both "parties" about the intentions of the other. In time the split became permanent and both parties began working to thwart what (we imagined) were the other party's hostile plans. We never went mano a mano, in fact we stayed pretty far apart on the continent, but we would use our wealth to raise mercenary armies and buy allies to make sure their position was never secure. And they did the same to us. The plots became ever more elaborate and ever more expensive, but it was a riot. Essentially at this point it was a PvP game -of political and military warfare - using proxies, and the DM only had to mediate the mayhem.

We had gone full circle. We first came to D&D as wargamers, and at high level, that's what we returned to. We were warlords, but warlords who had spent years crawling out of the muck from Zero.

Fantastic campaign,  great DM. The play became high level but avoided Godlike combat and avoided the potential tedium of the classic domain game.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 03, 2022, 05:54:30 PM

Quote from: RebelSky on February 02, 2022, 03:14:18 PM
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.

Can you link it? I'm interested.

Yeah, totally can. Here it is.

https://youtu.be/ZuARcAg83rQ

Quote from: RebelSky on February 02, 2022, 03:14:18 PM
Yesterday I watched a video podcast called The Grand Campaign. The first episode just came out.

Just like most "Grand Campaigns"!

Quote from: tenbones on February 04, 2022, 12:56:00 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 03, 2022, 05:55:24 PM
Damn!  I wish I lived in your neighborhood.  I'd love to be involved in a hardcore campaign like that.  The last "regular" group I played with was 10 years ago and that was seldom more than twice a month due to everyone's schedules.  And we rotated DMing so it was basically a series of modules or 1-2 shot home brewed adventures.  After I moved away they started a regular campaign that ran for like 8-9 years until it wrapped up last year.  Not sure what they're doing now.

I play with family mostly and they're much more casual about it than me.  So we might go months without playing, then play 3 times in a week.  But it's hard to keep momentum that way.  And they greatly prefer stripped down games.  So these days it's mostly OSE or White Box, which is totally fine by me, but I'd like to play more.  We're hoping to do more of a campaign style with The One Ring (using White Box) as they have enough sense of the world, albeit mostly from the movies, that we can keep going without them forgetting a bunch of setting specific stuff.

I personally would give up the hobby entirely if I only played every other week or less. What's funny, and a little odd to me, is hear this *all* the time from people online.

And it kinda bums me out a little people play short sessions, with larger gaps between. I suspect it's also because D&D has gone so mainstream the GM's out there are, relatively, less experienced. I know people that play in multiple groups online and none of them play more than twice a month in any of their games. It makes recruiting for my games that much harder because my schedule is seen as "hardcore"... when I tell those prospective players our schedule USED to be 12-noon Saturday until whenever the sun comes up Sunday...

Even in my old age I've gone soft.

And I think I'm pretty good at budgeting my time - I'm *super* busy all the time, between work, my pet projects, and other hobbies/volunteer-stuff I do and family (not in that order). So when I hear people say "I can't play at that schedule"... I'm rarely convinced, which is fine, I want people that really want to play and aren't looking for ways to convince themselves to not play.

Which is, I believe, part of why I can achieve and do sustained long-term campaigns that hit high-level and create some pretty wonderful memories. It's because my group is all-in and I don't take it for granted. It's funny because a lot of my players recently were discussing old campaigns - and the new guy(s) were realizing that some of my players have been with me for over 20-years... and a lot of those memories  and campaign stories are signposts of our friendship (much like I assume anyone else with long-term players has).

But you know, it says something when players stick around for the content you serve up as a GM. And my games are not for the faint-hearted. They're always challenging, and I know it can be a very big surprise to new players that have grown up in Post-3e world. Which again is why I suspect the D&D System itself has a lot to do with the reticence of high-level play (or even sandbox play).

I also think it's a mentality - most people like doing things casually. Especially in gaming. I have to put out the extra-effort to find people that want to play a *little* more hardcore than just casual. This is true of my videogame habits too - back before the Battlefield franchise ate shit, my BF4 squad was all 50-something old fucking men, and we got ranked into Division 1 (top 3% in the world) which shocked us all because we were just "casually" playing, having fun but being "serious" about it. Same goes with our TTRPG's.

How do you manage 12 hour sessions every week? It sounds crazy and super grueling but also fascinating. Like I would get exhausted after 8. Is it just 12 solid hours of play, or more like, 3 hours of catching up, 2 hours of eating food, and a 1 hour break and then actual play?

Do you have kids? I have friends who had to scale back all their playing because growing up and getting a wife/children basically ended that phase of their lives.

I don't know if this applies to every gaming group, but my own experience of high level play (which I admit didn't happen more than once) suggests that players struggle with the concept of moving up a gear or several. They get used t a style of play and enjoy the rise in capability that goes with levelling up, yet seem utterly obsessed with trying to retain the sort of activities they're used to.

One group had risen high enough to be edging into the fantasy version of international celebs yet expected to be anonymous, despite being fairly notorious troublemakers. They had made powerful allies with a few NPC's (entirely a prep for their future) but expected instant assistance each and every time they got into trouble. It seems, as an aside, that empathising with a pseudo-medieval fantasy world really isn't that easy. They were outraged when having camped in the woods they fell foul of the landowner who thought they were bandits or poachers. The point is, they were becoming known to the political world, yet could not understand that the risks expected of them had gone up a notch. Instead of setting a kingdom to rights - they'd already met the villains and the potential allies, they went far away and got involved in tribal struggle. When that rubbed against one of the evil realms, they left. Not because of fear - they simply did not understand what being powerful meant.

Now as critical as I am, I do understand that most people aren't potential politicians, never mind dictators or conquerors. I did try to help, but they couldn't grasp the nettle so I wound the campaign up, because otherwise there would be a bunch of powerful characters strutting around with little purpose.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 05, 2022, 02:52:34 PM
How do you manage 12 hour sessions every week? It sounds crazy and super grueling but also fascinating. Like I would get exhausted after 8. Is it just 12 solid hours of play, or more like, 3 hours of catching up, 2 hours of eating food, and a 1 hour break and then actual play?

TL/DR Focus, time management, prioritization, doing everything with complete dedicated intent. <--- that's how I do it.

These days - it's 8hrs minimum. But of course we always do an "after-hours" discussion (and lots of drinking/plotting/planning) that can literally go on until 5am - which these days is getting pretty regular.

Most of the time we pick up food, and eat while I'm setting up. But we always have something cooking in the background while we play, or we have a platter of chips dip, whatever (you're never hungry at our games) plus we keep a fully stocked bar, so there's always drinks. This is the benefit of being grown-ass men, with disposable income. Our stopping time is supposed to be midnight, but that's a soft cut-off.

As for the sessions - I'm a sandbox GM, so my preparation is less about knowing what specifically the "adventure" is, as opposed to knowing what the PC's are doing in what part of my sandbox, knowing what my NPC's are doing that are relevant to the current events of the game, and having any particular maps of the current session handy. Everything else is done in-game with improv and regular task-resolution of whatever it is the players are doing. They have complete freedom and choice to do what they want - all I do is provide the context of what's going on in the world while they do it.

This, generally, is a high-level overview of what I do. When it comes down to the ground level, my NPC's have *definite* goals they're trying to achieve both for and against the PC's. I engage the PC's with as much natural interaction with the NPC's as possibile. I'm constantly gauging the ebb and flow of the game and dynamics of the PC's in different ways in order to push the game forward. So I spin a whole lotta plates. Plus I'm always considering interesting emergent things that are contextual to PC's actions in every scene they or I initiate, which can make the games extremely dynamic, creating possibilities that literally were not foreseeable only an hour ago. It's "dangerous gaming" - a state I like keep the game in, where *I* don't know what going to happen moment by moment, and the PC's and events of the game are unfolding of their own accord.

This allows me to run things virtually non-stop without having to break. Because *no one* wants to leave. The only times I get "tired" is when I've been working the entire night before and through most of the day and have had no sleep. I don't give a fuck, I'm still running my game, but physical fatigue becomes the issue, not the mental drive to GM. That's solidly intact.

Yes, it's not easy, and nor do I recommend it for new GM's. But it's probably pretty normal and recognizable to any veteran sandbox GM.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 05, 2022, 02:52:34 PMDo you have kids? I have friends who had to scale back all their playing because growing up and getting a wife/children basically ended that phase of their lives.

I have kids, they're grown up now, but even when they were infants I ran my weekly games. I did take a hiatus for a few months after each was born, but my wife and I are were very active in raising them. Including homeschooling on top of regular school and activities.

The real crux of it is this: I do things with great intention. I don't half-step anything I do. Neither does my wife. This doesn't mean we don't have fun, quite the opposite, we tend to gamify and compete with everything *because* it's fun. It makes the mundane interesting. We like challenge. There's probably a lot of stuff that other people do, that I simply have no interest in. My interests consume my time because I focus on them and I try to always extract the maximum value of that time. Especially where my interests cross-pollinate.

This allows me to pursue a handful of things deeply without losing cohesion on priority basics - Family and work first. Everything else later. Plus I don't sleep as much as I should... heh I average about 4-5hrs a night, but I do meditate almost an hour a day, usually before I go to bed. It helps settle my mind after a day of doing "everything".

Corollary - I've discovered my renewed interest in mini-painting is very meditative for me. I literally look forward with joy, to sitting down and painting. It is a great way to focus - I get the same gratification when I'm roasting coffee (another interest of mine).

Quote from: caldrail on February 05, 2022, 03:29:08 PM
Now as critical as I am, I do understand that most people aren't potential politicians, never mind dictators or conquerors. I did try to help, but they couldn't grasp the nettle so I wound the campaign up, because otherwise there would be a bunch of powerful characters strutting around with little purpose.

This is a HUGELY important point, and worth deeper discussion.

Finding purpose for high-level characters that aren't "leaders" of the world... Some players just aren't that type. But that means serving someone or an organization. Which is a tricky thing when players feel their PC has hit "escape velocity".

I know this can be a difficult thing to wrestle with in Fantasy. But I learned, inadvertently, I was training my players by running them through long-term Supers games to mentally engage with that idea of power.

Think about it - in Fantasy you're going to build up to being a near-superhero relative to the common man, but the odds are you're not going to be on the same power-level as an actual Superhero. So what is that difference? It means as a GM you have to cultivate in the minds of the players the importance of the context of the setting they're playing in at a High-Level. They need to want to be caretakers *at minimum* within the institutions you've introduced to the world - if the game is to be played at that level.

This is easier to do with players that aren't into leading things, as long as you've laid the groundwork for them.

Anyone here got stories about running high-level campaigns with the PC's not running everything?

Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2022, 01:55:41 PM
Anyone here got stories about running high-level campaigns with the PC's not running everything?

In my 4e Loudwater campaign the Epic Tier (level 21+) PCs were running Northwood Manor http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2013/06/north-manor-travys-manor.html, a small domain on the northern edge of Loudwater, in beween questing to save the world from Orcus http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2016/08/session-102-941485-dragotha.html http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2016/08/session-103-941485-orcus.html. It was very minimalist, the local politics being far below their power level, and felt very Fantasy Superheroes. Being 'at home' was almost like a secret identity.

Here was a good session where the two worlds intersected, Orcus' demons using the PCs' protective instincts to lay a trap for them - http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2015/08/session-89-2781484-glyphimors-trap.html

Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2022, 01:55:41 PM

Anyone here got stories about running high-level campaigns with the PC's not running everything?

Well, I've given you one. Maybe it's not a story you wanted to hear. Probably outside most groups comfort zone. I do realize " don't split the party" and "don't allow PvP" have been mantras since the year dot, but I can tell you from experience,  if you break both rules at the same time, and at the right time, and with some skill,  you can arrive at a pretty magical solution to high level play.

Does that solution mean the PCs are "running everything?" Maybe it's telling that you would frame the question that way.

Yes, in a way. Because they have significant agency, they determine the direction(s) of the campaign. And yet no, because they are constrained by the setting, which includes opponents who aren't just NPCs, but PCs who are playing to win. Two PC groups are vying for control. If you go this way then yes, the PCs *drive* everything (as they should if this is truly a sandbox) but they don't *run* everything. Neither group can do that. The DM runs the setting as a whole and controls resolution of the conflicting goals

Yes the DM gives up significant control, especially over the actions of the PCs, and if he is running two opposing PC groups, he will find he gives up a little control over the outcomes too. But if that degree of player agency is problematic then maybe the DM isn't quite as committed to "sandbox" play as he pretends he is.

Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2022, 01:41:53 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 05, 2022, 02:52:34 PM
How do you manage 12 hour sessions every week? It sounds crazy and super grueling but also fascinating. Like I would get exhausted after 8. Is it just 12 solid hours of play, or more like, 3 hours of catching up, 2 hours of eating food, and a 1 hour break and then actual play?

TL/DR Focus, time management, prioritization, doing everything with complete dedicated intent. <--- that's how I do it.

These days - it's 8hrs minimum. But of course we always do an "after-hours" discussion (and lots of drinking/plotting/planning) that can literally go on until 5am - which these days is getting pretty regular.

Most of the time we pick up food, and eat while I'm setting up. But we always have something cooking in the background while we play, or we have a platter of chips dip, whatever (you're never hungry at our games) plus we keep a fully stocked bar, so there's always drinks. This is the benefit of being grown-ass men, with disposable income. Our stopping time is supposed to be midnight, but that's a soft cut-off.

As for the sessions - I'm a sandbox GM, so my preparation is less about knowing what specifically the "adventure" is, as opposed to knowing what the PC's are doing in what part of my sandbox, knowing what my NPC's are doing that are relevant to the current events of the game, and having any particular maps of the current session handy. Everything else is done in-game with improv and regular task-resolution of whatever it is the players are doing. They have complete freedom and choice to do what they want - all I do is provide the context of what's going on in the world while they do it.

This, generally, is a high-level overview of what I do. When it comes down to the ground level, my NPC's have *definite* goals they're trying to achieve both for and against the PC's. I engage the PC's with as much natural interaction with the NPC's as possibile. I'm constantly gauging the ebb and flow of the game and dynamics of the PC's in different ways in order to push the game forward. So I spin a whole lotta plates. Plus I'm always considering interesting emergent things that are contextual to PC's actions in every scene they or I initiate, which can make the games extremely dynamic, creating possibilities that literally were not foreseeable only an hour ago. It's "dangerous gaming" - a state I like keep the game in, where *I* don't know what going to happen moment by moment, and the PC's and events of the game are unfolding of their own accord.

This allows me to run things virtually non-stop without having to break. Because *no one* wants to leave. The only times I get "tired" is when I've been working the entire night before and through most of the day and have had no sleep. I don't give a fuck, I'm still running my game, but physical fatigue becomes the issue, not the mental drive to GM. That's solidly intact.

Yes, it's not easy, and nor do I recommend it for new GM's. But it's probably pretty normal and recognizable to any veteran sandbox GM.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 05, 2022, 02:52:34 PMDo you have kids? I have friends who had to scale back all their playing because growing up and getting a wife/children basically ended that phase of their lives.

I have kids, they're grown up now, but even when they were infants I ran my weekly games. I did take a hiatus for a few months after each was born, but my wife and I are were very active in raising them. Including homeschooling on top of regular school and activities.

The real crux of it is this: I do things with great intention. I don't half-step anything I do. Neither does my wife. This doesn't mean we don't have fun, quite the opposite, we tend to gamify and compete with everything *because* it's fun. It makes the mundane interesting. We like challenge. There's probably a lot of stuff that other people do, that I simply have no interest in. My interests consume my time because I focus on them and I try to always extract the maximum value of that time. Especially where my interests cross-pollinate.

This allows me to pursue a handful of things deeply without losing cohesion on priority basics - Family and work first. Everything else later. Plus I don't sleep as much as I should... heh I average about 4-5hrs a night, but I do meditate almost an hour a day, usually before I go to bed. It helps settle my mind after a day of doing "everything".

Corollary - I've discovered my renewed interest in mini-painting is very meditative for me. I literally look forward with joy, to sitting down and painting. It is a great way to focus - I get the same gratification when I'm roasting coffee (another interest of mine).

That's impressive man. I mean it. Cool stuff. I am playing once every couple of weeks, and I'd like to play more often but I can't seem to find the time.

I dunno, maybe I don't feel in my players the same interest I ahve in the game, so I get tired and avoid long campaigns. I had soem great campaigns back in the day - both as a player and as DM - but maybe we became a bit jaded.