I'm pretty sure that most people here aren't still playing the first character(s) they created in the same campaign on a regular basis, so my question is, at what point to you typically wrap up your campaigns, and how do you do it?
Myself, I'm going to use D&D as a reference because that's the game we play the most often (1e for context). Most of the time, we pretty much stop playing PCs between level 7-10 (assuming they a lived of course) before shaking things up and playing something else. In most cases, the PCs just move the background and nothing special happens with them anymore.
However, when we are playing a deliberate campaign, we will play PCs up until level 10-12, on average. Upon reaching name level, some of the PCs begin to get involved in getting their strongholds, etc, but keep design and managment typically is done between sessions with adventuring done during actual play.
Once the key plot of the campaign has been finished, the PCs usually go into full retirement/kingdom management mode, and occassionally become NPCs in future adventures with other PCs. Only very rarely are they used again. Playing PCs above level 12 or so has almost never happened in over 30 years of gaming. Only a couple times.
Some campaigns end if the PCs all get wiped out. Some just kind of get dropped and never resume due to scheduling conflicts. Some actually get to completion.
Either there's a huge argument, or everyone just stops showing up.
It's weird, but the ones we've been gaming for years tend to end very organically. We all kind of know when it's time to wrap it up.
Normally it's when we've just achieved something that we seriously doubt we can top in that campaign. Better to go out at the top rather than have a slow decline into mediocrity.
Rare it is when I get to actually wrap up a campaign. Twice thats been for Star Frontiers , the first time due to immenent moving and the second due to players pissing me off enough I actually drew the campaign to a close.
In both cases the players were fairly well off and it was a good closing point.
In the second case I ran the game long after Id concluded I wasnt enjoying GMing it as much as I should. But the players were kinda desperate for a competent GM. And that be me. In that case I just steamed on as normal but allways looking to some point where things could be wrapped up.
In nearly every other case campsigns have ended prematurely due to group fraction, group dissipation, or conflicting work schedules.
Robotech I ran for a year or so and more or less drew it to some semblance of a close as members moved to other states. Just not the close Id have preferred. Too soon.
Sometimes with a bang, sometimes with a whimper.
But preferably after the resolution of a major in-game event.
Once you all wrap up with teh campaign, what do the PCs do? Just fade off into the sunset? Do players still want to keep them around for kingdom management? Are they just infrequent NPCs in future campaigns?
Never "ended" a campaign and only been in one that "ended." Usually, they just slowly lose energy due to distractions from real life on the players. Eventually they grind to a halt. Anywhere from 2 to 20 years later the referee says they want to start running again, and people either dust off old characters or create new ones.
My weekly group just ended our Dungeon World campaign this Monday.
It wrapped up a bit unexpectedly for us players. We had been working on collecting stuff to defeat a giant worm that had been loosed upon the world. We went found out that the orb we had gotten was just what was needed to defeat it - and we went through with stopping it, destroying an elven city in the process. This was apocalyptic enough that it made a natural stopping-point for the game, and we agreed to wrap it there.
I've had a number of campaigns have definite ends like this, but about the same number just fizzle.
Mostly mine just fizzle out due to schedule conflicts.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727846How do you end your campaigns?
We stop playing.
Like everyone else, mine fizzled away as other life concerns and schedules took precedent. Sometimes mass PC death was the turning point.
My high school AD&D game faded as schoolwork and early jobs took over. Then we graduated and went our separate ways.
My college campaigns went the same way. We got too busy with other stuff to adequately run them anymore. In my main campaign the players had mostly won out anyway, except for one PC who had died. One player had done something very unexpected which would have ended half the conflict anyway.
When I lived near Portland, OR. the campaign came to a close when two of the PCs had been killed off and a third joined the bad guys, who were for the moment winning the struggle. Then I moved away and the group soon dissolved.
In my new home I joined a group and had fun for a while. Then the GM starting moving around, one player moved away too, another got too busy with work. That whole scene just collapsed.
It's the nature of the hobby.
If it's an official campaign, like Horror at the Orient Express, we decide if we're continuing the campaign or if we change games.
If it is my own stuff, we play until we decide we do not want to play anymore. Usually after some big conflict or problem has been solved, as they tend to provide a good feeling of closure. If there are some hanging threads for later, much better.
Interesting. It seems most campaigns never finished. I wonder if most people who play high level games just started their PCs at high level already, or otherwise I see that as a phase of game play that most people just never get around to.
I already mentioned that in AD&D, we rarely had PCs over level 10, and pretty much never got into the teens.
Rather than have all these campaigns out there that never get finished, should the campaign model be one that ends around level 10, with a completely separate campaign above that for those few groups that get that high? I.e., should campaigns narrow their scope with the assumption that most groups will never complete a long one?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727916I wonder if most people who play high level games just started their PCs at high level already, or otherwise I see that as a phase of game play that most people just never get around to.
'There is no thematic, discrete end of the campaign' != 'we didn't play our way to high level.'
You're conflating two separate things here.
In high school, our
Traveller campaign finished after our crew returned, having earned close to a billion credits, from a four-year (in-game) trading mission beyond the Imperial border. The game didn't end because our characters made a vast fortune and could retire and live like merchant princes, but because we were heading off to college at the end of the summer.
I've often wondered what would've come next for ol' Cap'n Hauser. While he came back richer 'n Croesus, he never reached his objective of establishing a long-range trading route; would he refit and try again, set up a merchant line of his own somewhere on the Imperial fringe, buy a palace and enjoy wine, women, song, anagathics and rejuvenation therapy, or . . . something else?
Quote from: One Horse Town;727860It's weird, but the ones we've been gaming for years tend to end very organically. We all kind of know when it's time to wrap it up.
Normally it's when we've just achieved something that we seriously doubt we can top in that campaign. Better to go out at the top rather than have a slow decline into mediocrity.
Same here. Can often feel the ending. Usually a few players accomplish lifelong goals, or end up wanting to quit adventuring and settle down, or theres a setting-changing battle we know we cant top.
Most of my campaigns since 2000 have had campaign goals, and end when the goal is completed. Defeat some big evil force, complete exploration of the megadungeon, etc. I find 3e D&D works best as a limited game, level 1-8 or maybe 1-10, so it works well for such focused games. Campaigns also end when the badguys win and typically kill the PCs. My current 4e D&D campaign is structured around going levels 1-30 2011-2016, and I expect it to end at level 30 after a climactic showdown with the forces of particularly-evil evil; although I'll then consult with the players what to do next and we might conceivably start a new campaign with new PCs in the same campaign setting.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;727924'There is no thematic, discrete end of the campaign' != 'we didn't play our way to high level.'
I know they're not directly analagous, but from what I'm hearing is that there are a lot of people whose campaigns ended long before they planned on it due to several reasons. Unless people play the bulk of their campaigns at high level (I don't think that's the case), I came to the assumption that high level play was something that was never reached by the time the campaigns fell apart.
I'd have to say 90% of them get killed by life/real world things than anything. Too many players leaving, Getting burned out, etc.
Only one or two truly came to a resolved end.
One of those they played D&D 3.5 till 14-15th and beat the big bad, one character dying in a manner he wished so that his name would live on and such. Now days I would have run an epilogue sort of session showing what happened to the characters but back then it just ended.
Though I have had a few campaign/long adventure games that I ran as fillers or knowing they were not gonna last long that actually concluded but they weren't really serious campaigns.
Most just wither away some how. Sad really!
Some of my recent campaigns that have definitely ended (my 1e AD&D Yggsburgh online game is on hiatus, but may resume):
4e D&D Punjar Saga - episodic, unambitious series of DCC 4e adventures, designed to introduce newbies to 4e and build up a new Meetup venue. Ended 5th level I think, with a near TPK on the Isle of the Sea Drake. Lone survivor PC grabbed the money and ran. Not a brilliant campaign but it established the Tuesday night Meetup with up to 40 or so people attending, so achieved metagame goal.
4e D&D 'Southlands' - Heavy Metal Swords and Sorcery campaign, ended at level 10 when Varek the lead PC and all his companions fell holding the bridge at Bisgen against the ghoul horde of the Neo-Nerathi Necromancer Borritt Crowfinger. They all died but they gave the engineers time to collapse the bridge, allowing Bisgen to be evacuated before the ghouls could cross. Varek's player shook my hand at the end, grinning ear to ear. I count that one a success.
4e D&D 'Vault of Larin Karr': sandbox converted from 3e, ended at 8th level when 2 of 3 PCs captured by fire giant for fiery sacrifice, one fled. Was a bit bored with this one, '4e' and 'sandbox' just don't seem to mix well, my later 4e campaigns have been much better. Count it a learning experience.
3e D&D 'Willow Vale': episodic linked modules campaign with a save-Vale-from Chaos theme. Ended with highest PC 8th level, ended with X5 Temple of Death - PCs defeated the Master of the Desert Nomads and saved the Vale. Should have ended there as a big success. Instead I tried to run 'Where Chaos Reigns' as a follow on, that was a disaster that I think lasted 3 sessions.
3e D&D Lost City of Barakus - sandbox megadungeon/wilderness, really ended at 8th level when PCs cleared the megadungeon and killed the lich at the bottom. Success, however then attempted to convert setting over to C&C and continue on with the same PCs, that didn't work well.
I generally end my campaigns when a particular story-arc (as in defined in-play, not pre-established) ends and folk - generally me wanting to playtest a new game, but sometimes not - decide it's a good spot to stop.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;727958I generally end my campaigns when a particular story-arc (as in defined in-play, not pre-established) ends and folk - generally me wanting to playtest a new game, but sometimes not - decide it's a good spot to stop.
-clash
Yeah. Less "This game is done," more "We want to try some different stuff and this seems like a good spot to stop."
Quote from: Old Geezer;727966Yeah. Less "This game is done," more "We want to try some different stuff and this seems like a good spot to stop."
that happens frequently with my group over the years as well. I guess what I'm getting at, is that should campaign designs be smaller in scope, since it appears that for most people, for one reason or the other, they don't go from zero to demi-god (level 1 to 15+ for example). it seems most campaigns I have seen, they cover level 1 all the way up to near end game. I'm just wondering if that's just wasted work, for the most part. Either people get bored, burned out, life happens, etc.
You know, the only real consistant preconceived notion I have when starting a campaign is: "This should be about having fun."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727968that happens frequently with my group over the years as well. I guess what I'm getting at, is that should campaign designs be smaller in scope, since it appears that for most people, for one reason or the other, they don't go from zero to demi-god (level 1 to 15+ for example). it seems most campaigns I have seen, they cover level 1 all the way up to near end game. I'm just wondering if that's just wasted work, for the most part. Either people get bored, burned out, life happens, etc.
It just depends. I just ended an IRC campaign that lasted 11 years. Each year, there was one main story arc, but they all were related, and the last eight years were definitely all one huge story arc that encompassed the rest. Players came and went, but there were two players that played through the whole campaign, and one who played all but the first year. OTOH, most of my face to face campaigns go about three to six months before they end. The campaign lasts as long as it lasts - how long is a string?
I didn't plan for that 11 year campaign - I just went a single story arc at a time. The big story arc? That came about because of certain things the players set in motion all along, and judgements they made. None of it was planned.
Something I *did* do was run this game for six months out of the year, and something else - now eight years old - the other six. It kept things focused, and kept me - and probably others - from burnout.
-clash
Quote from: TristramEvans;727927Same here. Can often feel the ending. Usually a few players accomplish lifelong goals, or end up wanting to quit adventuring and settle down, or theres a setting-changing battle we know we cant top.
Our games often have an end game, a campaign goal that brings on the closing credits. Sometimes there's an epilogue that wraps up different character's loose ends and dangling plot threads if there are any. Some characters retire, others are assumed to be off having further adventures, etc.
Though some have just ended either fizzled from lack of interest or it just "felt" right for the group involved, their stories were complete, goals accomplished and anything more would have felt like jumping the shark without a significant change to the game. We've revived a couple of those later with a fresh outlook almost as sequels.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727932. . . I came to the assumption that high level play was something that was never reached by the time the campaigns fell apart.
Ass, you, me.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;728028Ass, you, me.
what a stupid phrase, because making assumptions based on a strong theory happen all the time. This is easily resolved. Of the people here who said their campaigns never finished because of people quitting, moving away, or got bored, did you reach high level game play before this happened?
'Untested assumption' != 'strong theory.'
The high level D&D campaigns I ran or played in - that's three campaigns, two of 1e AD&D and one of 3e, that reached at least 10th level on average after starting at first level - ended because of outside pressures, not because of what happened in game.
And there's the Traveller example as well, so that's four.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;728041'Untested assumption' != 'strong theory.'
The high level D&D campaigns I ran or played in - that's three campaigns, two of 1e AD&D and one of 3e, that reached at least 10th level on average after starting at first level - ended because of outside pressures, not because of what happened in game.
And there's the Traveller example as well, so that's four.
I can assume that tomorrow won't reach 70 degrees. I haven't tested this, but it's based on what a reasonable person can assume.
oh, and 10th level isn't high level play. I swear, sometimes it seems you have to argue over the most minor things just to argue.
I ended a short, 5-session campaign just a couple days ago: The PCs had accomplished the immediate goal they had set for themselves at the beginning of the campaign. I took a short break and brainstormed an epilogue that described the course their lives would take. Then I came back to the table and delivered the epilogue. (The epilogue evolved a bit based on player feedback as it developed: For example, I had assumed that one character would stay on as an enforcer for the cult/exploration group the PCs had created. It turned out she actually left to help guide a couple of NPCs they had befriended back to their homelands.)
I've never had a campaign longer than 15+ sessions reach a proper "conclusion", however. I appear to operate at scales of either:
a) Small and likely to be completed;
b) Open-ended and not structurally suited to proper conclusion; or
c) Epic on a scale where the campaign fizzles out in real life instead of drawing to a proper close
I suspect I'm missing a middle ground in there somewhere.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728042oh, and 10th level isn't high level play.
I'm sorry, I must've missed the Sacrosanct Bible commandment on what is or isn't high level play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728042oh, and 10th level isn't high level play. I swear, sometimes it seems you have to argue over the most minor things just to argue.
You know it's high level in all D&D editions pre-3e, right? 9th is the 'Name Level' for most classes, where they get to found domains, get castles, temples, thieves guilds, wizard towers et al. White Dwarf used 'high level' for ca 7-9, thinking of high level to mean the adventures you have in the leadup to Name level & domain founding, with low level 1-3 (D&D Basic level) and mid level 4-6. That tends to be how I think of levels in pre-4e D&D.
In 3e officially 6-10 is Mid Level and 11-15 is High Level, though IMO it works better with the pre-3e level demographics. 4e doesn't use the low/mid/high concept as it has the Tiers instead. IMO Epic Tier (21-30) roughly corresponds to 3e Very High (16-20) and Paragon Tier (11-20) roughly matches 3e Mid-High (6-15), which would put 4e High Level starting at 16, just over halfway through the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728031what a stupid phrase, because making assumptions based on a strong theory happen all the time. This is easily resolved. Of the people here who said their campaigns never finished because of people quitting, moving away, or got bored, did you reach high level game play before this happened?
Traditionally people played Gygaxian style old school open campaigns for many years, often got PCs to very high level, and the campaign slowly faded away as people moved away. That matches my original high school 1e campaign and I think this is what people here are describing, not an ADD thing where they're unable to keep a game going for more than a few months.
Hrm. Let's see. How I've wrapped GURPS campaigns in recent years ...
One group, having run the characters up over 300+ points, decided that they preferred not to take on the Armageddon-level challenges that were their speed by that point, and asked to flip to new characters. That group went another couple years, before we ended with the wedding of two of the characters. (Also, I was soon to move from the area, one of the players was about to have her baby, and another was entering the service.) The one player who wanted to keep her high-point character's been doing private runs since.
My second group ran through a several year plot arc that concluded a year ago. After the Main Event and the denouement, that campaign wrapped up. They would've wanted to keep running the characters, but just about every one had a different trajectory, with the heat off: one wanted to take up a once-in-a-lifetime offer to study under one of the world's great swordmakers, one wanted to take their merchant ship on trading voyages, another wanted to take religious vows ... So, new characters.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;728049I'm sorry, I must've missed the Sacrosanct Bible commandment on what is or isn't high level play.
when a game has xp tables reaching into the 20s, and releases a book called "high level campaigns" that is very specific about PCs being at such a high level that monsters are no longer a challenge and "super spells" are needed, then no, level 10 isn't high level, and it's not something from my bible. Jesus, do you have to be a hyperbolic dick about everything?
think about it. If you have low, mid, and high level descriptors, and the level band is up to 20 or higher, are you saying 50% of that level band means high? The very definition of "mid" means middle, where that level 10 is located on that band. This isn't me making some wild interpretation from my "bible". It's me using the common definition of what words mean. Sorry YOU don't agree, but tough. No need to be a prick about it
Quote from: S'mon;728059Traditionally people played Gygaxian style old school open campaigns for many years, often got PCs to very high level, and the campaign slowly faded away as people moved away. That matches my original high school 1e campaign and I think this is what people here are describing, not an ADD thing where they're unable to keep a game going for more than a few months.
as I said, its very easy to resolve this. A lot of people said their campaigns ended long before they planned. So of those people, was it the norm in those situations for the campaigns to end before they got to the mid teens or higher?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728116when a game has xp tables reaching into the 20s, and releases a book called "high level campaigns" that is very specific about PCs being at such a high level that monsters are no longer a challenge and "super spells" are needed, then no, level 10 isn't high level, and it's not something from my bible.
It's already been pointed out to you that your point of view is fucked, so I don't feel the need to belabor the point.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;728140It's already been pointed out to you that your point of view is fucked, so I don't feel the need to belabor the point.
So that's a 'no' then, you are physically incabable of not being a dick.
Good to know.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728142So that's a 'no' then, you are physically incabable of not being a dick.
(http://images.luvimages.com/luvphotos/o/ooh_burn-4027.jpg)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Quote from: S'mon;728059Traditionally people played Gygaxian style old school open campaigns for many years, often got PCs to very high level, and the campaign slowly faded away as people moved away. That matches my original high school 1e campaign and I think this is what people here are describing, not an ADD thing where they're unable to keep a game going for more than a few months.
Yep that fits with my experience as well, where you'd play up until very high level (read: 15+) and then the game would dramatically slow down unless there is a good reason (challenge) to get back together and run the same hardened characters again.
That kind of game play is sort of based on the notion that a "campaign" is centered around a specific group of characters and often predicated on the party going on an epic adventure with "plot points" and so on. Once that adventure "arc" is over, the campaign's over. This isn't what a campaign used to mean, in 1e and prior, where instead it is the ongoing action of a game taking place in the same world, i.e. the campaign is milieu-centric, not character-centric, so the world just goes on, the characters come and go, some players have different characters at different levels of experience, they explore different parts of the world, some characters get killed or fade away for this or that reason, and you just pick another one and do something else. In that sense, a "campaign" doesn't have to "end" ever at all. It just "is", and you play in it whenever you feel like it.
That's the way I construe my campaign now.
(PS: Anything beyond superhero level is high level, to me.)
I don't run games anymore where "level" is a meaningful word. I have no irons in this fire, and I don't think I can in any way be helpful to this discussion, which has degenerated in any case into a mutual slap-fest. I shall, in this case, bow out.
Quote from: flyingmice;728164I don't run games anymore where "level" is a meaningful word. I have no irons in this fire, and I don't think I can in any way be helpful to this discussion, which has degenerated in any case into a mutual slap-fest. I shall, in this case, bow out.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I felt that "high level" was in the upper teens and higher, and I presented the material in teh books as to why (level ranges provided, etc). S'mon presented a fair response to why he feels it's different. BV just had to come in and shit up yet another thread because apparently he is unable to disagree without insulting people or resorting to excessive hyperbole.
The sad part is that his hang up has nothing to do with the point I was making. Don't like my term of "high level"? Fine, replace it with "super high level" if you want. The point was that it appeared to me most people's campaigns got cut significantly short than what they intended, and because of that, it didn't seem as if the high teens range of levels were ever experienced. And therefore, would it make more sense to make campaigns with a smaller scope, since it appears many of them are cut short anyway.
I think the problem has to do with your terms because there are plenty of games out there that do not use levels for characters.
It's a nerdrage slapfight! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7oZB7onK4
Quote from: jeff37923;728176I think the problem has to do with your terms because there are plenty of games out there that do not use levels for characters.
Exactly. The whole concept of "levels" makes no sense for many, if not most, games out there - and for all of the games I personally have been involved in for at least the last decade. If your point rests on this fulcrum, which it seems to, I might as well be posting in Urdu or Sumerian for all the insight I could usefully give. If my posts are not germane to the topic, I shouldn't be posting. I apologize for any confusion I might have given - it was entirely inadvertent.
-clash
Quote from: dragoner;728179It's a nerdrage slapfight! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7oZB7onK4
This made my eyes and ears bleed.
Quote from: jeff37923;728185This made my eyes and ears bleed.
LOL! Yeah. (though they are in fact being sarcastic, it is almost a parody of a parody)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728117as I said, its very easy to resolve this. A lot of people said their campaigns ended long before they planned. So of those people, was it the norm in those situations for the campaigns to end before they got to the mid teens or higher?
You're the only person here who thinks high level starts at mid teens - except possibly in 4e D&D, as I discussed earlier. Traditionally (pre-3e) high level is either 7-9 or 9-12, depending on whether 'high' only starts at Name level when the XP costs stop doubling and you can get your followers/castle/domain etc, or if High is the later part of the footloose adventurer phase, so 7-9, with 9+ classed as 'Endgame' or 'Very High'. 3e defined High as 11-15, Very High as 16-20, which caused some problems as the game has a lot of legacy systems that don't work well when pushed so far.
But however you look at it, High Level starts by 9-11 in every edition pre-4e. Admittedly things get a bit weird with Mentzer BECMI; it has the traditional 9th Name Level in Expert, but then the Companion & Masters sets kind of recalibrate levels with a lot of grade inflation. So I can see someone who only owned the Rules Cyclopedia, which smushed BECM together, getting a bit confused about what levels mean.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;727875Once you all wrap up with teh campaign, what do the PCs do? Just fade off into the sunset? Do players still want to keep them around for kingdom management? Are they just infrequent NPCs in future campaigns?
Do you mean stuff like telling the players what happens after the campaign ends?
I used to try to do that. But it always ended in disaster and it was just me making up what happened to them. So i found just leave it. What i have done is hold onto pcs and use them as npcs in later campaigns, often with different players.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728172The sad part is that his hang up has nothing to do with the point I was making. Don't like my term of "high level"? Fine, replace it with "super high level" if you want. The point was that it appeared to me most people's campaigns got cut significantly short than what they intended, and because of that, it didn't seem as if the high teens range of levels were ever experienced. And therefore, would it make more sense to make campaigns with a smaller scope, since it appears many of them are cut short anyway.
OK, but I think it is and was common for campaigns not to ever be intended to reach the high teens levels, yup. With eg 1e AD&D it's pretty clearly intended to end in the 9-14 range, and I think was fairly often played that way. My original 1e highschool campaign actually eventually had PCs with insane levels (highest ever was a lesser god with 117 total levels across three classes). After my first experience of 3e, running it to around 18th level, all my subsequent 3e campaigns were designed to only go to around 8th level, and did so.
Quote from: S'mon;728206You're the only person here who thinks high level starts at mid teens - except possibly in 4e D&D, as I discussed earlier. Traditionally (pre-3e) high level is either 7-9 or 9-12, depending on whether 'high' only starts at Name level when the XP costs stop doubling and you can get your followers/castle/domain etc, or if High is the later part of the footloose adventurer phase, so 7-9, with 9+ classed as 'Endgame' or 'Very High'. 3e defined High as 11-15, Very High as 16-20, which caused some problems as the game has a lot of legacy systems that don't work well when pushed so far.
But however you look at it, High Level starts by 9-11 in every edition pre-4e. Admittedly things get a bit weird with Mentzer BECMI; it has the traditional 9th Name Level in Expert, but then the Companion & Masters sets kind of recalibrate levels with a lot of grade inflation. So I can see someone who only owned the Rules Cyclopedia, which smushed BECM together, getting a bit confused about what levels mean.
Clearly I'm not the only one when they come out with an AD&D book called "High Level Campaigns" and all references to high level are AFTER PCs have access to level 9 spells and whatnot. I.e. after they reach the high teens, and that's what they consider high level. Just because most gamers didn't play much after level 10 doesn't necessarily mean that level 10 is high level. Clearly the intent of high level was at levels higher than that, as is evidenced by xp table going to level 29 in some cases, and the combat matrix going to level 20, and Skip Williams himself considering high level at near level 20, not level 10. So do I believe official publication, or an anecdotal opinion from Joe Random Gamer?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728208Do you mean stuff like telling the players what happens after the campaign ends?
I used to try to do that. But it always ended in disaster and it was just me making up what happened to them. So i found just leave it. What i have done is hold onto pcs and use them as npcs in later campaigns, often with different players.
No, not really. the players dictate what their plans are, whether that be doing kingdom management or just retiring. The only exception would be something like, "Hey Bill, I might use Iolo as an NPC every now and then, are you cool with that?" (me as the DM and Bill being the player for Iolo).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728215Clearly I'm not the only one when they come out with an AD&D book called "High Level Campaigns" and all references to high level are AFTER PCs have access to level 9 spells and whatnot. I.e. after they reach the high teens, and that's what they consider high level. Just because most gamers didn't play much after level 10 doesn't necessarily mean that level 10 is high level. Clearly the intent of high level was at levels higher than that, as is evidenced by xp table going to level 29 in some cases, and the combat matrix going to level 20, and Skip Williams himself considering high level at near level 20, not level 10. So do I believe official publication, or an anecdotal opinion from Joe Random Gamer?
I owned that 2e AD&D book about playing levels 21-30 (the original cap was 20). It was pretty bad. It was indeed called High Level Campaigns. I guess you win the Internet. :D
Quote from: S'mon;728236I owned that 2e AD&D book about playing levels 21-30 (the original cap was 20). It was pretty bad. It was indeed called High Level Campaigns. I guess you win the Internet. :D
FWIW, I don't care about winning the internet or anything. Only that the statement I made earlier isn't some while crazy statement as BV was implying. We disagree, and that's perfectly fine. You presented what you felt high level encompassed in D&D based on references, and I presented my side. But I don't think my statement was all that crazy. That's all I was trying to get at.
I swear, with some people, it's not enough to say, "I disagree and here's why" (what you did), but they have to lead off with "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself" as their default response.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728217No, not really. the players dictate what their plans are, whether that be doing kingdom management or just retiring. The only exception would be something like, "Hey Bill, I might use Iolo as an NPC every now and then, are you cool with that?" (me as the DM and Bill being the player for Iolo).
I guess this is something I do sometimes do then. Though only if the campaign is knowingly coming to an end (most campaigns don't usually get that kind of deliberate ending in my group).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728243I guess this is something I do sometimes do then. Though only if the campaign is knowingly coming to an end (most campaigns don't usually get that kind of deliberate ending in my group).
Yeah, I'll never use a PC as an NPC unless it's pretty clear the campaign is over, and even then I like to get teh player's input. Still their character after all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728242I swear, with some people, it's not enough to say, "I disagree and here's why" (what you did), but they have to lead off with "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself" as their default response.
Really?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728042oh, and 10th level isn't high level play. I swear, sometimes it seems you have to argue over the most minor things just to argue.
So, is this an example of, "I disagree and here's why," or, "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself?"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728244Yeah, I'll never use a PC as an NPC unless it's pretty clear the campaign is over, and even then I like to get teh player's input. Still their character after all.
Admittedly, I have only done this a few times (mostly because I don't want to mess too much with PCs and I worry about them becoming Mary Sues). But when I have done it, it was effective. I know in one case, we had a Ravenloft campaign where one of the PCs was a druid who failed some powers checks at the end of our campaign and her hair turned stark white. With the player's permission, I used her as a bad guy in a later campaign.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;728245Really?
So, is this an example of, "I disagree and here's why," or, "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself?"
That wasn't "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself", but more of "you're missing the point and insisting on arguing over something very minor".
Seriously BV, you jumped in with snide hyperbole as your launch point, and doubled down with things like "your bible".
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728116think about it. If you have low, mid, and high level descriptors, and the level band is up to 20 or higher, are you saying 50% of that level band means high? The very definition of "mid" means middle, where that level 10 is located on that band. This isn't me making some wild interpretation from my "bible". It's me using the common definition of what words mean. Sorry YOU don't agree, but tough. No need to be a prick about it
Oh for pity's sake. That's like saying that since the oldest verified human being made it into the 120s, being 65 is only "middle-aged."
The plain fact, that anyone who isn't a dolt ought to be able to swallow, is that different D&D circles have widely varying notions as to what "high level" means. Heck, I remember someone posting a couple years back that the mortality rate in his group's campaigns was cranked so high that the average life span was two sessions: leveling up
at all wasn't a petty thing, and I think he reported that the record was something like 4th level.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728116when a game has xp tables reaching into the 20s, and releases a book called "high level campaigns" that is very specific about PCs being at such a high level that monsters are no longer a challenge and "super spells" are needed, then no, level 10 isn't high level, and it's not something from my bible.
Ah. You're talking about
High Level Campaigns sourcebook for AD&D.
Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."
So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.
Can we drop this now?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;728285Ah. You're talking about High Level Campaigns sourcebook for AD&D.
Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."
So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.
Can we drop this now?
I knew there was a reason why I had you on ignore. Not sure why I took you off. You're being incredibly disengenous here, especially since you conveniently are leaving off the sentence directly proceeding it:
QuoteThe book you hold in your hands contains rules and campaign suggestions for characters up to 30th level
Additionally, the paragraph right above it talks about the need for the book because the DMG assumes PC retire at level 20, and the whole point of the book
High Level Campaigns is to give guidelines on adventuring beyond that. Add the fact that 99.99% of the content of the book is around level 10 spells, magic item creation, and an entire section devoted towards classes are called "warriors beyond 20th level" etc, and it's pretty clear that when Skip is talking about high levels in AD&D, he's talking about levels higher than just 10. I'm not "completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong" when I say that in general, high level means mid teens and above because that's what 99.99% of the context of the text is focused on. Also, that wasn't the only reference I pointed out that leads one to believe that high level characters are those that are above level 10. The ways rules are presented and written give a clear message of intent to the reader.
But I shouldn't be surprised that you're basing your entire argument on a VERY minor pedantic point, because you are continuing to argue this even after I already explicity said this:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728172The sad part is that his hang up has nothing to do with the point I was making. Don't like my term of "high level"? Fine, replace it with "super high level" if you want. The point was that it appeared to me most people's campaigns got cut significantly short than what they intended, and because of that, it didn't seem as if the high teens range of levels were ever experienced. And therefore, would it make more sense to make campaigns with a smaller scope, since it appears many of them are cut short anyway.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728295Additionally, the paragraph right above it talks about the need for the book because the DMG assumes PC retire at level 20, and the whole point of the book High Level Campaigns is to give guidelines on adventuring beyond that.
While that book apparently defines high level as 10+ (in line with the usual TSR approach - as I said, White Dwarf took the stingier British approach with high level meaning 7+) it's actually what we now call an "Epic Level Handbook", for play above the levels the game is designed to work at. By its very nature it's not about the high end of the normal level range.
I don't get the impression you are likely to be convinced that your POV is a minority one, though. (edit) I've reread your OP - you say your own games end around level 10-12, just like most everybody else. Most people regard this as 'high level'. 3e explictly calls 11-15 'high level'. It sounds like you play the same as most people, but for some reason you prefer to think of your games as ending at 'mid level'?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;728285Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."
So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.
Wait for it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;728295You're being incredibly disengenous here . . .
Priceless.