In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Nightfall]

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?

yes!! My barbarian should try to take on an entire pack of Ratmen!!

 

[Hairfoot]

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

That's interesting. I must be conditioned by the Wizards official boards. The reaction to this post there was distinctly anti-low level.

You're right, Crothian - the post was a bit more...terse than I'd intended. My criticism isn't so much about depth of plot - a good group can do all that for themselves - it's about how much the PCs can achieve by themselves under the rules of the game.

The game is very different once mages become artillery batteries and fighters are walking abattoirs. Fighting giants or a dragon should require planning and strategy to counter the advantages of a powerful foe, not be reduced to a process where the warriors grind through hitpoints while the casters throw enough thermonuclear firballs to incinerate the baddies.

The enormous diversity of races, magic, and cultures, and the opportunity to explore these concepts is what I enjoy about fantasy roleplaying. I simply disagree that it goes hand-in-hand with the traditional high-fantasy style of epic heroism.

It's a shame that players dislike low-level play (even on the way to high levels), because it's the closest they'll get to a real-world challenge mixed with the potentials offered by a fantasy universe. That invites the obvious response that the very point of RPGing is getting away from reality and playing out a fantasy. I feel that's a bit like saying "who wants to see (the movie) Heat when you could be watching James Bond?" All action, different level of realism.

When I say I'd like to see horizontal campaigns supported a bit more, I mean I'd like it addressed by the designers in more detail than just raising the XP thresholds. Perhaps a separate type of level progression which emphasises versatility over focussed power, or even "team" level progression which increases the co-operativity of the party.

I must be a crusty grognard. I lament that the game is strongly geared towards making PCs the masters of the universe, but the mechanics allow for more diverse styles of play.

I guess my concept of adventuring is inspired more by war novels and Indiana Jones films than comic books and X-Men movies. I see fantasy conflict as "what would it be like to be a talented soldier or scout or spy in a fantasy world?", and not "what would it be like to be a superhuman soldier or scout or spy in a fantasy world?"

In any case, I'm grateful that there are converts to preach to!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My own preference is for low (1-5th level) games.

However 3.X is the first edition(s) for D&D where I have been tempted to run a higher level game. And have given into the temptation! (Having run a game from 2nd to 18th levels - a first for me.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Sledge]

Thermonuclear fireballs? Is thermonuclear a new metamagic feat? Where can I buy it?
Must have global thermonuclear war.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's interesting. I must be conditioned by the Wizards official boards. The reaction to this post there was distinctly anti-low level.

Especially in certain forums on the Wizards board, you will definitely find this sentiment, but not so much here on ENWorld. Myself, I enjoy all levels of play, though I don't like starting off campaigns at high level--I really like watching the progression of characters from their beginning all the way to the highest levels and also watching how they develop along the way.

Your complaint about the absurd speed of leveling under the standard XP system is valid, however, and I reduce XP appropriately to reach a speed closer to what my players and I think is more fun.

 

[MummyKitty]

I like both high and low level campaigns, but it does seem like higher level campaigns sometimes lose their role playing edge, as characters get more powerful they can use the items and spells they've acquired to get out of situations instead of role playing. Really, I'm in it primarily for the role playing, so the game system, level based or not, doesn't make any difference to me.

 

[Greg K]

My preference as a GM and a player is 1st to 8th level. Then agin, I think there is a reason that it took an extremely long time to get to mid and high levels in previous editions and that the 3e designers made a mistake in promoting more rapid level advancement.

 

[Supaida]

Lately, I've been getting into low-level gaming a lot more; partially because of Eberron and partially because of a long string of complicated, high-level games. In my experience, though, wanting to start out at high level hasn't been about wanting to be a superhero as much as it's been about wanting to be... well, adequate. The feeling of being high level is relative, and it's dependent on the setting. There isn't really that much difference between a 1st level character in a town where most of the guards are 1st level warriors and a 10th level character in a town where most of the guards have levels in a PrC--the numbers are bigger, but your role in the game world is about the same. I think a lot of players have it in their minds that the NPCs and enemies are going to be high level no matter what, so they want to be strong enough to still do meaningful things. Of course, this is just my experience.

 

[Herobizkit]

I don't really enjoy low levels of play. The reason behind this is time, or lack thereof.

When I make a character for a game, I am usually lucky if that character sees one or two adventures a month. If the character advances at a "regular" pace, s/he won't see a "decent" level (for me, 7-12ish) for nearly a year. And that sucks, when you want to be a hero.

Granted, if I kill a nest of giant rats in order to save this year's harvest for some hamlet, that does make me a hero. But I don't want to spend my life killing rats, or any other medicore thing a mediocre guy can do and get away with. And I know that being a hero doesn't require plane-smashing or Godhood, either... I like just enough challenge with just enough means to overcome with just enough skills/abilities to be cool. And a 1st level character isn't "cool" to me.

As an aside, I bought the Epic Level handbook and probably won't ever see it in use. I hate it when I buy books and never use them.

 

[tetsujin28]

That's reducing D&D proper to D&D Miniatures

You say that like it's a bad thing.