rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 25, 2012 23:47:02 GMT -6
This is so much different than DF where I must answer the questions! (Get even any time with a few of your own). In my phone conversation with Jeff T. the topic of high level play came up. I was wondering if a few of the stalwarts here would chime in with a comment or two about that. Specifically, what is the highest level you've ever played? If you have not played, say, name level or beyond (10th level plus), then why? What has honestly constrained this sort of exploration of range in your RPG environment? Thanks for all who participate in my little quest(ioning) (P S. first to answer will get a special Greyhawk Cookie/jk!) Seriously, I'm really studying this subject of late. Thanks! Rob
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 26, 2012 0:20:59 GMT -6
(Don't know if I qualify as a stalwart, but) my highest level PC was, from memory, an 11th level AD&D Druid.
I don't think there was any formal decision to "go no further", but the gaming group were growing up, finishing university degrees, getting jobs in distant cities and so on. The campaign just naturally wound itself down.
No other game I've been involved in since has had PCs go so high. We're almost always around levels 1-4, or (very occasionally) up to 8th.
edit:
p.s. Not including a few "one shot" games I've run with 8th-9th level PCs.
p.p.s. I also have my own theories about why D&D works best at low (single digit) levels, but I don't think those ideas have ever really influenced what PC levels we've achieved in our games.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 0:49:10 GMT -6
Thanks wote!
Curiouser and curiouser.
The game was intended for high level play as well. It eludes me as to why folks don't push those boundaries.
Were you playing in pre-made adventures or stuff created by your DM when you reached 11th level Druid?
Thanks again!
Rob
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Nov 26, 2012 1:03:46 GMT -6
My highest level character was a 20th level cleric extrapolated from B/X (we never made the move to BECMI). The campaign started out at 9th level, so everyone was "name" level and just setting up their stronghold. It started out as very similar to low-level games - lots of adventuring (i.e. looting), but now the emphasis was on making the area safe for settlers and getting treasure to pay for roads and building instead of equipment and inn rooms. At those levels there were still lots of fresh challenges, and we could finally take on some monsters that made the Cook/Marsh book so scary. Also, we still hadn't exhausted the possibilities of the treasure tables.
However, this didn't last long, and around 14th (if I remember correctly) the balance shifted towards administration, war and politics rather than adventuring. I don't think it was really a conscious decision, it just took so much time to look after our little Realm. I don't think any of us minded the lack of combat and the like, and I know I really loved running my temple with all its trimmings (monasteries and nunneries to establish, a martial order, lots of lucrative businesses to monopolise). The campaign never really ended, we just drifted into other games.
I know nothing of AD&D except for one game which I spent mostly mystified by the tables, but I don't think there are any problems as such with running a B/X game into the highest levels. Now I would use Blackrazor's B/X Companion, but it was actually pretty easy to ad-lib. I mean, you don't really need rules when many of your sessions consist of negotiating, blustering, bluffing and pleading with NPCs. I appreciate the rules you can get now for battles and relations and so forth, but we just made those up on the spot - most of them would have been one-use in the campaign so not worth the effort of developing and testing formal rules.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 1:25:26 GMT -6
Really Cool. Sounds like you guys played the way we did during the oD&D play-tests 1972-1974.
The LGTSA members (Terry Kuntz, James Goodfellow, Joe Goodfellow, Tom Champeny, to name some) also ran many alternating Campaign games starting at name level. It was a good mix of adventure and administration/role-playing. Pretty much having a month's worth of orders ready upon showing up for the adventure sessions, with some smallish meetings on the side for clarifying special orders, etc. Usually no more than 15 minutes per person.
The most fun that we had as gamers in LG was probably after name level. Cavorting about the outdoor, getting spirited away to distant lands and groping our way back, getting sent to Demonworld, or me DMing Gary Gygax in Lost City of the Elders (high level for sure), etc. etc.. Then there was all of the intense role-play involved with maintaining your holdings. Great fun.
Thanks for chiming in. You would have fit very well into the LG group at that time.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Nov 26, 2012 2:00:27 GMT -6
[...] getting spirited away to distant lands and groping our way back, getting sent to Demonworld, [...] Come to think of it, this seems to be a big feature of high-level campaigns based on my experience and what I've heard from others. There must be some kind of twisted DM logic that just has to get domain lords away from their cozy little strongholds and dump them in far distant lands with no friends or money! EDIT: Actually, the biggest obstacle to high-level play, if you can call it that, seems to be that a lot of people don't like the idea of starting at high levels. In fact most of the old rules made a point of discouraging this. Getting up into the mid-teens from 1st level can be a long haul, especially the way most of our B/X characters died at 1st level - probably 80%, with the death rate gradually dropping off until deaths were pretty rare around 7th level. I often wonder how long you'd have to play to actually advance from 1st level to 36th ...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 26, 2012 2:00:40 GMT -6
A pleasure! Were you playing in pre-made adventures or stuff created by your DM when you reached 11th level Druid? We played a mixture of purchased adventure modules and adventures that appeared in The Dragon and White Dwarf (I don't think Dungeon mag was about in those days), mushed together into a custom campaign by the DM. I recall particularly that we played part of the Against the Giants series in that campaign, followed by some custom stuff in which devil armies were invading the continent. The game was intended for high level play as well. It eludes me as to why folks don't push those boundaries. I think it's at least in part a case of starting at the beginning, and seeing how far it goes. How far it goes depends on how much time you have, cos it takes time to accumulate big XP. Years. The campaign in which I played the 11th level druid ran for about 4 years, real time. We played an all night session once a week (often 8 to 12 hours sessions), as well as lots of "small" one on one "in betweens" with the DM. Perhaps we were too frugal with XP? There was something of a "backlash" against the so called "Monty Haul" campaign at the time, maybe we went too far? On the other hand, we had all experienced the Monty Haul campaign previously. Just coming out of high school, our then DM decided that perpetually better loot would keep us interested in his game. The +2 sword we found last time was rubbish next to the shiny new +3 sword we would get this time. Then the +4, +5, and so on. It was about the time were were all packing "+8 yellow diamond swords" that we realised the game was pretty much broken. I think that particular game lasted only a few months.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 2:24:18 GMT -6
Maybe for some; but pretty much from our view then it was to keep the higher levels off guard and guessing with new challenges. IOW, we (Gary and I) upped the ante in this way also. Our players really wanted this type of challenge in some cases, because they knew that a greater challenge equated to greater rewards (well, in most cases). They also knew that all of the weird magic and stranger items I was always creating were probably, well, in the weird and strange places.
Sure, being removed from one's cozy environment can be disconcerting to some; but for those who sought that, like my PC Robilar, it was a free trip and yet another wild ride.
Thanks again. Your points are really thought provoking.
Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 2:44:04 GMT -6
WOTE: Seems as though time has become the main factor so far. That and, perhaps, skewed perspectives of how play was "supposed to go." Let's stick with the first for now. If there's less time to play, maybe a coefficient could be worked out, say in requiring less experience to rise in levels. I mean, I've heard tales of folks playing for upwards of 6 years and barely making it to 6th level! That's boggling to me. A good DM should keep the magic dispensed in check and concentrate on the play aspect at those levels. That could become difficult when using random treasure gen. and thus lucking into a good item. Then again the tables could be tossed for specific available items in a more granular campaign structure. So many avenues. PibtB at high levels becomes problematical if the DM is not fair and/or balanced in all manner of rising game situations. Hell, at higher levels Gary and I would roll an item that we thought was way too powerful and oftentimes substitute for it with another roll. Fudgey judgey I know, but those are the breaks if you don't want to break the game. So the fairness cut both ways (i.e., we were not going to be "randomly" outdone). It did point to some flaws in the random treasure generation aspect, though. I'll have to think on that. Thanks for following my rambling thoughts. Now, to Sleepy Hollow. G'night to you both! Rob
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 26, 2012 3:19:19 GMT -6
There's no reason why you couldn't accelerate advancement, if that is what you wanted. Thing is, I don't think it ever occurred to us to do so. We probably would have thought it was "cheating" -- we were very influenced by "the rules" back then.
Nowadays I'm content with the single digit levels for different reasons. I prefer the grit of swords and sorcery to the glam of high fantasy, and as I mentioned earlier, I think the game math just works best at mid-low levels (say, 2 to 7ish). Beyond that and it starts to get out of "the sweet spot" IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 26, 2012 5:23:36 GMT -6
Back in high school, when we could play 24/7 every weekend, we had a couple of characters advance into really high levels. I think we had a 27th level mage and a 25th level one. Offhand those are the only characters I can recall that advanced into the 20's for our group.
Interesting to note that the game was designed to go to high levels, because my group's interpretation was that it was supposed to cap out early. 1. The designations of Hero (4th) and Super Hero (8th) seemed to imply that you weren't supposed to be much above 8th. 2. The level charts in Men & Magic had names through level 8 (cleric), 9 (fighting man), and 11 (magic-user). We always assumed that higher levels were for NPCs, particularly those pesky evil wizards we were supposed to slay. 3. The original spell lists in MEN & MAGIC were set up so that by level 7 (cleric) or 12 (magic user) you could access the best spells. (Again, we assumed that 6th level MU spells were really NPC-only.) 4. Gary's Warriors of Mars rules, while not D&D, capped levels so that only John Carter could advance to 13th. 5. Demihuman level limits made sense when all character levels were capped, but become a huge disadvantage when humans can advance to infinity.
All of the clues seemed to point to a "designed to cap out by level 12 or so, but you COULD go higher if you wanted to..."
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Nov 26, 2012 6:06:58 GMT -6
Welcome, Rob! Back in the early 80's our B/X /1e hybrid games took some of us into levels of low 20's. (I had a half-elf MU/Fighter that went to 24th named "Sark.") I think the only reason any of us got that high level was because we usually always fudged the accounting for XP and after every long gaming session (3-8 hours) everyone just "leveled up." For the most part, we enjoyed "super hero" game play for only so long and then were feeling bored. By `86 I had moved away from Phoenix, AZ where we lived, never really found a new group in Daytona Beach at the time.
Coincidentally, upon returning to 1981 B/X gaming about 2-3 years ago with my sons, it was sitting at Rick "Gangbusters/Bloody20's" Krebs' dining table that he converted me to OD&D.... never looked back. Thanks, Rick!
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Nov 26, 2012 9:02:58 GMT -6
I have DMed and played in some high level (L10+) campaigns, and I think (speaking as the nearly constant DM) the biggest obstacle to sustaining high level play is the dreaded Real Life. You have a group of, say, six dudes with high level characters, built up to their lofty heights after a few years of play; at some point, RL whittles their availability to 2 or 3 of the original group, while some of the older gang from years past (or even a newbie or two) steps in to fill the chairs at the game table. Personally, I've never been a big fan of starting a character at high level, and the highest level I've ever allowed for at character creation is L5. Since we tend to run a stable of characters, usually the higher level characters will take a sabbatical, while their players resume play using one of their lower or mid level characters; that is, until the "whole gang" gets back together -- unless sustained play leads to the mid level characters catching up. So, obviously I'm talking about campaign play here, not a 1- or 2-shot endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 26, 2012 9:16:23 GMT -6
When we did high level advancement, it was mostly on a "one level per adventure" basis, or at worst "one level every other adventure." Actually gaining enough XP seemed to be quite a daunting task.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 11:26:02 GMT -6
There's no reason why you couldn't accelerate advancement, if that is what you wanted. Thing is, I don't think it ever occurred to us to do so. We probably would have thought it was "cheating" -- we were very influenced by "the rules" back then. Nowadays I'm content with the single digit levels for different reasons. I prefer the grit of swords and sorcery to the glam of high fantasy, and as I mentioned earlier, I think the game math just works best at mid-low levels (say, 2 to 7ish). Beyond that and it starts to get out of "the sweet spot" IMHO. Nice thoughts. Is higher level equal to "High Fantasy"? Must be in some cases, but let me delicately interject: what level was Conan in his stories? Or Kyrik? Elric? Even though EGG said that PCs need not be of "Heroic Stamp" I will also remind in this regard that he had the Circle of Eight in our shared campaign environs and with his "Golden Horde" of 3,000 horseman rampaging the outdoor... Tenser went to Mars. Robilar, Tenser and Terik traversed the world; two separate adventures to Demonworld; Fomaulhaut; Lost City of the Elders, etc. These were not so much high fantasy as they were continuations of adventuring that had transpired earlier but with higher gains and losses at stake (as with James Wards Bombadil and Skip William's PCs who perished in Dark Druids, with Ward's character getting a karmic toss to come back). Interesting perceptions, though, WOTE. Thanks! Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 11:37:59 GMT -6
Back in high school, when we could play 24/7 every weekend, we had a couple of characters advance into really high levels. I think we had a 27th level mage and a 25th level one. Offhand those are the only characters I can recall that advanced into the 20's for our group. Interesting to note that the game was designed to go to high levels, because my group's interpretation was that it was supposed to cap out early. 1. The designations of Hero (4th) and Super Hero (8th) seemed to imply that you weren't supposed to be much above 8th. 2. The level charts in Men & Magic had names through level 8 (cleric), 9 (fighting man), and 11 (magic-user). We always assumed that higher levels were for NPCs, particularly those pesky evil wizards we were supposed to slay. 3. The original spell lists in MEN & MAGIC were set up so that by level 7 (cleric) or 12 (magic user) you could access the best spells. (Again, we assumed that 6th level MU spells were really NPC-only.) 4. Gary's Warriors of Mars rules, while not D&D, capped levels so that only John Carter could advance to 13th. 5. Demihuman level limits made sense when all character levels were capped, but become a huge disadvantage when humans can advance to infinity. All of the clues seemed to point to a "designed to cap out by level 12 or so, but you COULD go higher if you wanted to..." Yep. I get your slant, Fin. Did you guys use the 1st Supplement in addition to the LBBs? BTW: We never really used the demi-human caps in the game. I believe EGG threw those in like he did so many other "balancing" acts because the game concept was so open so as to be uncontrollable except by the whims of separate DMs. This is more of a board-game design tactic, however (Gary showing his roots in that). I figured that if we as DMs could decide to amend and throw out stuff, so would others who got hold of the concept "do what you will," so ultimately the whole redaction/balancing act failed to produce the necessary results anyway, and instead seems to have added not one but two layers of confusion on top of it all.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 12:13:34 GMT -6
Welcome, Rob! Back in the early 80's our B/X /1e hybrid games took some of us into levels of low 20's. (I had a half-elf MU/Fighter that went to 24th named "Sark.") I think the only reason any of us got that high level was because we usually always fudged the accounting for XP and after every long gaming session (3-8 hours) everyone just "leveled up." For the most part, we enjoyed "super hero" game play for only so long and then were feeling bored. By `86 I had moved away from Phoenix, AZ where we lived, never really found a new group in Daytona Beach at the time. Coincidentally, upon returning to 1981 B/X gaming about 2-3 years ago with my sons, it was sitting at Rick "Gangbusters/Bloody20's" Krebs' dining table that he converted me to OD&D.... never looked back. Thanks, Rick! Thanks SMK! Gangbusters, heh? Boy did we have a "Roaring" good time play-testing those initial rules. I was a Polish gang, The "Perogies," that duked it out with some Irish "scum." Raided an armory before hand and thus had a box of hand grenades, several of which were tossed into a main hangout of the Irelanders. They got even by blowing up a truck of ours (with two of the gang in it). I did a jewel heist and then fled Chicago to stay on the low and to pawn the jewels in NY. A local NY gang got wind of the transaction and ambushed us prior to the deal, killing my main character and two bodyguards. Great fun! Gary and I both maintained that we could manage increasingly higher levels of PCs by upping the ante. We didn't really think of these as "Super-heroish" (as in Gary's slight of 3E+ play). As the stakes grew, the type of items associated grew stronger, yes, but also grew tougher to acquire as there were increasingly fewer and fewer available. So the PC levels really never mattered as we could increase these by proportion for the opposing sides. It was always those attendant "goodies" that I most carefully managed. Thus my remarks much earlier in this thread about concentrating on the play aspect, rather than on the acquisition parts, at those levels. Information in itself, in many cases, became a greater treasure as well, such as a planar portal entrance location, the location of a being with some clue, part of a formula that had to be attached to another part to be found in order to be effective, etc. So a good portion of this granular stuff definitely falls back to "make it up" and balance it out as you go, requiring more hands on delving into the open form than previously required. Perhaps the last point is yet another reason for the reticence? Especially if DMs were continually dependent on pre-made adventures; the "make it up art" would soon diminish... Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2012 12:24:46 GMT -6
I've posted on this several times on other forums. My comments apply less to this forum.
At some point, D&D stopped being a game for adult wargamers who were members of the Castle and Crusade Society and became a game for junior high school aged boys. That changed everything.
The new players had no idea of how to read implications. The stronghold rules take up more pages of the Little Brown Books than the combat system, but on other forums I've seen repeated comments about them being "a couple of pages in the back." For that matter, most current players are heinously ignorant about anything at all concerning the Middle Ages. Again, there is much condemning of "level names" as "stupid." These same people are utterly unaware that "Lord" was actually a word that MEANT something!
As a result, "high level" play has simply devolved into "more of the same." Instead of building a stronghold and becoming one of the Great in the world, players simply keep raiding the same old style of dungeon the same old way except they're killing demigods instead of Orcs.
Frankly, the vast majority of gamers out there aren't fit to polish Robilar's armor.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 12:39:33 GMT -6
Your message, o' Gronan of Simmerya, is spot on, though I was avoiding the fall-out of what had occurred from the mass marketing of the game. There is so much lost through a route of modeled consumption rather than hands-on creating and "playing." I still imagine, and as quoted from my HC interview a year+ ago, THIS: "...what might have been for countless would be creators had that ideal found its greatest expression and continued to date?"
Thanks Michael.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 12:41:39 GMT -6
Oops, I've got to get back to design work. I will answer s'more later! ::WAVES @ Lord Ghul:: Thanks for the input. Very interesting so far!
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Nov 26, 2012 14:15:46 GMT -6
I ran a weekly-session AD&D campaign in high school for 2 years, and the players made it to about 10th level (I remember a Ranger, an Assassin, and a Druid - the assassin pretended to be a thief). It stopped as I left school.
I ran another AD&D campaign in the CSIO/Wilderlands, which ended when the 13th/14th level party was fighting Orcus, and Demogorgon appeared. Instead of letting Orcus and Demogorgon have their forces battle it out, the PC's decided to also attack Demogorgon! It was short.
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 26, 2012 14:19:16 GMT -6
I'm DMing some 10th - 12th level PCs now, and I’m really enjoying it. It's very rare that I have been able to run high level games. Time is the primary issue, but besides that, I can think of a few reasons. The party mentality, not so much that we don’t have time to play, but that the players want to use their game time playing a gaming style that is party-driven. They like a style of play that is like, the party is always together, they’re all within the same general level range, they don’t use henchmen, and there are rarely any rivalries that play out in-game. It’s hard to keep that kind of party together, and reach those upper levels; they usually break down around 8th level. Most of them started playing in the mid 80s or later, and that’s pretty much how the game was marketed. The same era of gaming bred a style of playing where the PCs don’t expect you to throw an encounter at them that they can’t beat then and there. I remember DMing for a group once, and it was a ‘proceed or retreat’ moment, and one of the players said, “He’s not like our other DMs. He will kill us.” So, playing smart would definitely be a reason I’ve experienced.
For me as a player, it’s because I can’t find anybody to DM for me. I have a few PCs that I’ve worked up to the cusp of high level (10th level or so), and they’ve been stuck there for years, waiting for a DM.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 15:35:09 GMT -6
I have DMed and played in some high level (L10+) campaigns, and I think (speaking as the nearly constant DM) the biggest obstacle to sustaining high level play is the dreaded Real Life. You have a group of, say, six dudes with high level characters, built up to their lofty heights after a few years of play; at some point, RL whittles their availability to 2 or 3 of the original group, while some of the older gang from years past (or even a newbie or two) steps in to fill the chairs at the game table. Personally, I've never been a big fan of starting a character at high level, and the highest level I've ever allowed for at character creation is L5. Since we tend to run a stable of characters, usually the higher level characters will take a sabbatical, while their players resume play using one of their lower or mid level characters; that is, until the "whole gang" gets back together -- unless sustained play leads to the mid level characters catching up. So, obviously I'm talking about campaign play here, not a 1- or 2-shot endeavor. OK. Late lunch break time. Considering the ingestion vs. digestion curve... Yep. We talked about that. Campaign play, in my estimation, is the final cork pulled out of the genie's bottle. Without it RPG to me is just another adventure-based reality and not a granular, living thing. Stables of PCs can be used effectively by switching back-and-forth between HIGH<>MID<>LOW play. We did this quite often, at first when the 1st Cstl GH was mothballed and the 2nd came into being. The old PCs were not retired but they instead started new ones to adventure in the new castle and the old ones from the first took to the outdoor, city, sub-city, planar and dimensional adventures, solo, in pairs or as a group. Elasticity is a key word in this, I suppose. Thanks Ghul! Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 15:48:22 GMT -6
When we did high level advancement, it was mostly on a "one level per adventure" basis, or at worst "one level every other adventure." Actually gaining enough XP seemed to be quite a daunting task. I am considering an XP sensitive approach informed by changed social pressures 90's to present. It seems that the ongoing culture of the grind, both spouses working, fractured families and the whole pressure cooker of society--this distinct lack of time--has brought about a dissonance compared to similar in the 70's/part of the 80's. In short, I see one of the ways to effect a calibration is by reducing the xp needed to advance, thus offsetting the inherent time constraint that, IMO, was not as prevalent when the game was first created. I believe that I'll write an article on this, with some suggestions, and post a first draft here for further discussion. Thanks Fin! Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 15:50:25 GMT -6
I ran a weekly-session AD&D campaign in high school for 2 years, and the players made it to about 10th level (I remember a Ranger, an Assassin, and a Druid - the assassin pretended to be a thief). It stopped as I left school. I ran another AD&D campaign in the CSIO/Wilderlands, which ended when the 13th/14th level party was fighting Orcus, and Demogorgon appeared. Instead of letting Orcus and Demogorgon have their forces battle it out, the PC's decided to also attack Demogorgon! It was short. Thanks for the chime-in! Demogorgon, heh? Now that's the type of battle I can sink my teeth into. Rob
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 15:56:28 GMT -6
I'm DMing some 10th - 12th level PCs now, and I’m really enjoying it. It's very rare that I have been able to run high level games. Time is the primary issue, but besides that, I can think of a few reasons. The party mentality, not so much that we don’t have time to play, but that the players want to use their game time playing a gaming style that is party-driven. They like a style of play that is like, the party is always together, they’re all within the same general level range, they don’t use henchmen, and there are rarely any rivalries that play out in-game. It’s hard to keep that kind of party together, and reach those upper levels; they usually break down around 8th level. Most of them started playing in the mid 80s or later, and that’s pretty much how the game was marketed. The same era of gaming bred a style of playing where the PCs don’t expect you to throw an encounter at them that they can’t beat then and there. I remember DMing for a group once, and it was a ‘proceed or retreat’ moment, and one of the players said, “He’s not like our other DMs. He will kill us.” So, playing smart would definitely be a reason I’ve experienced. For me as a player, it’s because I can’t find anybody to DM for me. I have a few PCs that I’ve worked up to the cusp of high level (10th level or so), and they’ve been stuck there for years, waiting for a DM. I covered this in several posts, but adventuring as a group at high levels is still possible even with strongholds. It's good to hear of some high level play taking place, Scotty. Yep. The 3E mindset that was unfortunately informed by the RPGA equality tests. If there was anything that flew in the face of sandbox, granular play and the open, fun-house romps, it was the RPGA consistency factor, which as I informed Ghul in the phone call, that I abhor to this day. WotC just perfected that encounter-to next-enounter model for 3-4E. Thanks Scotty! Rob
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 26, 2012 16:41:16 GMT -6
Yep. I get your slant, Fin. Did you guys use the 1st Supplement in addition to the LBBs? We did use the Greyhawk supplement (which is amazing) as well as parts of the Blackmoor supplement (less so) and Eldritch Wizardry (even less so). We used some of the new class ideas but tried to stick to as much of the old stuff as possible along the way. A few of our GMs (mostly the crowd who eventually migrated to AD&D) went with the new hit dice progression tables, while a couple of us (myself included) stuck to the all-d6 progression from Men & Magic. An example of how we blended new and old is in spell levels. We often added in Magic Missile and other new low-level Greyhawk spells, but kept level caps in place so that we hardly ever touched spells of level 7-9. This meant that some of the NPC evil wizards had some kick-butt spells that the characters couldn't access ... which was fine for us. Conan always faced wizards who did all sorts of creepy stuff that he couldn't do, either. The supplements changed the game in many ways, but we tried to keep the spirit of the original as much as possible. That's why I wanted to create this place, since older OD&D is so different from B/X and later D&D. (Not to even bring 2E-4E into the conversation.)
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Nov 26, 2012 16:56:40 GMT -6
So what level will you be running at Gary Con. I'm going to try to make it. Taking one of my PCs out of mothballs for a high level romp sounds good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2012 17:42:28 GMT -6
I'll be running first-level characters through "Return to Ram's Horn Castle."
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Nov 26, 2012 18:03:33 GMT -6
So what level will you be running at Gary Con. I'm going to try to make it. Taking one of my PCs out of mothballs for a high level romp sounds good. Well I told Luke El Raja Key, 3rd-4th level. BUT I have not heard back from him (if anyone hears from him light a fire under Captain Luke for me) so I am reconsidering maybe running Lost City of the Elders, real serious about this, actually. Now that I'm seeing Gronan "Horning in" on low level stuff, I believe I'll change to LCotE, in fact. I've just convinced myself while typing this post. Weird. Get prepared Garycon guinea pi... uh, adventurers, yeh, adventurers... It's 1973 all over again and you are NOT Mordenkainen nor Yrag. Bwu-ha-ha...
|
|