In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Hairfoot]

My preference as a GM and a player is 1st to 8th level.

I used a 1st level example, but of course I don't advocate tooling around forever as a fragile 1-3. I think 8th is a good ceiling. The characters are at the peak of the bell curve, with maybe a level or two of a prestige class.

The worry with low-mid power campaigns is that PCs can get stuck in a rut, unable to progress within the storyline because they can't handle stronger foes or more dangerous missions.

That's why I like power "boosters". Perhaps a local patron lends the PCs a useful item or weapon to accomplish a task, on condition it's returned afterward. Or a wizard offers to teleport them straight into the heart of the drow cavern, giving them the drop on a wary enemy. By the time a party can cast a spell like that themselves, their foes are strong enough to repel it or negate the advantage of using it. But for a weaker party it's a significant advantage.

I also like the concept of commander characters. There's only so much four 5th level characters can do. So, perhaps the rogue has 3 1st level rogues with average stats recruited from a guild for some scouting, or the priest has a couple of novices, or maybe the local duke assigned some competent militiamen to the fighter to help hold the line. Not cohorts, but NPCs controlled by the DM. These sorts of things enable parties to achieve goals beyond their levels, but they have to use them wisely, because they're not permanent or intrinsic.

It also gives players more strategic options. I can't speak for others, but every group I've played with has been reluctant to split the party. When you do, you're all of a sudden running two or more separate mini-adventures, leaving players bored at the table and PCs strung out with no assistance from the party.

But if the ranger sends his two NPC allies around the side of the castle to create a distraction or snipe at the guards, the PCs can seize the moment and crawl in through the sewer.

Am I wrong in believing that lower-level characters are more likely to face multiple foes? Goblins, orcs, kobolds etc are a joke for high-end games, which often focus on singular, powerful enemies. Having NPC backup is great fun against numerous, weak foes. The 3.5 miniature combat rules make tactics useful in D&D for the first time (arguably), but they become less useful once characters are self-contained fortresses.

It doesn't suit players who aren't interested in macro strategy and tactics, or being lumped with NPCs to manage, or hate having magic items taken away, but it makes a close-to-the-bone game a lot more exciting.

 

[MerricB]

Am I wrong in believing that lower-level characters are more likely to face multiple foes? Goblins, orcs, kobolds etc are a joke for high-end games, which often focus on singular, powerful enemies. Having NPC backup is great fun against numerous, weak foes. The 3.5 miniature combat rules make tactics useful in D&D for the first time (arguably), but they become less useful once characters are self-contained fortresses.

You've missed the scaling of monsters at the higher ends. I'm currently running a game with 6 PCs of levels 12 and 13. (That's sort of like running an APL 14 game).

It's interesting. The PCs generally have ACs of about 30 (except for the AC 10 wizard), and good attack bonuses, damage codes and spells.

With 6 PCs, it's not good sending them against one opponent. In general, 2-6 opponents make for much more interesting combats.

There are lots of things keeping combat interesting. Spells, damage reduction (oh, I love the 3.5e DR rules!), etc.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

Let me be the first to recommend Exalted.

 

[tetsujin28]

Let me be the first to recommend Exalted.

It's the perfect low-level game!

 

[the Jester]

I like running and playing all levels, but I prefer building a group up from 1st level- I find it much less satisfying to start at 20th, 10th, 5th or even 2nd level. If the characters have been built up since 1st level, I love high level play.

 

[MonsterMash]

Personally I enjoy playing and DMing for lower levels (1-10) more than higher levels, particularly bringing characters up from 1st to reach other levels, so you can look back and remember beating the giant that took you up another level.

 

[Hairfoot]

With 6 PCs, it's not good sending them against one opponent. In general, 2-6 opponents make for much more interesting combats.

There are lots of things keeping combat interesting. Spells, damage reduction (oh, I love the 3.5e DR rules!), etc.

Essentially, that's what I mean. Not a neccessarily a single enemy, but singular enemies (one-on-one or thereabouts).

I'll go out on a limb here. We all know the rules. When an opponent uses a spell or ability, it may be new to our PC, but the player instantly says "oh, that'll be elusive target", or "ah, he can cast dimension door". There aren't a lot of surprises for experienced players.

Spells and DR often aren't used (or even useable) in a tactical manner. It's just scaling numbers against numbers, modified with rolls of the dice. For that reason alone, higher level combat is sometimes just a greater exercise in mathematics than low-level fights.

I like to be outsmarted by the DM. A clever enemy will have some minions pour out of a secret door halfway through combat, or try to stay out of reach while his bodyguards do the work. I know many players who would consider that cheating - it's their bonuses versus ours in a toe-to-toe fight, and anything else is unfair.

That's why I like variables in combat, like some offsiders to direct and, minor foes who aren't much of a challenge but might swing the fight if they're smart.

I've played so many adventures where the party sighed and rolled their eyes at the idea of planning an ambush or doing things with stealth. For gog's sake, can't we just walk up and fight the BBEG? That's what I'm here for.

Obviously, I can only speak for myself. Perhaps many groups are facing serious challenges to their ingenuity and cunning by a skilled DM, but I feel that the system we're presented with eradicates multi-tasking and versatility as a by-product of level progression.

D&D will always be about developing powerful characters until they can take on Vecna or Gruumsh, and so it should be - it's a game of epic fantasy. But I'd like to see the designers work on the possibilities for less grandiose characters who also may exist in the game world.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I would say that interesting tactical variables increase dramatically at high level, so I have to disagree with your conclusion that such things are only viable (or even more viable) at low levels.

 

[comareddin]

I am a fan of low level campaigns as well. After all, I believe that toppling an evil, huge empire of undead is possible with a band of 1-3 level adventurers. What you need is a silver-tongued bard who can make impressive speeches in the halls of kings. If you can unite smaller forces to create one massive foe, I would consider it a far greater accomplishment than hacking through the ranks of soldiers, reaching the end of the battle line, then beheading the evil general who is the evil wizard's cohort, carrying on to the tower to crush the said wizard. With a low level party you did not do most of the work, but you influenced the world enough so that the end result is the same. That is why I consider levels 6-10 the golden levels of adventuring.

As for people who nod through the story and try to do their best using mechanics to their advantage when it is combat time, well it is their style of play and if they are having fun with it I do not see anything wrong with it as this is a game and it is meant to have fun.

I did not really play hack'n'slash D&D much, or saw a lot of powerplay come into play. Sure there were powerful characters in our group mechanics-wise but that came into play now and then. Combat was never the central focus in the games I played in. In my twelve years of playing experience, in all the campaigns and one-shot games, I recall a Wish spell being cast only once. That special gift which was granted to us was used to alter the storyline, not for a +1 inherent to a stat.

Of course playing styles are different but in a hack'n'slash D&D game, some things I emotionally felt could never have occured to me. All the accomplishments, all the losses mean a lot more when you can really integrate your character, the whole group of characters into the story. That feeling of accomplishment, the feeling of bitter joy after defeating the enemy, looking back at your losses, fallen comrades and what you had to sacrifice. It is not doable with every group but in my opinion and experience those people who are turning the game into dice rolling mechanics are missing on a lot of aspects of the game. After all, it is a Role Playing Game.

Com

 

[Quasqueton]

80% of my gaming time has been spent playing low levels (1st-5th) through BD&D and AD&D1 (slow advancement) since 1980. I played one AD&D2 campaign that went from 5th level to 20+ (circa 1994) in a year's time (completely power gaming).

I'm so glad that D&D3 has quicker advancement, and I love that the PCs in my campaign have just reached 8th level. I'm really looking forward to higher-level play.

It's not that I dislike low-level D&D, it's just that I've tired of it -- been there, done that, for 20 years. For me, now, low-levels are where I build the campaign backstory for the the fun levels.

Quasqueton