In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Hairfoot]

I'm often puzzled that people resent playing low-level PCs. It seems that adventures are rated on what monsters you get to kill, how many of them, and how fast. Is a game interminably boring if your barbarian considers 3 goblins and a dire rat a genuine threat?

If low-level adventures aren't fun, that's a critical failure of the players and DM. D&D needn't be about nodding and smiling through the planning and story-telling, then getting involved with the game when the DM obligingly ponies you up to the enemies for a fight.

That's reducing D&D proper to D&D Miniatures, with a facile plot to string the the battles together.

Taking down an orc camp at level one is a fine challenge. Your skills are meagre, you've only got a handful of hit-points, and even a small pile of treasure is a fortune. Every decision counts. You don't have the option of blithely wading into the fray with 80 hitpoints and a magic weapon. Even if you succeed, it's mostly insignificant in the scheme of things (in FR especially).

And that's the part people hate. Players want to topple empires and fight demon hordes in the Abyss. Many would say that the whole point of playing D&D is to produce a character who can do the epic stuff of high-fantasy.

Fighting a war or dismantling an evil empire is rarely the work of a handful of super-humans. It's achieved through countless small victories and maneouvres that barely register on the radar. Why are players so averse to being minor actors in their world?

Realism is a relative value in D&D. We like physics and encumbrance and non-magical travel to be accurate, while allowing for things like dragons and floating castles. What no-one wants, it seems, is for PCs to earn their stripes through ingenuity and consistency. We all want to rocket straight to the top of the power curve. How long does it take, in game time, for a character to reach epic levels? A few years, at most.

The common retort is that if you don't want to be a grand hero, don't play D&D. But that isn't fair. In the brave new world of flexible D20ism, there should be room for "horizontal" campaigns while still using the excellent and well-supported WotC material.

Having said that, I've pretty much clocked D&D. I'm not anti-epic, just fed up with the power-focussed game. I've done the god-fighting, used dozens of wishes, and slaughtered the hordes with a +2000 greatsword of planet cleaving. It's been a blast, and newer players should explore whatever they think is fun. But I'd also like to see a D&D "culture" which encourages players to think beyond stacking bonuses and grabbing the next magical power-up.

Thoughts? Comments? Flame isn't neccessary - I'm not criticising anyone for running an archmage.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think you'll find that you're in the majority here if you prefer low-level campaigns. In fact, on many threads, I find myself in the minority that does not eschew high-level campaigns completely. That said, this post is preaching to the choir

 

[devilbat]

here here.

 

[Crothian]

What people resent this type of thing? Plenty of people around here like this type of game. And saying that if people don't enjoy them, its their fault or the fault of the people they play with is rather presumptive of you. Some people perfer higher level games and it has nothing to do with the implied lack of ability you are claiming.

You have good points, but you really start this out adveserially.

Then in the end you seem to indicate that it is D&D's fault. Which is of course wrong. Take a bit of your own advice, if D&D is all about power then that is the fault of the players and DM. You don't have to run a numbers focused game. But to do that you need people that are not focused on the numbers.

I run low level games, I run high level games. But they are always story and plot first. THere is always a lot going on and I run the game I want, which is not numbers heavy.

 

[Silver Moon]

My Western PBP Campaign is all low-level. I'm using hybrid D&D and Boot Hill rules for it. Most of the Playing Characters are still around 4th level and we've had over 15,000 posts in the gaming threads alone during the last year. Most of the 'high-level' NPC's are only in the 7th to 9th range. We have three running Story Hours (one of each of our first three modules) currently here in the "Story Hour" forum and based upon the three-dozen or so regular readers I'd say that others seem to enjoy the campaign too.

 

[JazzDaze]

There is nothing wrong with low level games. But, damnit, there are only so many times you can read the first chapter of a book without wanting to read the rest.

 

[Babylon Knight]

"low level" for me is levels 3 to 6, then you start to dip into the lower middle. Level 1 to 2, you're still getting your feet wet.

 

[Crothian]

There is nothing wrong with low level games. But, damnit, there are only so many times you can read the first chapter of a book without wanting to read the rest.

Some times though the story is all about the low levels.

 

[haiiro]

On the flipside, low-level D&D characters can't do much from a rules standpoint -- unlike, say, GURPS, where a starting PC can be an expert in a couple of areas, all D&D characters are newbs for a little while. That's certainly not the only attraction to the game -- kewl powerz -- but it's one of them.

 

[Funeris]

Heh...I posted a poll about this same topic earlier today...
personally, I want story and plot more than numbers as well.
You're not alone.

~Fune