In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Desdichado]

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.

That's true for 1^st level characters, but what's low level? I think 8^th is about the highest I'd really like to play, and I certainly wouldn't want to run for higher than that, and there's plenty of "l33t powers" at that level. In fact, much more than that, and the game becomes complex to the point of not being fun, IMO, because of the bewildering array of options.

Another option I've used, wherein level doesn't mean nearly as much, is Ken Hood's GrimNGritty Hit Points. It does kinda offer (in some ways) the best of both worlds; your PCs are relatively much more fragile than standard D&D characters, yet you can have the "kewl powers" aspect of levelling up still.

 

[Psion]

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?

Well, I certainly feel like I have acheived less if I win, and it's that much worse of an inslut if I loose.

Unless those of are some nasty goblins of considerable skill.

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

It seems to me you are conflating two entirely different issues. Whether your game is more than a minis warfare game is entirely different than the level you play it at.

And that's the part people hate. Players want to topple empires and fight demon hordes in the Abyss.

Damned straight!

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?

I'm a minor actor in this world. One of the central draws of D&D is player empowerment.

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.

Sure. But don't presume to speak for the opposition. I think you presume the emphasis is on high level games much more than it actually is, but I actually slow down XP from the default advancement rate.

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

Flame isn't necessary, but you help things if you don't argue the case with pejorative portrayals and building up false dichotomies and strawmen. I don't like spending lots of time at low levels, but I don't think I've ever etertained a single "god fight" or so much as a ring of ONE wish in my 3e gaming experience. And I won't discuss how much hyperbole a +2000 greatsword of planet cleaving is (I guess I just did. Oh well.)

The thing is, you seem to speak as if low level games are somehow the exception. They aren't. They are exceedingly common.

 

[Hairfoot]

Well, I certainly feel like I have acheived less if I win, and it's that much worse of an insult if I lose.

Isn't achievement relative to ability? If those goblins are a threat, then defeating them is cause for celebration. If you beat a friend at tennis, would you be embarrassed because it wasn't Roger Federer?

It seems to me you are conflating two entirely different issues. Whether your game is more than a minis warfare game is entirely different than the level you play it at.

Not at all. If players are yawning through the roleplaying and waiting to be led into combat, then they've wasted time and money on roleplaying materials when what they want is a tabletop wargame with pretty miniatures.

I'm a minor actor in this world. One of the central draws of D&D is player empowerment.

But it's not empowerment due to applied skill or ingenuity. It's empowerment resulting from CL vs CR. If an epic character is laughing because he can take down an orc without blinking, it's not because he could neccessarily beat an orc of his character level, played by someone in his D&D group. It's because the game mechanics make some foes redundant as part of level progression. Functionally, a character's first-level struggle with a second-level orc barbarian is a greater challenge than an epic PC's fight with a balor.

As a player, I'd be much more smug if me and my 4th level mates had conquered a hobgoblin stronghold before they could raise the alarm, than if we'd slain 10 times as many hobs as 15th level characters.

Sure. But don't presume to speak for the opposition. I think you presume the emphasis is on high level games much more than it actually is

Never have. All the way through, my comments have been qualified with the disclaimer that I can only speak from my own experience.

The thing is, you seem to speak as if low level games are somehow the exception. They aren't. They are exceedingly common.

And they are commonly seen as a neccessary evil to be endured before the PCs become comfortably all-conquering.

At the end of the day, all I'm doing is exploring the options for different types of campaign. For me, D&D is a mental adventure, not a comfortable zone of escapism. I don't want my PC to be Ming the Merciless any more than I want to shore up my self-esteem by dressing like Batman at work.

In the real world talented people don't begin a career, then ascend into the stratosphere of wealth and power within a few months. Neither should it be with PCs.

I wish you wouldn't take me to task for finding the power curve of D&D cliche and pretentious. The game is already geared to provide the type of "I am He-Man" play you enjoy. I am not at fault for wanting to explore other ways of using the mechanics to create a different type of campaign.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't like 1st & 2nd level. non fighter characters are too fragile and undeveloped, the variability from the dice is greater than that from what skills you've focused on, I just don't have a lot of fun. 3rd-5th is what I think of as low level play (before that is just "trying to survive to the level at which I can actually play) where you are building towards heroic status. 6th is a good starting point for campaigns where I want to jump right into a significant story - the pcs are already heroes and have defined roles and specialties, you can say what your character is good at and not with some authority. 12th is where high level play starts to me and it can be fun, but around 16th or 17th it gets to be a little much. 'epic' is right out for me. Theres a point where I feel the characters need to ascend/retire/whatever and start telling someone else's story.

 

[Mystery Man]

I prefer the story that goes with high level campaigning. The decisions they (my players) make and who they interact with make a difference. They like that type of power and not the "l33t powers" that you get at high levels. For instance they have property, and lots of it. For example, they have a keep with a gem mine, a small thorp has grown up around it. Lives depend on them now, who do they leave in charge when they're gone could be a campaign altering choice.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Isn't achievement relative to ability? If those goblins are a threat, then defeating them is cause for celebration. If you beat a friend at tennis, would you be embarrassed because it wasn't Roger Federer?

If neither you nor your friend can actually play tennis, and you just wack the ball back and forth a while and keep score in between laughing at your mutual screwups, do you feel as much of a sense of accomplishment at "winning" as when you win a game you are good at against someone of roughly equal skill?

For some of us, its not a matter of mopping the floor with our opponents - its a matter of having dependable skills and being able to have a victory mean we did what we do best, rather than just meaning we stayed alive till we got enough lucky rolls to take the enemy down. That doesn't require epic level play, or twinked out equipment, but I'm not less of a roleplayer because I find the first couple of levels tedious and would rather have a character with enough skill ranks and feats to fill a distinctive role.

 

[Psion]

Isn't achievement relative to ability?

Really, no. It may be an acheivement that the party defeated a band of goblins. But in no wise would I consider it the same level of acheivement as defeating the great wyrm who has been plauging the kingdom.

Not at all. If players are yawning through the roleplaying and waiting to be led into combat, then they've wasted time and money on roleplaying materials when what they want is a tabletop wargame with pretty miniatures.

Not one sentence of the above shows any correlation between level and wargameness of playstyle. The players could be yawning throught the RP before beating up orcs just as easy as Dragons.

But it's not empowerment due to applied skill or ingenuity.

So? I think you miss the point. Player ingenuity can come into play at either level. Like the minis thing above, it's a different issue than player empowerment.

Functionally, a character's first-level struggle with a second-level orc barbarian is a greater challenge than an epic PC's fight with a balor.

Yes, but any of thousands of fighters in the world could have taken out that orc. It taking out that balrog is a lot headier acheivement, in the grasp of far fewer characters.

Players typically aren't content to be a private on the field of battle. They'd much rather be legolas taking down a fully manned war oliphaunt by his lonesome. That's the stuff of heady fantasy.

And they are commonly seen as a neccessary evil to be endured before the PCs become comfortably all-conquering.

Fair enough, as that is pretty much the way I feel. But again, low level games are anything but an uncommon experience. But are you decrying that people have different appeals than you do?

In the real world talented people don't begin a career, then ascend into the stratosphere of wealth and power within a few months. Neither should it be with PCs.

I don't agree. I want my experience with D&D to be entirely unlike my real life career. I come to D&D to play legendary, exceptional individuals.

I wish you wouldn't take me to task for finding the power curve of D&D cliche and pretentious. The game is already geared to provide the type of "I am He-Man" play you enjoy. I am not at fault for wanting to explore other ways of using the mechanics to create a different type of campaign.

As I perceive it, it is you who is faulting others by ladling on the pejorative descriptions of experiences you don't enjoy. I hope you can understand why I might feel a little defensive when you use characterizations like "he-man" and "planet busting swords".

 

[Sundragon2012]

I like DMing both low-level campaigns and high level campaigns but high level campaigns that are the outgrowth of low-level campaigns only. I think that the low levels are where character development takes place. However because I am a slow advancement DM, I am willing to bring characters in, when necessary, from any level needed for the game should someone's character die because there will always be time for character development.

Plus, low level games are far easier to DM.

However, this is all relative because a 15th level character in 3.5e is far more powerful than a 15th level character in 1e or 2e. I ran some very high level 1e and 2e games but all that scaled up in those days was the number of attacks you had, your THAC0 and your saves. No feats, no nothing. I am not saying that this was better for the players, it wasn't, but for the DM the variables of high level gaming are far more complicated than they used to be.


Chris

 

[Desdichado]

Players typically aren't content to be a private on the field of battle. They'd much rather be legolas taking down a fully manned war oliphaunt by his lonesome. That's the stuff of heady fantasy.

Hold on there, Psion. It's not nearly as simplistic a dichotomy as you describe there. I can engage in grand escapism as a 2nd level fighter as well as an 18th level wizard, if I'm doing things that I can't (or won't) do in real life.

And not all players like "heady fantasy." Personally, the scene you describe was one of my least favorite of that entire movie, because it was cheesy and dumb. It didn't impress me with it's headiness, but with it's sophmoricity (if that's even a word.)

I think a bit of escapism into a swashbuckling world of high adventure is certainly part of why I play games like D&D, but I still don't like high level, and I hardly require that I be the only person in the entire setting capable of dealing with the threats the DM places in front of me.

From my perspective, you're just as guilty as conflating separate issues and generalizing playstyles as Hairfoot is.

 

[S'mon]

Nice post. Me like low-level also.