D&D General Boredom in "Zero to Hero" Campaigns

In the campaign I'm working on (tm), the plan is to start at 2 with an extra "racial" HD = (d6 to d10 based in size) and a feat.

One if my plans is to make things sand-boxy in that there isn't an order to how you explore a tier.

The power ratio between L1 and L4 is too large for that to work well.

But L2.5 and L4.5 is a far smaller ratio, so I can write the "tier 1" scenes not caring what level the PCs are (up to the climax).

But a set of scenes challenging for a L3 party will mincemeat L1s on first contact.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean, at level 1 your character can already be ''someone'': at level 1 you can be a known guild member, knight, sage, noble, veteran soldier, bounty hunter etc

Even if they are low-level in their ''adventuring career'', does not mean they are nobodies. Even when you look at the NPC statblocks, you average Noble, court wizard, veteran are pretty low CR. There's no reason even your low level PC with the appropriate background could not be part of the big players of the setting.

That's what I find strange when I see people, when new APs come out, arguing that ''it makes no senses to hire the party to deal with X when they are just a bunch of nobodies''. PCs do not walk around with their level written on their foreheads: their backgrounds says they are somewhat known and functional members of the setting even if they are not known as professional adventurers and monster killing machines. The NPCs of the adventure doesnt hire ''a 1st level rogue'' they hire Bob the Sage, known to have the potential skillset to be a adventurer.

Now, mechanically they are still pretty weak, but in-setting they are on-pair with many other inhabitants, unless your setting has every known mage be an archmage and fighter be a warlord. Unless the adventure calls for it, I do not start my adventurers at the level to go on rat killing quests; even at 1st level, you are still a competent hero. Have them face terrible and cunning foes, no need to use dumb brutes. A Ghast lurking in a abandoned house in the village, feeding the village's pets with worms harvested from ghoul corpse to mindcontrol them and luring the kids to his house to devour them, the only clue the villager have is a weird stench coming from Fido once it comes back to the house after the disappearance of little Timy can be an interesting low-level encounter that does not use low-intelligence mob.
 

Seems as though the idea has been floated to have the PCs be the ones to step up when something brown and stinky hits the fan. It's worked for me twice in a row, so there's possibly something to it. Yeah, what first hits the fan is likely to be pretty low-level, but that doesn't mean the PCs don't get to be heroic.
 

I been trying to live by this meme lately:
First Level Dungeon.jpg


My last game we started at 3rd level and quickly found a magic item that controls red dragon. The players were unconvinced. Surely, given their low level, the dragon was but a wyrmling, or there was some other catch. Yet, by 6th level they were riding on the back of an ancient red dragon, locked in mortal with a green dragon above the city streets. However, there was a catch: The adventure ended after the defeat of the green dragon. That was the goal and they achieved it--adventure over.

I've been stepping away from career character campaigns, in favor of succinct adventures that last 3-6 sessions with different characters in each. Long career campaigns are fun and rewarding, but it is not the only way to play the game. Short adventures are limited in some aspects, but quite liberating when you as the Dungeon Master don't have to consider the future consequences of big plays.

This, I think, is why we fight rats in the basement--the treadmill. Your character keeps getting more powerful, but so do your opponents (and subsequently, the number to be rolled is always around 15).
 

I've been stepping away from career character campaigns, in favor of succinct adventures that last 3-6 sessions with different characters in each. Long career campaigns are fun and rewarding, but it is not the only way to play the game. Short adventures are limited in some aspects, but quite liberating when you as the Dungeon Master don't have to consider the future consequences of big plays.
This is definitely something I've been thinking about lately.
 

[l FarquhQUOTE="Pauar, post: 8059383, member: 6906155"]
You can still play CoS as a (level 5-12ish) component of an ongoing campaign.[/QUOTE]

But I dont want to spend 7ish LEVS in one adventure.
I want to spend around 7 sessions.

[l FarquhQUOTE="Pauar, post: 8059383, member: 6906155"]But the thing is, it is no longer economically viable for WotC to produce slim paperback modules like I6. They have to pad it out to fill a hardback to make it worth the cost of printing.
[/QUOTE]

That has nothing to do with what types of adventures bore me.
If you ran a completely homebrew campaign that had a singular focus id get just as bored.
 

If you ran a completely homebrew campaign that had a singular focus id get just as bored.
The point is, the campaign does not have a "singular focus". It has a focus for Tier 1, "Kill the Vampire" for tier 2, something else tier 3, something else tier 4. You can use CoS exactly the same way as you use I6 - drop it in as an episode in an ongoing series.
 

D&D, especially in the current edition, seems focused on large 1-13 level campaign adventures. I'm not inherently against starting at Level 1 (especially for new players), but when you've been playing for years, Level 1 adventures take on a sameness: goblin ambushes, lesser undead in the cemetery, rats in the tavern basement, etc. Unfortunately, this design paradigm means that some players (and DMs) get bored before the campaign gets around to "the good stuff."

The question I pose is this: Is there an assumption of mundane, trite adventures baked into the D&D experience? If so, what should one do about that? Start at higher levels? Somehow try to make beginning levels more interesting and impactful on the campaign?

Consider a few examples.

"The Red Hand of Doom" (3.5 ed, levels 6-12): This is considered one of the best officially produced adventures from the 3.x era. It doesn't start at 1st level with rat infestations in basements. Instead, the characters are thrust in a regional conflict and war. It jumps ahead to "start at the good stuff."

"Tomb of Annihilation" and "Curse of Strahd" (5e, levels 1-13*): These two regularly come up as the best officially produced 5e adventures. While both start nominally at 1st level, they each encourage the DMs to quickly skip through the first few levels or present a short intro quest that has little to do with the plot (and isn't considered a strong part of the adventure.)

I was thinking about this experience when I was reading a Savage World Point Plot Campaign that starts off with the heroes being told an asteroid is on a trajectory to hit their planet, so they must charter a ship and fly to the asteroid and destroy it with a nuclear warhead to save the planet. This is the opening of the campaign, and really starts it with a (literal) bang. But in D&D our heroes are killing rats in basements?!! Fighting goblins who rob merchants on the road?

Why is D&D so miserly about giving characters an epic beginning to their stories? Is it because the default assumption is that you're going to be playing in a campaign that will last months (or years), so you've got to keep from getting too big too fast?

Playing oota atm so pls no spoilers, we started it being level 5 already, bit the DM mentioned he had to adjust a bit, because it is supposed to start on a lower level, which sounds really tough for me, no matter if level 1 , 2 or 3; the only thing which might work better at lower levels, than we were, is the intended flee (almost) "naked" situation, whereas we thought that we had to fight our way out of being drow captive, plus get our gear back. (The DM had to wing it a bit to meet our understanding of the situation)
 


Personally I really enjoy low level play, particularly with a group that is into the role play aspects of it. Yeah, you aren't going to be facing down literal dragons (more like running away) but that doesn't mean you can't have drama, excitement and intrigue. The big bad of the lower levels may be the corrupt sheriff who turns out to be a minor flunky of some big bad. Or the group is just thrown into the fray as they fight for their lives against the invading army. Maybe they're refugees on the run or were drafted to be part of that invading army only to realize that they are the bad guys.

Lots of options other than just clearing out the rats in the basement. Or if they are clearing out the rats in the basement they find out they're actually dealing with wererats who are immune to all of their weapons.

But if you don't find those things enjoyable, just start at slightly higher level. It's not like there is any restriction on starting level.

Also @Retreater
I love lower level play, especially as a DM but also as a player. The rats in the basement / goblins in the cave scenarios sound a bit stereotypical, true.
Still, try different approaches, use other mobs with a comparable CR, and let them be somewhere else, and wherever that might be, let them be there for a reason. Best, for a reason that already ties into the main campaign arc. E.g. rats announcing a pestilence, or low CR demons indicating there might be some portal to the abyss open.

The other trick is to play those Lowie critters a bit more gritty, have them rats being led by some paragon exemplars of their species. make them contagious, so a bite needs to be treated by the local healer, or the need for lesser restoration arises, to cure the diseases they deliver.
In the case of kobolds, make them not the cute clown like caricatures of "real" humanoid mobs, but cunning cruel and bloodthirsty instead.
 

Remove ads

Top