Why must people act as though one group getting what it wants actively impinges upon another's ability to do the same, surely there is room for both.Because he is logically correct. If they release a 20 level AP, the number of APs has increased while the number of APs he will play has not.
This is fallacious
More APs existing that he won't play doesn't mean there are less APs for him to playHaving more APs he doesn't want to play doesn't mean there are less APs he wants there are still the same number of APs he likes as before, he lost literally nothing, just some people gained something he didn't want for himself.
Realistically though, damn near every adventure path i've seen has "Ideas for carrying on past the end of this path" A solitary module or pair of modules that expands on those for levels 15-17+ isn't pissing in anyone elses cheerios. As long as AP's are given a break point at their usual spot where "the campaign is over...unless" everyone could probably be happy.Except for Durgon probably, as I suspect his objection is that he wants to play all of the AP content but refuses to play any content that goes too high. So he refuses to start any such AP.
You suspect wrong, and frankly don't seem to understand me at all.
I want more high level play, you should probably give what I'm saying another read.
Over the decades, I've had several campaigns last all the way to 20th and beyond. In fact the only ones that ended sooner was when one of us changed job shifts, or some other real-life situation got in the way of our bi-weekly sessions.
Granted, I've been blessed with a group of like-minded people that genuinely enjoy each others company and WANT our game world to evolve to such heights.
As for the high level vs low level debate, I'm firmly in the high level camp. I absolutely abhor 1st level play and typically start the game off at 3rd-4th level. This is one of the reasons I avoid PFS, stopping at 12th level when your character is just coming into his true potential seems counter-intuitive to me.
|
You suspect wrong, and frankly don't seem to understand me at all.
My apologies, I meant Claxon. GenCon was a busy time, and I'm still recovering.
This is fallacious
More APs existing that he won't play doesn't mean there are less APs for him to play
But that was his claim. That more 20th level APs means he will play less APs. It has nothing to do with what he could theoretically play, but what he is willing to play.
I suppose I don't understand why that would be the case. All the APs that he would want to play would still exist.
I DMed a second edition campaign that went to level 20 over the course of middle school when I first started playing. I played in the same group with a rotating DMship in a 3.0 game up to level 22 during high school.
Highest level pathfinder character is currently level 11, going through Rise of the Runelords. That game slowed down significantly when people moved and it shifted to playing online, but is still going, and I think we'll eventually finish it, though I don't think we'll go to 20 there.
Because the total number of APs would be X+Y (X = APs less than 20, Y = APs at 20), while the ones he would play would still be X. So he would be playing less APs, as the total used to be X+Z, where X = old APs and Z = new APs.
It's more like, for me APs don't have much replayability, once I've played it I already know what to expect and I don't get nearly as much out of an AP a second time around (only started a campaign I've played before once but I didn't find it nearly as enjoyable since I already knew what was going to happen).
So, as I play more and more APs the number of APs I would be interested in playing decreases (assuming new APs are designed to go 20).
Now, what Paizo could do is write a line of products designed to go from mid-teen levels up to 20. Finish up a story line that ends at level 15, and switch into a new world-wide problem story line that takes you into 20. Then I could avoid those products.
Because the total number of APs would be X+Y (X = APs less than 20, Y = APs at 20), while the ones he would play would still be X. So he would be playing less APs, as the total used to be X+Z, where X = old APs and Z = new APs.
It took me way to many tries to read that xD how I got through GCSE maths is a mystery.
But I think I get what you're saying. Doesn't this presume that he has or would have exhausted the available APs of the desired level for this to ever actually be a problem?
and even if that were the case, the solution Ryan suggested still subverts this issue. No?
once.
you can't reach level 20 more often than that in a campaign
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I think I get what you're saying. Doesn't this presume that he has or would have exhausted the available APs of the desired level for this to ever actually be a problem?
and even if that were the case, the solution Ryan suggested still subverts this issue. No?
I suppose it presumes enough time to get through all of them. I was considering it on an infinite timeline. *shrugs*
As I understand Claxon, Ryan's solution is incompatible with his viewpoint.
It's more like, for me APs don't have much replayability, once I've played it I already know what to expect and I don't get nearly as much out of an AP a second time around (only started a campaign I've played before once but I didn't find it nearly as enjoyable since I already knew what was going to happen).
I've run Shackled City for three different groups, playing Curse of the Crimson Throne book 1 twice, and will likely be playing Skull and Shackles a second time. Each time, the broad strokes are the same or similar, but the specific interactions and how the details play out are different. Maybe that isn't different enough for you, but to me it is the difference between reading the book, watching the movie, and attending the play. Different actors give different flavor.
I've played or DMed continually since the brown books when I started in 1974.
I estimate that represents about 75 campaigns. Out of the estimated 75, about 55 of them went to Level 20. The rest of them went to 17th to 18th level. So all went to high level if you consider 15th level and up as high level.
Which, judging from the comments so far in this thread, makes me a very, very small minority.
I've played or DMed continually since the brown books when I started in 1974.
I estimate that represents about 75 campaigns. Out of the estimated 75, about 55 of them went to Level 20. The rest of them went to 17th to 18th level. So all went to high level if you consider 15th level and up as high level.
Which, judging from the comments so far in this thread, makes me a very, very small minority.
Eh, its more likely that the regularly high level groups spend more time playing the game than posting about it on forums XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost never. I don't think most GM's even want to do it. I did it twice as a GM. Every other attempt was stopped by people moving or schedule changes.I'd like to run it but even with extensive GM experience I find it very hard to come up with scenarios, encounters and environments that aren't run roughshod over by the powerful characters. Presumably because it doesn't happen often enough to get experienced at running such high level games.
I run published adventures and modify them. I don't have the free time do write my own anymore.
First off;
Reading through the thread, I am gladdened to see so many long-in-the-tooth gamers like me, that have been around since the olden-times.
I just hit 40th anniversary of rolling weird dice across a table, myself.
Most of my long, 20th level+ games happened while I was in school, or later in the military. During that time, I would say a good 25-30% of the campaigns made it near or over 20. Being stuck on base, or out at sea, allowed for some decent game time. Plus, I've been lucky enough to game with some pretty advanced and capable players, who could thrive in high-power campaigns.
Like me, most of my group now can be classified as 'old guys'. Some of us with kids nearing or in college.
We try to have a weekly RPG schedule, but it's not uncommon for games to be called on account of too many players being busy IRL. Those are the nights we will pull out board/card games for a breather.
In the last 15 years or so, we've only had one campaign (that I ran), which got to 15th. It took that long, because we periodically switch things up, and play a different game/genre or world from time to time, to avoid burn-out. So the campaign periodically went on hiatus for a while.
So overall, I would say that since the average age of RPG players continues to rise, we will see less long-running campaigns reaching those level. When I started, it was mainly a game for teenagers and some college students. Now, a good chunk of gamers are well into adulthood, and have overriding responsibilities eating up our time.
Plus, with the rise of computer/internet pastimes, video game consoles, and steaming tv/movies immediately accessible (compared to 20-30 years ago), there is bound to be less time devoted to any one hobby, so they will run their course quicker, and end sooner. New stuff is constantly coming out across all the hobby media/platforms.
I think it's just how gaming as a whole has evolved, and a lot of gaming (tabletop, online, consoles, etc.) has moved towards a more short-time outlook. As a result, both published material and even home-made campaigns trend toward shorter run-lengths.
Once in my 20+ years of gaming. The game is much more enjoyable around level 10.
I have made it to the 16-18 area quite a few times though .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that it's confirmed that Return of the Runelords will go all the way to level 20, it will be interesting to revisit this thread in early to mid 2019.
I've been playing about 35 yrs and hit L20 once with Shackled City. I wasn't running and my participation was rather spotty during the teens. I honestly wouldn't run or play past levels 10-12 anymore (OK, one exception as we're finishing Jade Regent). IMO the game just becomes a dull grind past that point though. I've down-shifted to running PF6 more recently and I think that is pretty much where my interests lie now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run published adventures and modify them. I don't have the free time do write my own anymore.Almost never. I don't think most GM's even want to do it. I did it twice as a GM. Every other attempt was stopped by people moving or schedule changes.I'd like to run it but even with extensive GM experience I find it very hard to come up with scenarios, encounters and environments that aren't run roughshod over by the powerful characters. Presumably because it doesn't happen often enough to get experienced at running such high level games.
Gods yes, I hear you on this one Wraithstrike. Where did all my free time go?
I have never had a character get to 20. I played through Kingmaker and got to 18, or was it 19. That is the highest level I have ever played from low levels.
25 years of playing, exactly one campaign got over level 15.
Which is why I find all the griping about high level casters so annoying.
The game needs to be broken into tiers with normal advancement stopping at 15th level give or take.
It'd be nice to have a mini capstone every 5 levels or so, rather than wait for 20, when it never comes into play for most folks...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What never? No never
What never?
HARRDLY EEEVER