I did my last campaign 1-20 and I agree with what was said earlier in the thread. Combat is suuuuper easy to scale to high level and make it challenging. My mental approach was "I'm going to throw the most ridiculously OP group of monsters at them and let THEM figure out how to win" with no regard to CR, Balancing, or what ever. in that 15-20 range, they have enough power, spells, and if they've been playing together a while, synergistic combos that they can find a way to deal with pretty much anything.
I did struggle with non-combat though. With magic, there's pretty much a spell for every obstacle. What I found was to just change the style of the game. When the party has a ton of teleport, I planned around them having 0 travel time. When they have all sorts of ways of detecting truths and learning secrets, I had to prep more "lore-drops". When magic items and money became a non-issue, I stopped with the traditional "dungeon delves" with traps, loot, and puzzles because magic could trivialize most of it. The game became much broader in scope with "puzzles" more like "The 6 cities were just wiped off the map by the world beginning to tear apart. How do you fix it" Or "You just unknowingly helped an ancient god virtually destroy the world, how do you feel and what will you do?"
There's PLENTY to challenge them with, its just a MASSIVE jump in scope that pretty much feels like a different game entirely from where they began
There's PLENTY to challenge them with, its just a MASSIVE jump in scope that pretty much feels like a different game entirely from where they began
I'm glad you have been good at doing this, but I'm going to take issue with one word here, which I highlighted -- "just."
I don't think you can have the word "just" here for all DMs. Some, like yourself, may find changing the scope of the game "MASSIVELY" (your word) and having it play like a "different game entirely" (your term) a comfortable adjustment. But for many, there is nothing "just" about it. Not everyone who is comfortable running a bog-standard dungeon delve is necessarily going to be comfortable or happy running an adventure where the world is being torn apart, 6 cities were destroyed, and how do you fix it? This kind of game-running is not in everyone's wheelhouse (in fact, I suspect from what I have seen and heard all 'round the internet, it isn't in most DMs' wheelhouses), and if it's not in your wheelhouse than there is nothing "just" about it.
I'm not saying there aren't people who love the "MASSIVE" change in scope and it turning into a "different game entirely," or that for some people it might not be "just so easy" to upscale their DMing. But not everyone can do it; and not everyone who can will love doing it.
My party is level 8, and I'm handling it OK... but I am already finding that my preference is for the low (1-5) level game, and I'm not so sure how good a DM I'm even going to be for the 10+ experience. I'm gonna try... I'll do my best. Maybe I'll like it.
But I know one thing for sure... there won't be anything "just" about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There's PLENTY to challenge them with, its just a MASSIVE jump in scope that pretty much feels like a different game entirely from where they began
I'm glad you have been good at doing this, but I'm going to take issue with one word here, which I highlighted -- "just."
I don't think you can have the word "just" here for all DMs. Some, like yourself, may find changing the scope of the game "MASSIVELY" (your word) and having it play like a "different game entirely" (your term) a comfortable adjustment. But for many, there is nothing "just" about it. Not everyone who is comfortable running a bog-standard dungeon delve is necessarily going to be comfortable or happy running an adventure where the world is being torn apart, 6 cities were destroyed, and how do you fix it? This kind of game-running is not in everyone's wheelhouse (in fact, I suspect from what I have seen and heard all 'round the internet, it isn't in most DMs' wheelhouses), and if it's not in your wheelhouse than there is nothing "just" about it.
I'm not saying there aren't people who love the "MASSIVE" change in scope and it turning into a "different game entirely," or that for some people it might not be "just so easy" to upscale their DMing. But not everyone can do it; and not everyone who can will love doing it.
My party is level 8, and I'm handling it OK... but I am already finding that my preference is for the low (1-5) level game, and I'm not so sure how good a DM I'm even going to be for the 10+ experience. I'm gonna try... I'll do my best. Maybe I'll like it.
But I know one thing for sure... there won't be anything "just" about it.
....Well that felt REEEEALLY passive aggressive...?
I used the word "Just" because that's how it was for ME (OP asked how people who played T3-T4 handled it so i responded with how I did).It really is a "Just" type of thing. here's why:
When my party got to around the level 12~ area, I started to get frustrated with planning challenges for them. I got stressed out thinking "Is this the right amount to challenge them? Or will it tpk them?" because they had been steamrolling through encounters that I thought were "challenging". So what I decided to do, was just say to myself "I want THESE enemies to be there" and just threw an encounter that I thought was just cool for T4 stuff without stopping to try to think about "Would they be able to do it". Because I had never done this before, I planned for a deus ex machina in the event that I, as a DM was the cause of their TPK so that the game wouldn't be ruined by my mistake. What I found was that a party of 6 players can think about an encounter in MANY different ways than a single DM so I didn't HAVE to build in a win condition. They just made one through creativity and planning.
So after I did this with combat encounters, just throwing a ton huge CR stuff at them and watching their approaches to strategies, I started applying the same mindset to Non-Combat encounters. I thought of a problem that would be fitting of demi-gods, and let them "have at it". If they trivialized it because of something I didn't think about, so be it. If they made a whole quest about it, that's fine too.
I suppose I used the word "Just" because I didn't ADD anything to the way that I planned. In fact I began to plan LESS as the campaign progressed focusing on "What is the problem" rather than "what does the party need to do"
I already design largely the way you do, and I did not mean it to be passive-aggressive.
I guess the way you said it just rubbed me the wrong way.... as in, "It's not hard -- just MASSIVELY change your game!"
To many people, massively changing the game *is* hard. Your post implied that it was no biggie, and I want to make sure that everyone realizes that this is highly DM-dependent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think it does depend on the story you are telling, I have never had a problem with writing high level campaigns because for me and my players it is all about the storytelling aspect vs everything being super hard mechanically. There are a few things I do that add some jeopardy even at high levels the main one is make resurrection much more of a challenge and a roleplaying effort. I do a similair approach to Mathew Mercer for reserection, there is no automatic resurrection. I was really encouraged when I saw him using that approach because I have been doing that for years prior to watching critical roll.
I also attack down players a lot more then I think most DMs do, again this adds a level of urgency to a combat, I don’t do it randomly but if the situation is right then totally that down player is getting stabbed.
I use counterspell on my NPCs, that on its own causes issues for magic parties.
But the main thing I do is construct a story narriative that makes sense and is in no way feels like some large sprawling dungeon crawl (even though regardless of the scenery the entire game is a dungeon crawl, just sometimes in sunlight, with no walls :) ). This means that the level becomes almost irrelevant, yes I throw larger monsters and get to go to the high level end of the monster manual but it also means I can tell broader stories, go to hell and kill a pit fiend, travel to a mountain and try and negotiate with an ancient dragon who might kill you, delve into the under dark and take on an army of illithid.
When the story feels like it is coming to a natural end that is when it ends, not because the players have reached an arbitrary number on there level box.
The key to challenging players in the 17-20 range is to use that many monsters of roughly equivalent CR.
So for instance let’s say the 4 man tier 4 party is trying to take down the evil Drow Matron terrorizing the region. In this encounter they would be up against the Matron, her consort, oh she probably has a power demon to aid her (add a balor) and how about an iron golem stylized as a spider with a few additional spider-ish abilities.
But yea I don’t get why a lot of DMs are terrified of high level play. It is my favorite honestly. I enjoy seeing them “break” the game and love pulling out all the huge CRs for the combat.
But yea I don’t get why a lot of DMs are terrified of high level play.
I don't think "terrified" is the proper descriptor. "Don't find it fun," is probably more accurate.
As LeBattery said and your comments effectively confirm, it's like "playing a totally different game" when you get to the top tier. Well, if that's true, and I want to play the original game not a totally different one, then that would explain why I might hesitate at high level play. It doesn't mean I'm "terrified."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think part of the reason I enjoy higher levels is that I can throw some of the iconic fun stuff at parties that lower levels will never see.
Beholders
Adult Dragons
Purple Worms
Giants
The fun demons and devils
Higher level campaigns lets you play with the cool toys.
Yep and means you get your money’s worth out of the monster manual, what’s the point in paying for the stats of a kraken or terrasque or ancient dragon if you never get to use them in game :)
Title pretty much spells it out. I was talking to our DM the other night, as part of deciding if multi-class or maybe a switch of tradition was viable for my Monk. He said he generally doesn't like doing anything much past 10, as the characters are by then "God-like" and finding challenging combat is near impossible. Now my thoughts are that around 10, our characters are really getting into the "good stuff" and it's a chance to really show what we got. Being denied this is disappointing, IMO, as a part of my reasoning for choosing the Monk and his tradition was for access to the highest end stuff.
I also DM a bit and in doing so (I am a n00b DM by the way) found the characters out-leveled the content I had planned for the one-shot dungeon crawl. It was basically just a crawl through the caves, slaying room after room of foes, pure, raw fun. As they started easily crushing their foes, I did the simplest fix, added HP and some AC (where it made sense) which helped balance the fights a bit better. As they progressed, some foes unexpectedly cast spells, healed allies and seemed to arrive in larger groups. This all managed to keep the challenge level of fights a bit more in line with what I had intended. Now with a break, I am reworking the rest, to add tougher enemies, many with special abilities or resistances, that will further challenge the group.
From my perspective, a campaign CAN run as long as the DM and players want and the challenges can be puzzles, timed situations, NPC interactions (need to make Cha checks or something) as well as combat. Mind you the combat is my favorite bit, from ether side of the table, so again, some effort in researching the monster guides, maybe some tweaking of stats to make the foes a true challenge. In all, my opinion is that things can be as challenging as one wants, if the effort is put in.
Wondering what the veterans feel, though. Do you think it's better to wrap it up before the characters get godly, or do you prefer the rewards of being mega-badass? (or watching the group do so, if you are DM)
I had positive experience in DMing high level one-shots too.
I was actually running my first high-level campaign before COVID, because some of my players asked to experience a campaign up to level 20. Level 1-10 was very good. Level 11-15 was OK (with its highlights and moments), and we paused at level 15 because the other players found it repetitive and boring (maybe, just maybe, partially because we switched to online using roll20). So I kinda have some experience of a failing campaign.
Campaigns are different than one-shots in many ways. Some differences are critical for high-level gameplay.
Are you and the players OK with 2-or-3-hour combat encounters in every session? I found combat fatigue builds up after 2 or 3 encounters like that.
There shouldn't be many places in a world that can really challenge high-level party. Are you and the players OK with railroading the party towards those places?
Are you ready to homebrew a lot? Because it is absolutely necessary.
Are you able to build storytelling into the long combat encounters (very tricky IMO)? Those long combat encounters are usually very disruptive in storytelling (because they are so long). The long combats can stall the story progression so greatly!
The personal arc for PCs are usually completed after level 10 or level 15. I don't know how to handle it yet. Maybe another session zero?
Are you and the players OK with 2-or-3-hour combat encounters in every session? I found combat fatigue builds up after 2 or 3 encounters like that.
This is a definite concern. Even going from level 1-7 I can see how battles grow longer. I assume it will only be more extreme as they level up, but we'll see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I did my last campaign 1-20 and I agree with what was said earlier in the thread. Combat is suuuuper easy to scale to high level and make it challenging. My mental approach was "I'm going to throw the most ridiculously OP group of monsters at them and let THEM figure out how to win" with no regard to CR, Balancing, or what ever. in that 15-20 range, they have enough power, spells, and if they've been playing together a while, synergistic combos that they can find a way to deal with pretty much anything.
I did struggle with non-combat though. With magic, there's pretty much a spell for every obstacle. What I found was to just change the style of the game. When the party has a ton of teleport, I planned around them having 0 travel time. When they have all sorts of ways of detecting truths and learning secrets, I had to prep more "lore-drops". When magic items and money became a non-issue, I stopped with the traditional "dungeon delves" with traps, loot, and puzzles because magic could trivialize most of it. The game became much broader in scope with "puzzles" more like "The 6 cities were just wiped off the map by the world beginning to tear apart. How do you fix it" Or "You just unknowingly helped an ancient god virtually destroy the world, how do you feel and what will you do?"
There's PLENTY to challenge them with, its just a MASSIVE jump in scope that pretty much feels like a different game entirely from where they began
I'm glad you have been good at doing this, but I'm going to take issue with one word here, which I highlighted -- "just."
I don't think you can have the word "just" here for all DMs. Some, like yourself, may find changing the scope of the game "MASSIVELY" (your word) and having it play like a "different game entirely" (your term) a comfortable adjustment. But for many, there is nothing "just" about it. Not everyone who is comfortable running a bog-standard dungeon delve is necessarily going to be comfortable or happy running an adventure where the world is being torn apart, 6 cities were destroyed, and how do you fix it? This kind of game-running is not in everyone's wheelhouse (in fact, I suspect from what I have seen and heard all 'round the internet, it isn't in most DMs' wheelhouses), and if it's not in your wheelhouse than there is nothing "just" about it.
I'm not saying there aren't people who love the "MASSIVE" change in scope and it turning into a "different game entirely," or that for some people it might not be "just so easy" to upscale their DMing. But not everyone can do it; and not everyone who can will love doing it.
My party is level 8, and I'm handling it OK... but I am already finding that my preference is for the low (1-5) level game, and I'm not so sure how good a DM I'm even going to be for the 10+ experience. I'm gonna try... I'll do my best. Maybe I'll like it.
But I know one thing for sure... there won't be anything "just" about it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
....Well that felt REEEEALLY passive aggressive...?
I used the word "Just" because that's how it was for ME (OP asked how people who played T3-T4 handled it so i responded with how I did). It really is a "Just" type of thing. here's why:
When my party got to around the level 12~ area, I started to get frustrated with planning challenges for them. I got stressed out thinking "Is this the right amount to challenge them? Or will it tpk them?" because they had been steamrolling through encounters that I thought were "challenging". So what I decided to do, was just say to myself "I want THESE enemies to be there" and just threw an encounter that I thought was just cool for T4 stuff without stopping to try to think about "Would they be able to do it". Because I had never done this before, I planned for a deus ex machina in the event that I, as a DM was the cause of their TPK so that the game wouldn't be ruined by my mistake. What I found was that a party of 6 players can think about an encounter in MANY different ways than a single DM so I didn't HAVE to build in a win condition. They just made one through creativity and planning.
So after I did this with combat encounters, just throwing a ton huge CR stuff at them and watching their approaches to strategies, I started applying the same mindset to Non-Combat encounters. I thought of a problem that would be fitting of demi-gods, and let them "have at it". If they trivialized it because of something I didn't think about, so be it. If they made a whole quest about it, that's fine too.
I suppose I used the word "Just" because I didn't ADD anything to the way that I planned. In fact I began to plan LESS as the campaign progressed focusing on "What is the problem" rather than "what does the party need to do"
I already design largely the way you do, and I did not mean it to be passive-aggressive.
I guess the way you said it just rubbed me the wrong way.... as in, "It's not hard -- just MASSIVELY change your game!"
To many people, massively changing the game *is* hard. Your post implied that it was no biggie, and I want to make sure that everyone realizes that this is highly DM-dependent.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think it does depend on the story you are telling, I have never had a problem with writing high level campaigns because for me and my players it is all about the storytelling aspect vs everything being super hard mechanically. There are a few things I do that add some jeopardy even at high levels the main one is make resurrection much more of a challenge and a roleplaying effort. I do a similair approach to Mathew Mercer for reserection, there is no automatic resurrection. I was really encouraged when I saw him using that approach because I have been doing that for years prior to watching critical roll.
I also attack down players a lot more then I think most DMs do, again this adds a level of urgency to a combat, I don’t do it randomly but if the situation is right then totally that down player is getting stabbed.
I use counterspell on my NPCs, that on its own causes issues for magic parties.
But the main thing I do is construct a story narriative that makes sense and is in no way feels like some large sprawling dungeon crawl (even though regardless of the scenery the entire game is a dungeon crawl, just sometimes in sunlight, with no walls :) ). This means that the level becomes almost irrelevant, yes I throw larger monsters and get to go to the high level end of the monster manual but it also means I can tell broader stories, go to hell and kill a pit fiend, travel to a mountain and try and negotiate with an ancient dragon who might kill you, delve into the under dark and take on an army of illithid.
When the story feels like it is coming to a natural end that is when it ends, not because the players have reached an arbitrary number on there level box.
The key to challenging players in the 17-20 range is to use that many monsters of roughly equivalent CR.
So for instance let’s say the 4 man tier 4 party is trying to take down the evil Drow Matron terrorizing the region. In this encounter they would be up against the Matron, her consort, oh she probably has a power demon to aid her (add a balor) and how about an iron golem stylized as a spider with a few additional spider-ish abilities.
But yea I don’t get why a lot of DMs are terrified of high level play. It is my favorite honestly. I enjoy seeing them “break” the game and love pulling out all the huge CRs for the combat.
I don't think "terrified" is the proper descriptor. "Don't find it fun," is probably more accurate.
As LeBattery said and your comments effectively confirm, it's like "playing a totally different game" when you get to the top tier. Well, if that's true, and I want to play the original game not a totally different one, then that would explain why I might hesitate at high level play. It doesn't mean I'm "terrified."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think part of the reason I enjoy higher levels is that I can throw some of the iconic fun stuff at parties that lower levels will never see.
Beholders
Adult Dragons
Purple Worms
Giants
The fun demons and devils
Higher level campaigns lets you play with the cool toys.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yep and means you get your money’s worth out of the monster manual, what’s the point in paying for the stats of a kraken or terrasque or ancient dragon if you never get to use them in game :)
I had positive experience in DMing high level one-shots too.
I was actually running my first high-level campaign before COVID, because some of my players asked to experience a campaign up to level 20. Level 1-10 was very good. Level 11-15 was OK (with its highlights and moments), and we paused at level 15 because the other players found it repetitive and boring (maybe, just maybe, partially because we switched to online using roll20). So I kinda have some experience of a failing campaign.
Campaigns are different than one-shots in many ways. Some differences are critical for high-level gameplay.
I am considering changing the rule if I would resume my paused campaign. Maybe try something like this https://www.latorra.org/2012/05/15/a-16-hp-dragon/
This is a definite concern. Even going from level 1-7 I can see how battles grow longer. I assume it will only be more extreme as they level up, but we'll see.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.