In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Mystery Man]

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.

If you take into context the whole of what he said and what he was taking issue with:

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.

He's absolutely on the money.

 

[Psion]

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."

I never made it out to be a dichotomy, nor did I make this out to be "all players" (if it were, I wouldn't be haivng this argument ). I merely provided an example of the type of empowerment that I feel D&D provides that I think is one of its major draws.

Don't misunderstand me, but don't make it out like I am saying something I am not, either.

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.

Now you are the one with the dichotomy. I never require that the players be the only one (though as countless FR debates show, there is something to be said for that), merely that I feel there is a draw to playing a character that is exceptional; something more than rank-and-file.

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

I think you were going out of your way to make my arguments out that way. Hairfoot, OTOH, was engaging in some pretty ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[S'mon]

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.

That's pretty much my feeling too. Of course it's no fun being permanently low level in a high level world, IMO PCs can start as novices but in a heroic game like D&D they need the reasonable expectation that they can eventually exceed their NPC peers in power and reach the levels of the most powerful NPCs within the setting; ie if "tough guy" NPCs are 5th, PCs should be able to exceed 5th; if "legendary hero" NPCs are 9th, PCs should be able to aspire to reaching 9th at the climax of the campaign.

 

[Odhanan]

If low-level adventures aren't fun, that's a critical failure of the players and DM.

If high-level adventures aren't fun, that's a critical failure of the players and DM.

In other terms, comparing high level play to just a dungeon crawling fest or "who-gets-to-kill-the-most-balors" is just misunderstanding high-level play. Because there is actually the assumption in what you write that high-level players don't like low levels and want to kill more stuff to get higher level, i.e. High-level = munchkin = idiotic play = play with miniatures (which implies that great roleplaying is actually better than playing tactically).

If I misunderstand, excuse me. If I do understand, then you are grossly stereotyping high-level play (probably because you wouldn't have much experience of it).

No, there is nothing wrong in playing level 1 characters. Hell, like someone said, you're actually representing the majority of people playing D&D. Many DMs finish campaigns with 8th level characters, even less. A minority of DMs even KILL all the PCs reaching a certain level to be able to start a new low-level campaign.

I find that frustrating. It's like DMs are just scared of high-level play. Whether they are right or wrong (because they would be incompetent DMs or not), there is a problem of perspective in believing there is any loss of control for a DM playing with high level characters. I wish this problem of perspective would be changed with a *real* high level guide for DMs out there. And a Wizards, official book, to give it more weight, explaining on the ins and outs of high level play: which spells to consider, the progression of characters and the abilities to look after, the design of adventures according to these ins and outs, how to run a high level game per se, et cetera. That would be an extremely useful book for many, many, many DMs out there.

 

[AIM-54]

I have to admit I prefer lower-level games and find that I get maximum enjoyment out of the D&D game between levels 6 and 12. I definitely agree that advancement occurs far too quickly at lower levels, though. One barely has enough time to register that one is at level 1 or level 4 before it's on to the next one.

What I think I agree with the original poster most on is the idea of more horizontal advancement. This is probably a factor of my preference for and many years of playing Shadowrun, but I like the idea of things remaining a threat throughout. The invinicibility of higher level characters to certain low-level threats and the constant arms race DMs must engage in to continue to challenge characters with rising levels really doesn't appeal to me. I'm not interested in fighting the next new wicked cool creature from Monster Creature Compendium Manual 3 . I'm also more interested in more grounded tactics that more closely resemble medieval combat than mages lobbing fiery death around (that's what Mechs are for, dammit!)

But I admit that my gaming interests are of limited interest to the gaming community at large.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I like starting campaigns out at lower levels but I see no reason a campaign should die just because they hit some arbitrary threshold. A GM who is unable to run high level games is, IMO, playing the game with the training wheels on. Note I said "unable" not "dislikes."

I think most groups hit that 10th level point, say "...and they lived happily ever after" and stop. It's my experience that if you can say that, your plot was either linear or totally focussed on one goal. I've done that; ran a campaign where the only reason the PCs were working together was to achieve a specific goal. When the goal was achieved I couldn't come up with a way to keep the PCs working together and it fell apart.

This is if not a flaw, then a design decision. If all your campaigns end when you take out Lord Xykon, that's a design decision to have one critical bad guy. I've switch to a more "organic" plot where the party has literally a dozen different foes. Some are minor (one PC offended a local official who now goes out of his way to make the PCs life difficult in that city) others more motivated (like the behir who's mate and children they slew). Then there are the evil protagonists that have their own plans the PCs are expected to foil.

Defeating any given individual, even in a permanent way, does not end the campaign. Only by resolving a majority of the plot threads at once could we even come close to calling the campaign finished. And yes, there is a critical event that could do that but the players know it would take 3-5 years to have any chance of it being successful.

 

[DamionW]

On a tangent, albeit relevant one, I wanted to discuss the disadvantages of rolling a character up from 3rd-6th level just to start playing with the abilities desired. I understand the tedium of having less than 10 or 20 h.p. and how perilous this is in a conflict, but there is a lot of character background and non-statistical advantages that starting a character at this point can lose. Case in point: I decided one DnD campaign that I wanted to play a manipulative, Rasputin type of evil mage as my central character concept. It wasn't out of seeing some nifty new supplement or whatever, I just wanted to play out the progression of such a character. I always read about these evil powers behind the throne in fantasy settings, but never saw a depiction of how one gets that far. Every figure like that has to start somewhere and I wanted to explore that.

So, a DM I know was running a DnD campaign, and I decided I'd join it with this character concept in mind. He's an experienced and good DM, so I thought he'd give me leeway to explore it. Because he and the other players wanted to, they were starting the campaign with PCs at the 6th level or so. I did some power gaming design to focus my character on being persuasive and made a Rogue 1, Specialist enchanter wizard 5. I took feats such as negotiator, etc. to max out my diplomacy, bluff, and relative skills to be able to influence people with or without magic. Then I talked with the DM about what spheres of influence I would have generated in those five levels of advancement before the campaign started. In my imagining, with that kind verbal prowess, I should at least have a "Baker Street Gang" of street urchins at my disposal, or perhaps a few merchant company agents who owe me some favors. He agreed to give me ties to a mercenary company that was influenced by me.

Then when I went on the first mission the company assigned me, I find myself in a seedy Underdark sord of slums where the company rep was waiting to kill me. That immediately turned me off from the game he was running. How could I walk into it with strong central concept for the character and specialize him so adeptly at being persuasive and say flat out that that's what he's been doing for five levels, and this is the only advantage I've been given? A rat-bastard merc company that turns on me on my first mission?

All that rant was to highlight this point: How can you quantify the life experiences and character background gained in advancing from 1-5 level if you're just going to jump right to 6th because you don't like low-level gaming? There are many contacts, allies, enemies, memories that are being glazed over just to make the statistics match the combat capabilities the concensus of the party wants to be able to survive with. I know playing a 1st-2nd level PC is difficult and you're on the edge of being killed very often, but the DM should reward that with giving you friends and experiences that are distilled beyond just XP.

I'm starting my own campaign soon, and I intend to start the party at 1st level for that reason. I may have to just throw animals and goblins at them for awhile, but I feel there is much to the formative/infant levels of a character that define who they'll be when they can wield sway over the campaign world in their later years. What are peoples thoughts on this matter?

 

[Desdichado]

If you take into context the whole of what he said and what he was taking issue with:

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.

He's absolutely on the money.

He's on the money for some players, but for others, he's creating a false dichotomy between the two situations. Not that I agree with everything Hairfoot has posted, but I think his analogy there was right on the money. I disagree with Psion's qualifiers that "thousands" of other fighters in the world could have handled that orc, because that's immaterial, and not even necessarily true. Are there thousands of 3+ fighters in any given setting? Maybe. Who cares? What difference does that even make, anyway? None of them are right there. I could easily push that logic the other direction and say that taking out the balor is no different; what about the thousands of epic level NPCs in the multiverse that could have done so?

As for being a private vs. being Legolas, personally I have no interest in roleplaying either one of them as is. The false conflation comes from the idea that only high level characters can have any fun, or do anything interesting, or be involved in exciting plots. None of that is true, IMO.

 

[Desdichado]

I think you were going out of your way to make my arguments out that way. Hairfoot, OTOH, was engaging in some pretty ridiculous hyperbole.

If you say so, I'll certainly take your word for it. It seemed to be what you were saying, but I'll take your clarifications at face value.

I still think what I said in the last post is relevent, though:

The false conflation comes from the idea that only high level characters can have any fun, or do anything interesting, or be involved in exciting plots. None of that is true, IMO.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't see the raw power aspect of high level vs low level play as being very important. There are differences, but that isn't one of them. Mechanically, you're either stronger than, equivalent to, or weaker than the oppositon. That's the same whether your 1st level or 20th.

One difference is the "glory" factor. It's just cooler to beat dragons than rats. But this doesn't really depend on level. If you wanted to say your 1st level fighter is the best in the land and give the 80' dragon that stats of a standard baby dragon, that would work, as long as severything else was scaled correctly in comparison. The whole higher level is cooler thing is just an illusion.

The "1st level is fragile" thing is also largely an illusion. Well, it's true with the RAW, but if you like low level play, you can fix this issue. The problem is that the random elements are a larger proportion of the fixed elements of play than they are at higher levels of play. If you scale down the damage an a few other things (an axe does 1d2 rather than 1d8) this issue largely disappears.

The level of versimmiltude supported at high vs low level play is a real issue, but it's so idiosyncratic that it's not really worth discussing.

IMO the major real difference between high and low level play is complexity. At higher levels, you have many many more options open to your characters, and so so your enemies.

Personally, I like low and mid levels. Mixing fantasy elements like magic and mosters with things I've really done like exploring caves makes the whole thing seem a lot more real to me. That drops when I'm plane-traveling or whatever at higher levels where there's no overlap with RL. Complexity at high level is also a bit of a turn-off. If I can't even remember all of my options in the heat of the moment, I'm outside of my comfort zone, level-wise.