Campaign and levels pace [Archive] - Wizards Community

Campaign and levels pace [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Elentilion
08-15-05, 11:17 AM I've never played Eberron so far, but I'm planning to run a campaign in a very near future (after I read FN and EH). I've been gathering ideas for it for a long time now, being inspired by several threads on this boards (you guys - usually - rock! :D ) and by things such as movies, books and games. My intent is to run a year(s) long campaign, since I'd like that my players could build up nice PCs and use them for a quite long time (since they themselves like this kind of relative "everlasting" PCs to get attach to); of course that in Eberron "everlasting" PCs is a not so easy thing to accomplish, and I'll explain it to my players, making clear how death "works" in the world and all the implications and difficulties of getting a character resurrected; that is if (or when) their PCs get killed, they don't get really upset by it and become stimulated to create new ones to continue where their former PCs left the campaign.

Such "intervals" between eventual deaths seem to me a nice way to end a campaign and start another; that is in my idea of a real big campaign divided into several minor ones, all of them obviously related into a greater story.

Now the real problems and questions: I'm very aware of the non-necessity of high levels to "shake the world" of the setting, and I like this concept a lot. But, due to my plans of a long campaign, I don't know exactly how to deal with the PCs' level progression. Supposing that we'll be playing the same campaign for over a year, how could I deal with the low level paradigm without frustrating my players for the non-progression of their characters? I mean, after a year (again, supposedly) of gaming, it's a little difficult to keep the characters around de 12th level.

So I'd like to know: How do you, DMs, deal with it in your campaigns? Do you simply "restrain" the level progression in some way? How is the XP handled them? After all, after a long time of gaming in the same campaign (assuming that it may even exceed a year of gaming), it's not absurd that the characters eventually reach epic levels, right (even knowing – and I know it very well by now – that is not quite necessary to reach them in Eberron to make yourself noticed)?

I'd also like to know how are the campaigns you run. Long or short? If long, how LONG, usually? Do you play non-related campaigns or do you do something like the one I'm planning to make, several ones interrelated? If short, do you play them exactly like that to not have to deal with high level PCs?

Thank you for the attention. :)
Charles Phipps
08-15-05, 03:18 PM There's a lot of questions here, so I thought I'd actually do two things....

1. I direct you to the Hero thread, which is designed for questions like this...

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=483042

And there, I have answered your questions.
DragonWatcher
08-15-05, 03:47 PM Let me answer what I feel to be the main point of this post directly.

Do not restrain your characters' development in any way when running an Eberron campaign. The reason that there are few (if any) heroic or "good" characters above 12th level is not intended to say that heroic characters above this level can't (or shouldn't) exist. It to provide space for your PCs to grow into. The PCs are supposed to be the world-shaking heros of the setting, not some crusty old wizard, or the son of a god. This is the place where heroes aspire to... and the stage is wide open for the PCs.

Many people seem to fall into this mindset that just because there are no "archetypal" high-level heroes in the setting, that you shouldn't let the players get there. Well, take a look again at the monsters and high level villian NPCs that exist in the setting. Eberron is begging for high level player characters to set things right. Only high-level characters can hope to confront the Daelkyr, Lords of Dust, Daughters of Sora Kell, Giants of Xen'Drik, Dracolich that resides in the Lair of the Keeper, Lich Queen Vol, and many other individuals or power groups. The best part is that such an opportunity exists because individuals powerful enough to face these enemies are almost entirely unheard of. If every 10th NPC was 10th level or higher, there's no logical reason that most of these enemies wouldn't have already been removed from the setting.

Keith Baker had suggested that you might want to slow the XP gain between 6th to 12th level or so. The reason is that at this level the PCs are already famous heroes, but can still be easily challenged. He said that for his games, he likes to prolong this phase of character development. Other than that, please don't feel that you have to cap your PCs at any level. Epic play is possible in Eberron, but the challenges that the characters face will just be that much grander.
Elentilion
08-15-05, 04:07 PM Thank you for the reply, DragonWatcher.

As I said before, I'm aware that you don't need to be high level (and by that I usually mean 12-15th and above) in Eberron to become a world shaker, as well as nothing stops the PCs for reaching epic levels. My main doubt was how to deal with both things at the same time, that is without restraining the level progression. Your and Charles' posts helped a lot in solving this, thanks again. :)

I've read about Keith's suggestion and that was one of the main reasons for starting this thread, since I thought it both interesting and vague, as it doesn't explain how to "slow the pace". But I know that it's quite relative and depends on the DM discretion.

I'll follow Charles' suggestion and continue with this discussion on the Hero thread, where he already answered my questions, and because they are related to the other thread subject. ;)
Cloud Divider
08-16-05, 01:49 AM <snip>...that is if (or when) their PCs get killed, they don't get really upset by it and become stimulated to create new ones to continue where their former PCs left the campaign.
I think one way around this is to play using a more...cinematic bent. The PC won't necessarily die due to random circumstance...generally.

On one level, Action Points try to help with this - you can spend AP to automatically stabilize when you're in the negative HP.

On the other hand, by the RAW, no number of AP can buy you back from a critical hit that drops you down to -11 in one shot.

The latter case is pretty easy to fix. The PC may just automatically spend ALL of his remaining AP and "cheat death". If you want, you can have the amount of AP remaining help determine just how bad the situation is. For instance, if the PC only had 1 AP left, and got bashed down to -15, have him "left for dead," but with some other complication...maybe some of his equipment was damaged/destroyed (the "bullet stopped by his bible/whisky flask/cigarette case" trick), or maybe he ends up in somewhat more dire (but appropriately cinematic) straits. Maybe he got stabbed, and fell off the cliff into the river below...He washes up on shore downriver some distance, and is otherwise separated from the party (to steal the idea from what happened to Aragorn in The Two Towers).

I've never had problems with people complaining that the game loses it's "spark" when they know they won't die in a Random Encounter.

Now the real problems and questions: I'm very aware of the non-necessity of high levels to "shake the world" of the setting, and I like this concept a lot. But, due to my plans of a long campaign, I don't know exactly how to deal with the PCs' level progression. Supposing that we'll be playing the same campaign for over a year, how could I deal with the low level paradigm without frustrating my players for the non-progression of their characters? I mean, after a year (again, supposedly) of gaming, it's a little difficult to keep the characters around de 12th level.
You've got a couple options:

1) Throttle back on the XP awards. This is one of the notions I'm considering - I personally prefer to GM games in the low-mid levels (3-8, maybe up through 10). You may even be a little more dynamic with the throttle - let the PC's go from 1st to 3rd fairly quickly, but then slow things down from say, 4-8, and speed things up again between 10-12. Or whatever.

2) Delete XP-by-Encounter awards - just award "Story Arc Completion" awards. This is kinda-sorta like (1), but it's ABSOLUTELY arbitrary. The PCs level up at the rate you choose. You're essentially going to an entirely ad-hoc XP award methodology.

I've more-or-less been using something like method (2) so far - I'll award XP after a given story arc or "chapter" has been completed. I had been using the DMG XP-by-Encounter charts as a rough guideline. I've not been entirely happy with it, though. In the last, oh, 6 sessions, we've basically had a single "standard encounter" (approx EL 4-5), the rest has been fairly heavy roleplay and character/plot advancement, and really pretty light on the dice.

I'm honestly very tempted to go with the 100% ad-hoc award. I'll probably talk to my players and get an idea of what kind of advancement rate they're OK with - I'd rather go slow (I've got lots of neat ideas for low-mid level scenarios), rather than have to throw out ideas because they just don't "fit" anymore. Some scenario ideas just work better at certain levels, as you'd probably guess.

You can do some very interesting campaigns without being strictly "growth-focused," if that makes sense.

This is probably one of those things that would work best if that was made clear at the outset of gameplay ("Note: I'm going to advance you relatively slowly, after we hit about 3rd level..."), rather than blindsiding those players who are absolutely anxious to hit 8th level so they can break into that PrC and then get far enough in to get the COOL POWERS!

So I'd like to know: How do you, DMs, deal with it in your campaigns? Do you simply "restrain" the level progression in some way? How is the XP handled them?
In the last D&D campaign I ran prior to Eberron (back in 2001, I think), I basically awarded full XP up until about 4th level, and then tapered back to about 50%, because I wanted to stretch out the "sweet spot" experience.

It actually worked out fairly well. The campaign lasted for 4-5 months (weekly), and only petered out due to GM ADD - I picked up Exalted over a weekend, and ran a one-shot over Thanksgiving when some of my players were absent, and uh...we never got back to the D&D campaign.

After all, after a long time of gaming in the same campaign (assuming that it may even exceed a year of gaming), it's not absurd that the characters eventually reach epic levels, right (even knowing – and I know it very well by now – that is not quite necessary to reach them in Eberron to make yourself noticed)?
Hm. Knowing myself, I don't think I'd be able to handle a D&D campaign past about 12th level - I'm pretty strapped for processor time as-is. I'd go use other games/systems if I wanted "High Power".

So no, I'd probably give up before the game went Epic.

I'd also like to know how are the campaigns you run. Long or short? If long, how LONG, usually? Do you play non-related campaigns or do you do something like the one I'm planning to make, several ones interrelated? If short, do you play them exactly like that to not have to deal with high level PCs?
As a footnote, I tend to play LOTS of different systems - I tend to pick the one that best suits what kind of game I'm looking for.

My longest-lived campaign was about 16 months (a BESM 1st ed campaign). I'd had a "living setting" (same world, different PC's, and integrating their actions) going for about 3-4 years. But that was back when I was in college...

But using d20, I think my current Eberron game holds the record, at 6 months. The players are 3rd level, probably going on 4th...and we started at 2nd. We've probably had maybe only 10-12 sessions in that timeframe, so we've ended up going for weeks at a time w/o gaming (alas, we are mostly married gamers with children and jobs with long hours).

So far, most of the campaigns I've run tended to collapse due to outside issues after 6-mo to a year...people move or graduate (back when I was gaming with other college students), or we'd lose interest relative to something else.

When I GM, the story arcs tended to be semi-episodic (so not every session was directly related to the one before). There was sometimes an overarching plot that may or may not have been ultimately resolved. For instance, in the old d20 campaign, one arc of two-three sessions dealt with an undead cult, while the next 4-6 session arc dealt with a big bound-demon-escaping thing...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elentilion 08-15-05, 11:17 AM	I've never played Eberron so far, but I'm planning to run a campaign in a very near future (after I read FN and EH). I've been gathering ideas for it for a long time now, being inspired by several threads on this boards (you guys - usually - rock! :D ) and by things such as movies, books and games. My intent is to run a year(s) long campaign, since I'd like that my players could build up nice PCs and use them for a quite long time (since they themselves like this kind of relative "everlasting" PCs to get attach to); of course that in Eberron "everlasting" PCs is a not so easy thing to accomplish, and I'll explain it to my players, making clear how death "works" in the world and all the implications and difficulties of getting a character resurrected; that is if (or when) their PCs get killed, they don't get really upset by it and become stimulated to create new ones to continue where their former PCs left the campaign. Such "intervals" between eventual deaths seem to me a nice way to end a campaign and start another; that is in my idea of a real big campaign divided into several minor ones, all of them obviously related into a greater story. Now the real problems and questions: I'm very aware of the non-necessity of high levels to "shake the world" of the setting, and I like this concept a lot. But, due to my plans of a long campaign, I don't know exactly how to deal with the PCs' level progression. Supposing that we'll be playing the same campaign for over a year, how could I deal with the low level paradigm without frustrating my players for the non-progression of their characters? I mean, after a year (again, supposedly) of gaming, it's a little difficult to keep the characters around de 12th level. So I'd like to know: How do you, DMs, deal with it in your campaigns? Do you simply "restrain" the level progression in some way? How is the XP handled them? After all, after a long time of gaming in the same campaign (assuming that it may even exceed a year of gaming), it's not absurd that the characters eventually reach epic levels, right (even knowing – and I know it very well by now – that is not quite necessary to reach them in Eberron to make yourself noticed)? I'd also like to know how are the campaigns you run. Long or short? If long, how LONG, usually? Do you play non-related campaigns or do you do something like the one I'm planning to make, several ones interrelated? If short, do you play them exactly like that to not have to deal with high level PCs? Thank you for the attention. :)
Charles Phipps 08-15-05, 03:18 PM	There's a lot of questions here, so I thought I'd actually do two things.... 1. I direct you to the Hero thread, which is designed for questions like this... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=483042 And there, I have answered your questions.
DragonWatcher 08-15-05, 03:47 PM	Let me answer what I feel to be the main point of this post directly. Do not restrain your characters' development in any way when running an Eberron campaign. The reason that there are few (if any) heroic or "good" characters above 12th level is not intended to say that heroic characters above this level can't (or shouldn't) exist. It to provide space for your PCs to grow into. The PCs are supposed to be the world-shaking heros of the setting, not some crusty old wizard, or the son of a god. This is the place where heroes aspire to... and the stage is wide open for the PCs. Many people seem to fall into this mindset that just because there are no "archetypal" high-level heroes in the setting, that you shouldn't let the players get there. Well, take a look again at the monsters and high level villian NPCs that exist in the setting. Eberron is begging for high level player characters to set things right. Only high-level characters can hope to confront the Daelkyr, Lords of Dust, Daughters of Sora Kell, Giants of Xen'Drik, Dracolich that resides in the Lair of the Keeper, Lich Queen Vol, and many other individuals or power groups. The best part is that such an opportunity exists because individuals powerful enough to face these enemies are almost entirely unheard of. If every 10th NPC was 10th level or higher, there's no logical reason that most of these enemies wouldn't have already been removed from the setting. Keith Baker had suggested that you might want to slow the XP gain between 6th to 12th level or so. The reason is that at this level the PCs are already famous heroes, but can still be easily challenged. He said that for his games, he likes to prolong this phase of character development. Other than that, please don't feel that you have to cap your PCs at any level. Epic play is possible in Eberron, but the challenges that the characters face will just be that much grander.
Elentilion 08-15-05, 04:07 PM	Thank you for the reply, DragonWatcher. As I said before, I'm aware that you don't need to be high level (and by that I usually mean 12-15th and above) in Eberron to become a world shaker, as well as nothing stops the PCs for reaching epic levels. My main doubt was how to deal with both things at the same time, that is without restraining the level progression. Your and Charles' posts helped a lot in solving this, thanks again. :) I've read about Keith's suggestion and that was one of the main reasons for starting this thread, since I thought it both interesting and vague, as it doesn't explain how to "slow the pace". But I know that it's quite relative and depends on the DM discretion. I'll follow Charles' suggestion and continue with this discussion on the Hero thread, where he already answered my questions, and because they are related to the other thread subject. ;)
Cloud Divider 08-16-05, 01:49 AM	<snip>...that is if (or when) their PCs get killed, they don't get really upset by it and become stimulated to create new ones to continue where their former PCs left the campaign. I think one way around this is to play using a more...cinematic bent. The PC won't necessarily die due to random circumstance...generally. On one level, Action Points try to help with this - you can spend AP to automatically stabilize when you're in the negative HP. On the other hand, by the RAW, no number of AP can buy you back from a critical hit that drops you down to -11 in one shot. The latter case is pretty easy to fix. The PC may just automatically spend ALL of his remaining AP and "cheat death". If you want, you can have the amount of AP remaining help determine just how bad the situation is. For instance, if the PC only had 1 AP left, and got bashed down to -15, have him "left for dead," but with some other complication...maybe some of his equipment was damaged/destroyed (the "bullet stopped by his bible/whisky flask/cigarette case" trick), or maybe he ends up in somewhat more dire (but appropriately cinematic) straits. Maybe he got stabbed, and fell off the cliff into the river below...He washes up on shore downriver some distance, and is otherwise separated from the party (to steal the idea from what happened to Aragorn in The Two Towers). I've never had problems with people complaining that the game loses it's "spark" when they know they won't die in a Random Encounter. Now the real problems and questions: I'm very aware of the non-necessity of high levels to "shake the world" of the setting, and I like this concept a lot. But, due to my plans of a long campaign, I don't know exactly how to deal with the PCs' level progression. Supposing that we'll be playing the same campaign for over a year, how could I deal with the low level paradigm without frustrating my players for the non-progression of their characters? I mean, after a year (again, supposedly) of gaming, it's a little difficult to keep the characters around de 12th level. You've got a couple options: 1) Throttle back on the XP awards. This is one of the notions I'm considering - I personally prefer to GM games in the low-mid levels (3-8, maybe up through 10). You may even be a little more dynamic with the throttle - let the PC's go from 1st to 3rd fairly quickly, but then slow things down from say, 4-8, and speed things up again between 10-12. Or whatever. 2) Delete XP-by-Encounter awards - just award "Story Arc Completion" awards. This is kinda-sorta like (1), but it's ABSOLUTELY arbitrary. The PCs level up at the rate you choose. You're essentially going to an entirely ad-hoc XP award methodology. I've more-or-less been using something like method (2) so far - I'll award XP after a given story arc or "chapter" has been completed. I had been using the DMG XP-by-Encounter charts as a rough guideline. I've not been entirely happy with it, though. In the last, oh, 6 sessions, we've basically had a single "standard encounter" (approx EL 4-5), the rest has been fairly heavy roleplay and character/plot advancement, and really pretty light on the dice. I'm honestly very tempted to go with the 100% ad-hoc award. I'll probably talk to my players and get an idea of what kind of advancement rate they're OK with - I'd rather go slow (I've got lots of neat ideas for low-mid level scenarios), rather than have to throw out ideas because they just don't "fit" anymore. Some scenario ideas just work better at certain levels, as you'd probably guess. You can do some very interesting campaigns without being strictly "growth-focused," if that makes sense. This is probably one of those things that would work best if that was made clear at the outset of gameplay ("Note: I'm going to advance you relatively slowly, after we hit about 3rd level..."), rather than blindsiding those players who are absolutely anxious to hit 8th level so they can break into that PrC and then get far enough in to get the COOL POWERS! So I'd like to know: How do you, DMs, deal with it in your campaigns? Do you simply "restrain" the level progression in some way? How is the XP handled them? In the last D&D campaign I ran prior to Eberron (back in 2001, I think), I basically awarded full XP up until about 4th level, and then tapered back to about 50%, because I wanted to stretch out the "sweet spot" experience. It actually worked out fairly well. The campaign lasted for 4-5 months (weekly), and only petered out due to GM ADD - I picked up Exalted over a weekend, and ran a one-shot over Thanksgiving when some of my players were absent, and uh...we never got back to the D&D campaign. After all, after a long time of gaming in the same campaign (assuming that it may even exceed a year of gaming), it's not absurd that the characters eventually reach epic levels, right (even knowing – and I know it very well by now – that is not quite necessary to reach them in Eberron to make yourself noticed)? Hm. Knowing myself, I don't think I'd be able to handle a D&D campaign past about 12th level - I'm pretty strapped for processor time as-is. I'd go use other games/systems if I wanted "High Power". So no, I'd probably give up before the game went Epic. I'd also like to know how are the campaigns you run. Long or short? If long, how LONG, usually? Do you play non-related campaigns or do you do something like the one I'm planning to make, several ones interrelated? If short, do you play them exactly like that to not have to deal with high level PCs? As a footnote, I tend to play LOTS of different systems - I tend to pick the one that best suits what kind of game I'm looking for. My longest-lived campaign was about 16 months (a BESM 1st ed campaign). I'd had a "living setting" (same world, different PC's, and integrating their actions) going for about 3-4 years. But that was back when I was in college... But using d20, I think my current Eberron game holds the record, at 6 months. The players are 3rd level, probably going on 4th...and we started at 2nd. We've probably had maybe only 10-12 sessions in that timeframe, so we've ended up going for weeks at a time w/o gaming (alas, we are mostly married gamers with children and jobs with long hours). So far, most of the campaigns I've run tended to collapse due to outside issues after 6-mo to a year...people move or graduate (back when I was gaming with other college students), or we'd lose interest relative to something else. When I GM, the story arcs tended to be semi-episodic (so not every session was directly related to the one before). There was sometimes an overarching plot that may or may not have been ultimately resolved. For instance, in the old d20 campaign, one arc of two-three sessions dealt with an undead cult, while the next 4-6 session arc dealt with a big bound-demon-escaping thing...