In appreciation of low-level adventuring

[Umbran]

I've always thought the notion that the "natural" higher level endgame was domain management was an odd conceit.

Well, in the real world, how many people who are good a X then eventually move into management of X? Isn't that the basic structure of modern business?

(Yes, it is also the basis that has people promoted to their level of incompetence, but I digress...)

Conan eventually becomes a King, right?

 

[Dioltach]

I think that there are various perspectives. First, I personally love levelling up: it represents an accomplishment, both for my character and for me as a player. It's something to look forward to, and offers an incentive to keep playing.

Second, I like exploring the options of high-level play. I once ran a campaign at 21st level, where the PCs were Odin's messengers preparing the world for Ragnarok. Their first mission was to capture the Fenrir wolf without killing him. This kind of game offers players the chance to flex some power-play muscles and try out Power Word: Kill instead of Magic Missile.

Third, though, as time goes by I find that my taste in gaming, like my taste in fantasy literature, has become grittier. Perhaps I've become too cynical to get carried away by epic heroic fantasy and dreams of saving the world, perhaps I've come to identify more with down-to-earth characters with selfish motives and more immediate dangers. Either way, nowadays my favourite characters tend to be the ones that struggle to survive rather than the ones who decide the fate of nations and worlds.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, in the real world, how many people who are good a X then eventually move into management of X? Isn't that the basic structure of modern business?

(Yes, it is also the basis that has people promoted to their level of incompetence, but I digress...)

Conan eventually becomes a King, right?

That's not the point. My disconnect isn't the notion that it could happen, my disconnect is with the notion that it's the natural procession for all adventurers.

 

[wingsandsword]

I've always thought the notion that the "natural" higher level endgame was domain management was an odd conceit. If you consider James Bond to be a relatively high level spy, for instance, does it make sense that he give up being a field agent and should instead move naturally into M's role? Because that's basically what that endgame paradigm seems to be saying. It doesn't make a lick of sense in other genres, so why is it assumed to be the default in this one? Does a "high level" law enforcement character like John McClane naturally become the head of the FBI? No, he keeps doing what he was doing. He's just a lot better at it than a rookie.

Most fiction, and the real world, are nothing like James Bond and Die Hard movies.

In the actual Ian Fleming novels, it was noted that 00 agents normally have a very brief lifespan in the field, tending to die horribly (the real reason in the novels for Bond's womanizing and drinking is he figures he'll die soon anyway, so live it up). The dozens of adventures of the cinematic Bond is a huge outlier even in the source material.

In the real world, experienced spies (or soldiers, or police officers) tend to move into supervisory positions as they get more experienced.

We take talented combat veterans, and we promote them upstairs and give them higher level commands instead of keeping them on the front lines. The real-world answer is that we reward success with promotions that take people away from "adventuring", whether that's street level law-enforcement, field espionage, or front-line combat. Some people in some professions, like SWAT or Special Forces, or CIA Special Activities Division might last longer in the field with their skill, but getting promoted upstairs is the normal career path.

Historically, a great warrior would be more likely to rise to leadership of an army than to just be a high-powered freelancer. An ace cop or detective would be promoted to Sergeant, then Lieutenant, then Captain. He might be at the station dealing with patrolmen and detectives quite often, but would work very few cases himself and spend most of his time on paperwork.

This idea of the insanely skilled super warrior (or supercop, or superspy) who stays on the frontline for countless adventures is more a mid-to-late 20th century invention than anything rooted in reality (or fiction before the 1960's).

 

[Desdichado]

This idea of the insanely skilled super warrior (or supercop, or superspy) who stays on the frontline for countless adventures is more a mid-to-late 20th century invention than anything rooted in reality (or fiction before the 1960's).

As it happens, D&D came out well after the 60s. And for that matter, so did I.

In any case, I disbelieve your claim. If all old soldiers become officers, then the military would be chock full of grizzled officers, and the only actual soldiers would be raw recruits.

And its arguable whether the military is a good analog to adventurers, who are more like entrepreneurs in a very dangerous profession anyway. The notion that exploring dungeons is a good career plan to becoming a minor noble (or even a major noble) doesn't make a lick of sense to me, and never did.

 

[wingsandsword]

In any case, I disbelieve your claim. If all old soldiers become officers, then the military would be chock full of grizzled officers, and the only actual soldiers would be raw recruits.

Not necessarily Commissioned Officers, but senior NCO's as well.

If you've been in the US Army for 20+ years and not made it to being a decently ranked NCO, you are quite behind the curve, and highly competent combat veterans tend to end up later in their career as Master Sergeants, First Sergeants, Sergeants Major, Command Sergeants Major than just sitting around as junior NCO's ready to head out unto the breach once more.

Also, given that most soldiers don't stay in for a full 20+ year career and leave after a 6 year retirement, we don't have an army full of "grizzled officers", they tend to be more like raw recruits.

 

[Tonguez]

Personally I'd consider James Bond to be minor superhero, thus fitting with high level progression.

for non-supers the progression to 'management' seems implicit imho. Conan rises from lone barbarian thief to captain of the guard, pirate, tribal chieftain then king.

Tarzan goes from wildman to chief of Waziri (and then back to wondering hero

Of course Gandalf is an example of a travelling 'adventurer' who is also visiting wiseman in many villages (his domain) sio manages to straddle both approaches

14th century mercenary Sir John Hawkwood is a real life adventurer who I consider a perfect exempler of the DnD fighter. The son of a tanner who fought for money through France and italy. He rose to lead his mercenary company and was later appointed an ambassador.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree -- I also prefer low-level adventures, not only because the challenges are more real, but there are usually more that can be accomplished through clever uses of mundane approaches and basic magic rather than casting some high level "I win" spell.

I find low levels challenge the players more; high levels challenge the characters and the game system more. The former is more fun for me.