Troll Lord Games

What do you consider "high level" characters and adventures?

My view is definitely shaped by my days playing 1st ed. AD&D, and never having played any later editions.* Given the info in the PHB, and the available modules, I always thought 1-3 was low level, 4-8 was medium, and 9+ was high, maxing out around 13 or 14 tops. It never occurred to me to run adventures for anyone much higher than that, and we didn't do a lot of tours through the heavens or hells (module Q1 perhaps as the sole exception, and maybe the last module we'd possibly play with those characters - if they survived!)

How about you? How do you definite "high level," and at what point do you think about maxing out, retiring the characters, and starting fresh at low levels?

*That's not a dig on those editions, btw - I just stopped RPGing for a long time and never had any experience with them one way or the other.

Kreider204, I agree with your thoughts. My ideas of levels were also formed from 20 years of AD&D. No one ever got above 15th level in our games.

When several of my friends persuaded me to switch from AD&D to 3.X back in 2003, I did and the made new characters. We still never got above 8th level. By the time we got to those levels in 3.X, I could not handle DMing any longer. The game was overwhelming in numbers and stats. We converted to C&C in 2006, or there-about, and now have 9th through 11th level PCs at the top end.

High level PCs are tenth level and above in my book. I don't see any reason to ever retire a PC as long as the player wants to continue to game with them. My experience has been that by the time they make 12+ levels, the players are ready to roll up new characters and fight the old orcs and evil cultists again instead of demons, liches, and other high level nemeses.

I'm of like mind. Anything over 10th level is high. And as a CK/DM, I prefer low to mid levels for my games. But having played characters well above that, I can get why it is fun.

R-

kreider204 wrote:<snip>How do you definite "high level," and at what point do you think about maxing out, retiring the characters, and starting fresh at low levels? <snip>

For me it varies from campaign to campaign.

From my AD&D perspective, high level is achieved at "name level." BITD my group played almost every week (holidays and final exams could interfere) and took years for the PCs to reach name level. By the time PCs were levels 10-12 the group started to break up (people moving away, graduating college, etc) and other than a tarrasque or going to extraplanar adventures we were pretty much in cruise mode. I consider the characters "retired" and if that group of players & DM were to reconvene in a face-to-face game then starting fresh at low levels would be the way to go.

For a setting (gritty and historically based with elements of supernatural added) I'm developing for use with a heavily house ruled version of C&C, high level will be achieved at 5th. The vast majority of folks are 0-level commoners. Adventurers at 1st level are a cut above but by no means badasses.

For my games, 10th experience level plus is "high level." But, I also sort of go by the following guidelines:
+1 1st - 3rd level
+2 4th -6th level
+3 7th - 9th level
+4 10th - 12th level
+5 13th...

~O

For me, "High Level" is 9th to 12th, topping out at 12th.

Low = 1-4
Mid = 5-8
High = 9-12

Most of my games were dependent on the level the game was being run at, so the low/mid/high level would be determined by the game and not the game book rules.

But if push came to shove I classed the low/medium/high levels in a nonlinear way. I always thought of 4th level as the graduating class and the move to a more dependable character that as a DM I didn't need to "handle" as much. Then the next part was the meat & potatoes levels that walked hand in hand with what the campaign was about and all the real important things start to get uncovered and dealt with, in game. This I considered the mid or medium, levels for the characters and could range from level 4 to level 15, (Or, in some rare occasions this could be even higher. In my longest running AD&D campaign most characters needed close to 20th level to end the campaign.) again being dependent on the level of the campaign. The high level threshold fluctuated with the level of the campaign so the start of a high level character depended heavily on the campaign level. It'd be safe to say the high level could've easily fluctuated between 8+ levels.

Only a very few times have I started a campaign that didn't start at level 1. Therefore if I was running a high fantasy type campaign where the meat & potatoes middle effectively ran the character to level 15 (Thus making 16+ high levels) I'd "handle" levels 1 through 3 to gain xp a little faster. Using that time to encourage team building and character attachment.

For a little more clarification. I think the main difference is my interpretation on how one should use the terms low/mid/high class, in game terms. My understanding is the three terms are usually referred to, in game with the boundaries set by the campaigns beginning and end. By the end you should have been running a portion of the game in a "higher" class.

I almost exclusively run very open sandboxes that can, at times, really mess with timeframes given to the player/characters. It is quite possible that the group could over-look a 2nd level adventure portion and not revisit it till they are 8th level, or on the flip side move too far forward, in the narrative and run into something they are not equipped to handle.

Given my DM/GM/CK style it is easier for me to determine what I consider low/mid/high levels based on the campaign. Low level is pretty consistent and I'm comfortable at leaving it at levels 1 to 3 then starting the mid level count at 4th level and then whatever determines the end of that current campaign, whatever level a character is on determines the end of the mid level character. Anything beyond that is considered high level.

Mid-level in my game means a random NPC hero has the same tools to solve the campaign as a PC can.

High level PC's mean they are probably the only "heroes" capable of solving the campaign. (Note: I did not include the villain. You need the villain to be at least on par with power.)

At this point 3 things could happen.

1. The campaign ends, everyone retires and we move on only to look back, fondly, at that campaign.
2. Everyone agrees that they want to start a new campaign, with existing characters, immediately.
3. These characters and game world, will be put on hiatus and we'll revisit them again, in the future. (With this option I like to try and push an extended "game world" lay-off and advance the characters- age wise- using age charts to adjust their characters and a discussion of what has happened from the end of the campaign to the present. I take it upon myself to tell them of important things that have happened, in the world, during that time- regardless if it has any bearing on the new campaign. Potential plot hooks flow from this exercise.)

In any event, the start of a new campaign all characters are considered "high" level for that world. Something they achieved prior to the new campaign.

I'm comfortable with this because the characters have to be compared to every other "being" that populates the world and it is with this comparison that really determines just how well they stack-up to the average. In my world average are all pretty much considered "low" level then you compare your characters to the "heroes/villains" of the world for which most should be in the medium power category. Pushing your characters beyond the medium type adventurers means you usually get to see the most bizarre and strange things, that the world has to offer, that most low level characters would probably never see, let a lone understand.

Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule. It is possible that I could run a few adventure/modules. in between the grand epic and the end or conclusion to those modules/adventures do not make a character a "higher" level. It stays in the larger narrative.

tl;dr: Level categories are organic. Dependent on the power level chosen for the campaign/world.

13+ is high level to me... There is no top, if someone runs it I will play. If someone wants to play I will run it. It's all fun to me.

I agree that the game definitely changes at about 9th level. It becomes much more obvious that D&D is a magical super heroes game, with everyone flying, teleporting, etc... but I have ran games as high as 27th level in 1E AD&D, and up to 17th level in C&C. It definitely is a learning experience for us CK's to learn to run.

Given I played 4e, I am very accustomed to high level (12+) games, maxing out at lvl 30, but I prefer levels 1-10 the most.

jdizzy001 wrote:Given I played 4e, I am very accustomed to high level (12+) games, maxing out at lvl 30, but I prefer levels 1-10 the most.

Heh, I played in 3E. I played in 3 Epic level games during that time, a "vanilla" game set in Greyhawk that went to 28th level, another one set in the World of Warcraft setting that I dropped out of at 48th level, and another that went to 67th level, set in Rokugan. Highest level 3E game I was willing to run ended at 16th level. The numbers were melting my brain by then.

I don't know what I consider high to be, but too high is when everyone takes 45 minute turns. I don't think C&C is as prone to that, but if you get enough magic items and spells and summoned monsters and buffs it could happen.

My experience of 4th edition sounds similar to the above-mentioned 3rd edition experiences as far numbers' brain melting at higher levels. After 4th edition, due to the numbers and amount of things to keep track of, we (The DM and I; we're brothers) managed to sell the current gaming group on a 1st edition AD&D campaign for nostalgia's sake, with an eye toward moving to C&C for the future.

However, my opinion of high level is a pretty subjective one: I've always considered high level as being when the characters are strong enough to start fighting dragons. As the iconic fantasy monster, the level to take one on was always as good a measure as any as to when a character has finally made to the higher tier of play.

I always considered High Level to be when PC's have access to spells of 7th+ level. That radically changes the complexion of the game. Even having the party's cleric be able to cast Raise Dead is a really high power level.

Treebore wrote: Highest level 3E game I was willing to run ended at 16th level. The numbers were melting my brain by then.

Wow, your brain handles numbers better than I. I could not take it after 9th level. I kidded my gang that my 486SX brain did not have the math co-processor and we needed to go in a different direction!

A quick test for a high level TSR module is if it begins with a couple of paragraphs detailing dozens of spells and magic items that won't work, usually with a preposterous in game justification, but the real reason is because the game designers could not make a workable dungeon where the PCs can teleport, time stop, scry, fly, etc.



I think the general theory was that high level coincided with "name level", where the game was supposed to shift to more of a domain management game, with an occasional super dungeon or fight with an ancient dragon

The key driver of the change to "high level" is magic. Fighters and rogues kind of scale to the challenge, so a 17th level fighter fighting dragons and demons does not play that differently than a third level fighter fighting bugbears. But once the wizard starts dimension dooring and teleporting and soon after, making her own scrolls, potions and magic items, the game is going to be qualitatively different.

Aramis wrote: But once the wizard starts dimension dooring and teleporting and soon after, making her own scrolls, potions and magic items, the game is going to be qualitatively different.

A reason to use method 1 for magic item creation...

Very interesting thoughts, thanks. I hadn't explicitly thought about how it affects the upper-level magic. If I stick to my old-fashioned way of thinking and stop characters at 14th level, then spell-casters won't get access to 8th and 9th level spells, and I think I'm all right with that - I'm not too keen on the idea of clerics with True Resurrection and wizards with Wish.

kreider204 wrote:What do you consider "high level" characters and adventures? How about you? How do you define "high level," and at what point do you think about maxing out, retiring the characters, and starting fresh at low levels?

I've only really run low level games and they typically end around 2nd or 3rd level due to various reasons. That being said here is my perspective on your questions:

1. Here is my take with C&C and the types of adventures.
Low: 1-4
Mid: 5-9
High 9-12
Epic 13-24

These are pretty much based on PHB and CKG. With Epic level, you need epic opponents: monsters, NPC, environments, etc. The CKG does have a good description of it. Additionally, I'd probably incorporate some of the Mythic Adventure stuff that Pazio has for Pathfinder. Whether I'd use mythic levels remains to be seen as I'd like to see how the PCs do organically at those Epic Levels.

As far as retiring a character, if they reach level 24, then it's over. Certainly we could keep them on hand for various world changing events, but most likely they would reappear as NPCs in the next game in some capacity. Back in the 'day' our games always had big time levels and great end game moments. We used a mix of House Rules, BECMI D&D, AD&D and UA.
ascension to god-hood was the goal and as a player managed it once or twice. That along with a take over of one of the planes of hell.

Really, it would depend on what the PCs envisioned along with me as the End game. In those games back in the day, that was the goal we all agreed upon and strove for.

kreider204 wrote:
My view is definitely shaped by my days playing 1st ed. AD&D, and ..., I always thought 1-3 was low level, 4-8 was medium, and 9+ was high, maxing out around 13 or 14 tops. It never occurred to me to run adventures for anyone much higher than that, and we didn't do a lot of tours through the heavens or hells (module Q1 perhaps as the sole exception, and maybe the last module we'd possibly play with those characters - if they survived!)

...

That is about right with me. I love low to mid level games but have (back in the day) ran and played up to around or a little above 14ish level. After that, it loses it's fun for me (on both sides of the coin, I'm not good at running the high level epic games & unless there is something special going on to justify my character being higher I don't like playing in that game either).

The only high level game I remember truly enjoying was a paladin hunting down and stopping a cabal of demonologists and needing to 'plug' the source of their power in the Abyss. Plus (it took me a while to figure it out) the party was being 'helped' by cretin devils and those tied to the devils. So, I/we had to win against the demons but also make sure the devils couldn't fill in the void left by them. It was a lot of good high level fights but also a lot of good role playing and thinking too.

I would never been able to pull that off as the DM …

played in 3 Epic level games during that time, a "vanilla" game set in Greyhawk that went to 28th level, another one set in the World of Warcraft setting that I dropped out of at 48th level, and another that went to 67th level, set in Rokugan

Given I played 4e, I am very accustomed to high level (12+) games, maxing out at lvl 30

Good lord, the thought of those makes me cringe !

kreider204 wrote:What do you consider "high level" characters and adventures?

My view is definitely shaped by my days playing 1st ed. AD&D, and never having played any later editions.* Given the info in the PHB, and the available modules, I always thought 1-3 was low level, 4-8 was medium, and 9+ was high, maxing out around 13 or 14 tops. It never occurred to me to run adventures for anyone much higher than that, and we didn't do a lot of tours through the heavens or hells (module Q1 perhaps as the sole exception, and maybe the last module we'd possibly play with those characters - if they survived!)

How about you? How do you definite "high level," and at what point do you think about maxing out, retiring the characters, and starting fresh at low levels?

*That's not a dig on those editions, btw - I just stopped RPGing for a long time and never had any experience with them one way or the other.

Exactly my view. 7-9 are the heroes of the realms

10-12 are epic heroes/demigods

I was developing houserules that allowed characters to access the upper level abilities/spells at lower levels (with reduced chances of success) but I like the fact that the demons and dragons and such were still kings of the hill and it took a party of heroes to kill them.

Organically, the highest level anyone in my campaigns ever reached was 6th level.