In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[Psion]

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.

I made no such claim (has anyone, in this thread?). My point here is merely that the empowerment aspect that comes with playing an individual with exceptional capabilities is a selling point that many seek out D&D specifically for.

A given game has a number of possible emotional kicks that it provides. Making the case that there is one appeal or selling point for many fans is not in any way tantamount to saying that this appeal is universal or that the existance of this selling point or mode of play exists to the exclusion of others.

 

[Psion]

IOne 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.

It's only an illusion inasmuch s the whole experiene is an illusion.

But if there is a dragon that I can defeat with a 1st level character who would have difficulty with a basic orc, the experience is not the same as if you were facing one with a great wyrm. The perspective is different and the situation would be unsatisfying for those who seek empowerment.

 

[Desdichado]

I made no such claim (has anyone, in this thread?).

Not in those words, but have a look at these quotes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sure, I'm summarizing a variety of points, but to me, all of the above are subtle variations on the same theme: that low level play just isn't as interesting or fun.

In every case mentioend above where high level play is "required" to have what the poster considers an interesting game, I can think of several ways I could very easily pull that exact same game off at fifth level or less.

 

[Aaron L]

I personally love high level play. I like the aspect of having powerful characters who influence the game world. I also and pirmarily like character development and growth. I wouldnt like a game where my character goes from 1st level to 20th in game months. I like a slow progression. I wouldnt want to start a game out at 15th level (well, not all the time) any more than I would want to start over everytime our characters got to 8th level. I want to explore a character and watch him grow from neophyte to world player.

 

[Psion]

Not in those words, but have a look at these quotes:
(...)
Sure, I'm summarizing a variety of points, but to me, all of the above are subtle variations on the same theme: that low level play just isn't as interesting or fun.

As far as I see, those statements are only conveying people's personal experiences and preferences, not making any statement of impossibility of your experience. Consider the words drawn from your very quotes:

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.

Rystil is certainly not taking the position that there is no room for ingenuity at lower levels.

...is a good starting point for campaigns where I want to jump right into a significant story...

... I prefer the story that goes with high level campaigning.

I'm having difficulty seeing how you are translating people's stated preferences into some claim that there is no way that you personally could be having fun with low level games.

In every case mentioend above where high level play is "required" to have what the poster considers an interesting game, I can think of several ways I could very easily pull that exact same game off at fifth level or less.

To your satisfaction, perhaps. Perhaps Kuhuna or Rystil or myself would not share your opinion about how fun the experience is or whether it is arguably "the exact same game."

As a side note, I don't personally consider 5th level (and more so, 6th-12th level that someone cited above) to be "low level."

 

[Desdichado]

As far as I see, those statements are only conveying people's personal experiences and preferences, not making any statement of impossibility of your experience. Consider the words drawn from your very quotes:

I'm having difficulty seeing how you are translating people's stated preferences into some claim that there is no way that you personally could be having fun with low level games.

Errr... I'm not saying that they're claiming that I can't have fun in a low level game; I'm claiming that they're saying low level precludes a number of interesting campaign types. That's what I disagree with; I think anything worth doing can be done at any level you choose.

There's also the implication that the game isn't interesting unless foes aren't earth-shattering. An orc barbarian isn't as interesting as a balor. Why the heck not? I think that implication betrays a common crutch used by many DMs--substituting variety of foes for actual interesting set-ups. There's no reason why the manipulative BBEG who's plots have plagued the PCs for months or years of gametime has to be a high CR demon when a relatively modest mid-level human expert or aristocrat could pull off the exact same thing.

The far end of that spectrum is convoluted Monte Cookisms; every single monster has a level of cleric, or rogue, or psion, or this or that template, etc. because tweaking mechanics of foes is the only thing that makes the game interesting, apparently?!

If your game is really and truly interesting, it's probably not because of the level, it's probably because it's intrinsically so. I realize that's a bit of a misnomer; nothing is intrinsically interesting, because it depends on the taste and preferences of those who interact with it, but hopefully you see what I'm trying to get at.

As a side note, I don't personally consider 5th level (and more so, 6th-12th level that someone cited above) to be "low level."

Well, that's one of the problems with this thread, which I've already obliquely noted. What exactly is "low level?" From some of the responses here, you'd think it meant 1st level only. To me 5th and below is low level. 6-10th is mid-level, 11-15th is high level and 16+ is "I don't play that anymore" level.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

As a side note, I don't personally consider 5th level (and more so, 6th-12th level that someone cited above) to be "low level."

Unless I missed it, the original poster didn't really bother to define low level play except in te nebulous way of being the level where you don't fight gods and have +2000 weapons... which means almost none of us play anything but low level. So I, at least, laid out how I felt about a variety of different concrete levels rather than say "I don't like entry level play, but I'm ok about low levels, enjoy intermediate and early high level..."

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.

I'm sorry, but I love the "X isn't really a result of the rules if you completely change the rules to eliminate it" answer. Yes, you can fix the issue, one good way would be to play a completely different system. But in this system, fragility and lack of definition are the default at entry levels, and while some players enjoy that phase others, myself included, consider it a starting point to get past at best, and an annoyance to skip over at worst.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

It's only an illusion inasmuch s the whole experiene is an illusion.

But if there is a dragon that I can defeat with a 1st level character who would have difficulty with a basic orc, the experience is not the same as if you were facing one with a great wyrm. The perspective is different and the situation would be unsatisfying for those who seek empowerment.

That's my point. The whole thing _is_ an illusion, and more importantly an illsuion under the players' (I'm including the DM here) control. If you want the advantages of low level play (simplicity & versimmilitude) you can maintain the "glory" thing by simply applying the appropriate descriptions to mechanically low-level enemies. And as I mentioned in my previous post you have to scale the whole game appropriately, not just one challenge, so the orc comparison doesn't really apply.

 

[Mystery Man]

Errr... I'm not saying that they're claiming that I can't have fun in a low level game; I'm claiming that they're saying low level precludes a number of interesting campaign types. That's what I disagree with; I think anything worth doing can be done at any level you choose.

Well, I was in one of those quotes so I'll respond. No! I am not saying that you (or anyone else for that matter) cannot have an interesting low level campaign. Matter of fact, just the opposite. And I'm not saying that I don't like low level campaigns. I just stated my preferences and why. Frankly you said it best:

If your game is really and truly interesting, it's probably not because of the level, it's probably because it's intrinsically so. I realize that's a bit of a misnomer; nothing is intrinsically interesting, because it depends on the taste and preferences of those who interact with it, but hopefully you see what I'm trying to get at.

After that the power level boils down to personal preference.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm sorry, but I love the "X isn't really a result of the rules if you completely change the rules to eliminate it" answer. Yes, you can fix the issue, one good way would be to play a completely different system. But in this system, fragility and lack of definition are the default at entry levels, and while some players enjoy that phase others, myself included, consider it a starting point to get past at best, and an annoyance to skip over at worst.

Or you can just give those orcs daggers rather than greataxes. It's pretty easy to apply this within the rules.