DMing mid and high levels

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Two of the DM's I play with where they create or move us to pre fabs for lower level characters than the party has. Then we use new lower level characters for few months of a side campaign before getting back on with the higher level characters so to say. Is this a pretty common thing?

Assuming so, as DM's is there anything / what is unattractive about running higher level campaigns?

Are there homebrew mistakes that compound or what happens?

[MrStabby]

The difficulty is to make something the right level of challenge. As player options grow, so does the likelihood that some player will have a "solution" that trivialised an encounter.

The list of things you need to consider such that every player gets to be instrumental at some point in a given session, or even not obviated by another character, grows pretty rapidly.

Higher levels are harder work.

[Zarrgon]

It does not sound common to me.

Mid and high level D&D games are hard even for a DM of average skill and competence. So, of course, if your a DM of less then average skill and competence, it will be very hard.

Mid and high level play requires the DM to put in a lot of time and effort....mostly before the game play starts. Like the DM might sit home on a sunday and make a couple encounters over a couple hours. Not all DMs have the desire to spend that much time doing game prep: They just want to show up on Saturday night and toss monsters at the characters.

Mid and high level play requires that the DM know the rules and have at least above average rule and system mastery. And not all DMs do.

Well the big homebrew mistake would be that the DM does not use homebrew.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I am planning to go to high levels but 3 of the 5 dms in our group like running low levels game.
One like to play up to level 10 and to bring the characters to level 20 for the final boss fight (which is always an homebrew one and he know how to make it assume).
He just like low magic settings and after level 10 everyone is too magical for him.

One like to run levels 1-3(not sure way but it was all he ever run for us)

One like to run tier 1 and 2(he run it AL style but with max difficulty and the party have to be something absurd like all clerics and similar ****).

[MarkVIIIMarc]

That all makes sense. Life is short so I truncated it, but we ran a bit of Dead in Thay. Mild spoiler alert, but that mega dungeon has ward of sorts against teleportation to flee and death is death near soo many phylactories I guess.

What else do you all use to keep things reasonable?

[Porcupinata]

The difficulty is to make something the right level of challenge. As player options grow, so does the likelihood that some player will have a "solution" that trivialised an encounter.

I've found that the secret to a successful high level campaign is to embrace that rather than treat it as a failure state. When the player characters have gained all the powerful toys, let them have fun using them.

Just make sure everyone gets to do that by having enough variation that everyone gets to shine in different situations.

[Waazraath]

I've found that the secret to a successful high level campaign is to embrace that rather than treat it as a failure state. When the player characters have gained all the powerful toys, let them have fun using them.

Just make sure everyone gets to do that by having enough variation that everyone gets to shine in different situations.

But that's of course exactly the hard work people spoke about =P

As a player, my experiences are mixed; some DM's resort more to railroading (compared with lower levels), to prevent "surprises", but that aren't the best games. The ones that do create rewarding game experiences in high level campaigns are both very good in improvising, work together with the players, and invest a lot of time.

The last mid/high level campaigns I DM'd myself were 3.5's expedition to Castle Ravenloft (up to lvl 11 or something) and a campaign based arount Heroes of Battle (also 3.5) - mighty underrated book in my book, and a great tool for 5e's issue's on 'how to make sure you have balanced adventuring days'. War is, by nature, something with unexpected events, attrition battles, surprises, and doomsday clocks, which make it easy for a DM to have all classes shine, both short and long rest based. Anyway, my major gripe with DM'ing high levels is the amount of time it takes to do good; I just don't have it these days (one of the reasons I haven't done it yet in 5e).

[Porcupinata]

But that's of course exactly the hard work people spoke about =P

It's similar, but it's the difference between working to enable them and working to restrict them.

[Keravath]

It's hard to say why there is an issue with higher levels.

In some cases, it is due to experienced players with bad impressions of game balance from previous editions. In previous editions, some wizards could pull out a spell and say problem solved. If they didn't have that particular tool, everyone could die. Not always, but it was up to the DM to look into the possibilities and either come up with a solution on the fly if the players didn't come up with a good idea or have a decent idea in advance.

5e is much less of a save or die situation. It is also a lot more balanced at higher levels and bounded accuracy keeps even lower level opponents relevant unless it's a Monty Haul type game with +3 weapons, +3 armor, +3 shields and lots of magic (even then attunement does impose some very useful limits).

From a design perspective, the options available to players and the DM grow exponentially when you are into level 6+ spells and level 11+ character abilities. Some DMs aren't comfortable with this because they often can't reasonably guess which tools the party might pull out to solve a particular situation.

This is also where DM style and ability comes more into play. A DM who likes predictable outcomes and a plot to follow doesn't tend to like higher levels as much since the outcomes are much less predictable and the tools to avoid a planned plot element are much greater (e.g. DM creates a cool trap/encounter ... players get to it, are suspicious, cast planeshift and simply walk past the problem).

However, a DM who doesn't mind improvising and has an overarching plot where the details can be filled in based on the game events as they happen has much less trouble dealing with higher level abilities since whatever the characters choose to do to deal with the current situation doesn't matter since there will always be another "situation" around the corner. This approach to DMing though requires the ability to improvise, think quickly and not be overwhelmed by whatever the characters choose to do ... the DM just needs to work out logically how the player actions interact with their ongoing game world and adjust accordingly. Not every DM is either good with that or enjoys doing it ... as a result there are folks who just enjoy lower level play where there are much fewer options ... where a high level paladin/warlock with smite and eldritch smite can't just suddenly do 100+ hit points of damage on a crit to their supposedly almost invincible bad guy :) (the key here is to NOT describe the bad guys as almost invincible unless they actually have some ability to back it up :) ).

[MrStabby]

It's hard to say why there is an issue with higher levels.

In some cases, it is due to experienced players with bad impressions of game balance from previous editions. In previous editions, some wizards could pull out a spell and say problem solved. If they didn't have that particular tool, everyone could die. Not always, but it was up to the DM to look into the possibilities and either come up with a solution on the fly if the players didn't come up with a good idea or have a decent idea in advance.

5e is much less of a save or die situation. It is also a lot more balanced at higher levels and bounded accuracy keeps even lower level opponents relevant unless it's a Monty Haul type game with +3 weapons, +3 armor, +3 shields and lots of magic (even then attunement does impose some very useful limits).

From a design perspective, the options available to players and the DM grow exponentially when you are into level 6+ spells and level 11+ character abilities. Some DMs aren't comfortable with this because they often can't reasonably guess which tools the party might pull out to solve a particular situation.

This is also where DM style and ability comes more into play. A DM who likes predictable outcomes and a plot to follow doesn't tend to like higher levels as much since the outcomes are much less predictable and the tools to avoid a planned plot element are much greater (e.g. DM creates a cool trap/encounter ... players get to it, are suspicious, cast planeshift and simply walk past the problem).

However, a DM who doesn't mind improvising and has an overarching plot where the details can be filled in based on the game events as they happen has much less trouble dealing with higher level abilities since whatever the characters choose to do to deal with the current situation doesn't matter since there will always be another "situation" around the corner. This approach to DMing though requires the ability to improvise, think quickly and not be overwhelmed by whatever the characters choose to do ... the DM just needs to work out logically how the player actions interact with their ongoing game world and adjust accordingly. Not every DM is either good with that or enjoys doing it ... as a result there are folks who just enjoy lower level play where there are much fewer options ... where a high level paladin/warlock with smite and eldritch smite can't just suddenly do 100+ hit points of damage on a crit to their supposedly almost invincible bad guy :) (the key here is to NOT describe the bad guys as almost invincible unless they actually have some ability to back it up :) ).

I think you are missing an issue here, though right on a number of points. The DM challenge and plotting isnt about how to challenge the party or to stop the plot being derailed. The challenge is in maintaining a semblance of balance between party members and their ability to advance the plot and get time in the spotlight whilst having a diverse, interesting and internally consistent campaign.

Improvisation is a good skill, but you need more than "and another dragon shows up!" Type plot development. Who ever played a lesser role in defeating the first threat should have the skills and abilities to be very effective against the second and vice versa. Improvising another encounter to deal with the unexpected is easy. Making it about the right challenge is easy. Simultaneously weaving it into the plot so it fits and keeping the campaign balanced between different PCs at a moments notice is the hard part.

[Keravath]

I think you are missing an issue here, though right on a number of points. The DM challenge and plotting isnt about how to challenge the party or to stop the plot being derailed. The challenge is in maintaining a semblance of balance between party members and their ability to advance the plot and get time in the spotlight whilst having a diverse, interesting and internally consistent campaign.

Improvisation is a good skill, but you need more than "and another dragon shows up!" Type plot development. Who ever played a lesser role in defeating the first threat should have the skills and abilities to be very effective against the second and vice versa. Improvising another encounter to deal with the unexpected is easy. Making it about the right challenge is easy. Simultaneously weaving it into the plot so it fits and keeping the campaign balanced between different PCs at a moments notice is the hard part.

It can be. However, I find it depends on the characters and can be generalized to some extent ... there are three pillars and a limited number of ways to deal with each.

1) Combat ...
- strong single or small groups of opponents - single target DPS characters tend to shine
- larger groups with a couple of stronger creatures thrown in - CC and AoE caster classes tend to shine - also any caster class that has some ability to affect the battlefield can make a big difference

As you get to higher levels, the composition and size of opposing groups may change - use leveled NPCs and intelligent ones for added interest and challenge. The NPCs should have motivations and goals that may rival those of the PCs.

2) Social ... (or any skill check encounters)
- aim the skill check encounter to enable participation by the characters with the best skills or players who like to role play. Skills aren't evenly distributed though since bards and rogues with expertise can tend to dominate the success rate. However, this can help a character that is less effective at combat if their contribution to other styles of encounters can be felt.

3) Exploration ... (these can be role play intensive or skill intensive)
- who is going first? Is there a suitable risk/reward for these actions. Does learning something first have any benefit to the character or the party?
- what does the party find? What do they learn? Some players love puzzles and others don't ... so these types of interactions are aimed at the players who like that type of content.

Anyway, in the end it is a bit of a juggling act and I would not expect every single encounter to effectively highlight the abilities of every member of the party every time but a suitable mix of various different encounters or encounter templates can be put together to be useful in common circumstances.

[heavyfuel]

Assuming so, as DM's is there anything / what is unattractive about running higher level campaigns?

Combats either take forever since HP scales way faster with level/challenge than Damage, or it's over in an instant as the Caster trivializes it with a spell.

There's very little middle ground.


Are there homebrew mistakes that compound or what happens?

Not homebrew, but having multiple players compound this problem. A combat with 2 PCs and 2 monsters is over much much faster than a combat with 5 PCs and 5 monsters.

You'd think that 4 combatants vs 10 combatants would mean about 40% of time spent in combat, but the truth is that you having to remember stats and abilities of 5 monsters is difficult, so you'll have to search for information more often. Also, when there's maybe 3 minutes between a player ending their turn and it starting the next round, they pay more attention than when they have to wait 20 minutes between turns

Also, with 5 PCs there's a much larger chance that one of them will have some way to trivialize the combat.

[Trask]

A few reasons

- Combat takes an age

- The full casting classes have so many magical cheat code type spells at their disposal that its nigh impossible to account for it. I don't think a DM can (or should) tailor scenarios and encounters overmuch to the party, but eventually you reach a point where almost anything not combat related is entirely trivialized (and even then...).

- Further on the point of spells, I find that at higher levels the consistency, texture, and flavor of the fantasy world starts to deteriorate. The players have access to such godlike power (by players read "casters") that all the relatable and "realistic" implications of a setting are completely gone and the game resembles a fantasy superheroes game. D&D transforms into a different kind of game, and its not one thats to everyone's taste. One where it can be hard for a DM to make the fantasy world function at even a basic level, and where every NPC and faction leader needs many different kinds of magical protections and resources to keep up with what the PC's (again, read "casters") can do easily. The most basic of fantasy adventure challenges becomes utterly trivial and almost every aspect of an adventure besides pure stat block vs stat block combat must be reimagined and retextured into something suitably "epic" and fantastical for it to be of any import. It becomes taxing. Thats been the most consistent reason for me to avoid DMing games at high levels.

[Satori01]

High Level is easier to DM, because you no longer have to be concerned about balance.

A 17th level party can deal with having 1/2 the party die, and one of the dead PC’s corpse being stolen, by the assailants.

Either through spells, or hirelings, or favors called in from years of adventuring, the high level group does not need curated adventures.

DM, no need to scrutinize XP values and budgets, just hit the accelerator and let the PC group do their thing.

3 Critical Hits on a monster in a single turn, can trivialize any encounter...and I have seen this very occurrence multiple times.

It is not just spells that trivialize ..but internet boards and DMs obsess about the spells....spells don’t kill people...the damage is too low...crits kill people.

[RSP]

As I see it, and as others have posted about, it’s basically “How do I create problems that can be equally solved by the BM Fighter, the Thief Rogue, the Celestial Chain Warlock, the Lore Bard, the Devotion Paladin and the Divination Wizard?” (Or whatever your particular group is.)

The full casters will absolutely have more options available, some of which will require more spotlight time; because Rogues and Fighters don’t have the variance of ability that full casters do.

Likewise, the encounters will get more powerful and more varied as well: Lair and Legendary Actions can be huge swings. Those unexpected obstacles can have a much bigger impact on the non-casters, who have less varied means to overcome them.

Imagine a level 17 Wizard that, during downtime, creates a Simulacrum of themself, then True Polymorphs it into an Adult Red Dragon. So they start the adventure with an Adult Red Dragon sidekick that, when hitting 0 HP, turns into a second level 17 Wizard.

By contrast, the BM Fighter has 6 d12 maneuver dice to work with.

That’s a tough adventuring day to balance.

So the answer, I guess, is that it’s as easy to do high level play as it is to balance the Fighter and the Wizard at any given level.

[BurgerBeast]

It's similar, but it's the difference between working to enable them and working to restrict them.

No, it really isn’t. Whether you work to restrict or to enable, you still want to balance it between the players. That was the point of the post to which you replied - balance between characters.

The emphasis on restricting PCs was not present in the post. You read into it and found something that wasn’t there.