[POLL] What's the D&D gaming level "Sweet Spot?"

[Sigma]

I went with 7-9, but I agree that 5-8 better fits with my preferences. I've played high level games, all the way to 9th level spells, and things just aren't any fun for me. There's too much to keep track of (everyone spelling up, one time per day abilities, magic items), especially for the DM.

Levels 1-3 are a lot of fun and I never skip them. Those are the times when your character develops and becomes what he is. However, he's just too fragile, and a lucky blow or bad die roll will kill him way too fast.

4-9, you're powerful, but not too powerful. You can do the classic tricks of D&D (fireballs, dimension door, whirlwind), but not so powerful that you can stop time, dish out 10d6 sneak damage, or hit an opponent with any roll above a 5.

 

[Quickbeam]

I think it's either 7-9 or 10-12, mainly because of the character versatility, spells available, and other equipment/abilities the PC's likely possess at those levels. Also, parties comprised of characters in those level ranges can handle (or escape from) most challenges, while still finding a number of foes overwhelming and/or very terrifying.

 

[Darkness]

Heh. What is a "sweet spot," BTW? The level range the rules fit best, or...?

 

[Darkness]

Heh. What is a "sweet spot," BTW? The level range the rules fit best, or...?

Hmm... But then, the original poster said "in a campaign." Maybe it's the level range that's most enjoyable to play, then?

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Heh. What is a "sweet spot," BTW? The level range the rules fit best, or...?

In this context, it would simply be the levels that seem the most fun to you. In the context of my refrigerator, it would be the sticky, fluorescent pink puddle that I try very diligently to avoid.

Regarding the concept that "sweet spot" = (your level +1): come on. By that logic, why would you ever retire a character? Obviously, most people do realize that after a certain point any character is going to become so powerful that they are no longer as fun to play as a less powerful character would be.

BTW, I voted for 10-12. I now realize that I should have made an option for each level and allowed multiple votes. Ah well.

 

[Numion]

Regarding the concept that "sweet spot" = (your level +1): come on. By that logic, why would you ever retire a character? Obviously, most people do realize that after a certain point any character is going to become so powerful that they are no longer as fun to play as a less powerful character would be.

Well, considering that my game is at level 16 now, and players are still eager to get to that 'next level', I'd guess that the sweet spot is above 16, at least. Only downside to these high-level games is that making adventures is a b***h. But the players seem to enjoy.

 

[Weeble]

Re: Re: Re: I voted for 10-12

I have played very low level games: we played a "make a 3rd level character, you earn no experience" game so we could do a "small fish in a big sea" style game.

I have played high level games: In a GURPS game, we played a game based on the song "Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars" -- it topped out at over 50,000 points (consider an average person is 25 points).

In a 1/e AD&D game, I once played a character names Orin "Silnt" James -- 50th level Thief, 26th level Ranger, 19th level Illusionist.

I have played (and ran) everything in the middle too...

But to me, the sweet spot is that 5th-8th level, (in GURPS, it is that 150-200 point range) when you are in no danger of death when you fall from your horse, yet a group of city-guardsman might give you a run for your money... you are tough, but vulnerable, without having to call on Zues or the Kraken/Tiamat/Terasque to make your knees shake a bit.

That to me, is the sweet spot.



This is where things got heated above... I'll leave it alone.

I speak as a DM and as a player -- I really love that period from 5th to 8th level. It is the most fun period in Role Playing (in my opinion).

As far as experience goes...

If you think characters advance too quickly... try this:

Figure the experience as normal. When divinding it out between the players, however, rather than dividing by the number of characters involved, divide by the number of characters + average level.

Thus, for example, suppose your party is made up of a party of 4. They are levels 4, 5, 5, and 6 -- average party level 5. The total experience, according to the charts, for this encounter, is 3000 points. Normally, you would divide this up as

[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750

750 XP each. However, using this varient XP system, you give out :

[ 3000 / (4 + 5) ] = 333

333 XP each. As you advance in levels, the division gets harsher, so advancement slows down. For example, suppose a group of 4 adventurers at an average level of 10 were to have an encounter that called for 3000 XP. Normally, they would get:

[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750

750 XP each (just as before; granted the challenge was tougher, as the 3000 XP would require at an averagfe of 10th level). But in this variation, the XP divied out to each character is only:

[ 3000 / (4 + 10) ] = 214

214 XP each. This will not cause the costs in XP for high level spells and such to become out of balance, nor will it halt the advancement... but advancement at all levels becomes more tempered.

KDL, this would make for an excellent Epic Campaign.

 

[hong]

Wolfen, that's part of what I was pointing out earlier: nobody admits to being a munchkin, probably not even to themselves, so nobody really takes offense at it, at least I would think.

Nobody ever thinks of themselves as a "motherf*cker" either, but if/when people call you a "motherf*cker", you would probably be offended. You may say that you're not calling them such, but that's not the point; if you don't want people to get insulted, you shouldn't use inflammatory words.

Whatever substantive content the term "munchkin" may once have had is now almost completely overshadowed by its derogatory overtones. There's no point in using it in a discussion as far as I can tell. There's certainly no point in using it in an online discussion, where everybody + dog has their own definition of "munchkin" and nobody can agree on which one to use. The only thing that's guaranteed to happen is that the people you're disagreeing with feel that the term is supposed to apply to them, and so feel insulted.

 

[Desdichado]

hong:
Nobody ever thinks of themselves as a motherf*cker" either, but if/when people call you a "motherf*cker", you would probably be offended. You may say that you're not calling them such, but that's not the point; if you don't want people to
get insulted, you shouldn't use inflammatory words. Whatever substantive content the term "munchkin" may once have had is now almost completely overshadowed by its derogatory overtones. There's no point in using it in a discussion as far as I can tell. There's certainly no point in using it in an online discussion, where everybody + dog has their own definition of
"munchkin" and nobody can agree on which one to use. The only thing that's guaranteed to happen is that the people you're disagreeing with feel that the term is supposed to apply to them, and so feel insulted.

hong, that comparison really isn't applicable here. There's a big difference between saying "You are a munchkin" and saying "I hate munchkins." I'd likely be offended if someone came out and told me the former, I'd likely applaud the latter.

And I disagree that there is a seperate definition for munchkin for every poster on this message board. Sure, there's some disagreement about the details, but in general, if I say munchkin, everybody has a fairly good idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[hong]

hong, that comparison really isn't applicable here. There's a big difference between saying "You are a munchkin" and saying "I hate munchkins." I'd likely be offended if someone came out and told me the former, I'd likely applaud the latter.

True, but not particularly relevant. Nobody ever directly accuses someone of being a munchkin, just as nobody ever directly says that someone is a "fanboy", "motherf*cker" or any other derogatory term. (At least on this board, where Eric's grandmother is always hovering around.) The insult is implied.

And I disagree that there is a seperate definition for munchkin for every poster on this message board. Sure, there's some disagreement about the details, but in general, if I say munchkin, everybody has a fairly good idea of what I'm talking about.

The fact that threads about munchkinism usually degenerate into name-calling after about the 3rd page would seem to give the lie to your hypothesis.

Alternatively, perhaps you're correct and people _do_ know what you're talking about, and resent the implication.

Either way, there's nothing to be gained from using the term, as far as I can tell.