In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[joeandsteve]

I personally like to start at 1st level and work my way up from there until my character finishes his/her story, as opposed to try to see what level I can get to. I have the most fun when I can develop my character background within the campaign instead of writing a detailed background for a high level starting character.

 

[VirgilCaine]

There is nothing wrong with low level games. But, damnit, there are only so many times you can read the first chapter of a book without wanting to read the rest.

Thank you!

That's my feeling.

 

[Turjan]

I'm in the low level camp. One reason is that I'm the DM and I don't like statting out high level NPCs. High level play is much more tactical, although a good initiative is often already half the win. Well, this overly tactical acting with lots of over-the-top options and a myriad of modifiers is not my world. Actually, I find it boring. That's right, I said boring. I'm not sure why, but I guess it has to do with the feeling that I cannot connect to the actors anymore. They get bizarre heaps of numbers for me, and I simply lose touch. I can myself not get interested, and that most probably shows.

Good, I'm no advocate of 1st level play. The interesting part comes later, although I enjoy the character development until it comes to that point. In mid levels, the game gets the right balance of character abilities and workload/fun for me. There's already enough room for tactical play involved to make also the fights interesting, even if those tactics look quite different from high level capabilities. I like it that way .

 

[Ry]

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.

One thing I've found in my games is that exceptional power can really be a matter of how you portray the world - my game has the 6th level cap, which through careful training and questing is really a 10th level cap. I guess my point is that in a world where guards are 1st level warriors, highly capable soldier-captains are 3rd level fighters, and a 6th level fighter can be a soldier of great renown - well, a 10th level warrior is a living legend. I just want to point out that, while "the empowerment that comes with playing an individual with exceptional capabilities is a selling point that many seek out D&D specifically for" this is not necessarily an artefact of high-level play.

Heck, what's a properly decked-out 10th-level fighter capable of against the oliphaunt, anyway?

 

[Psion]

One thing I've found in my games is that exceptional power can really be a matter of how you portray the world - my game has the 6th level cap, which through careful training and questing is really a 10th level cap. I guess my point is that in a world where guards are 1st level warriors, highly capable soldier-captains are 3rd level fighters, and a 6th level fighter can be a soldier of great renown - well, a 10th level warrior is a living legend. I just want to point out that, while "the empowerment that comes with playing an individual with exceptional capabilities is a selling point that many seek out D&D specifically for" this is not necessarily an artefact of high-level play.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. A 10th level character can do some pretty neat stuff. Which is why I took vigorous exception to the idea that if you aren't playing a low level game, you must be throwing around wish-rings and planet busting swords.

And I may (or at least, should; it's been a few years since ELH came out) be pretty well known for my stance that you don't need to be "Epic Level" to have epic campaigns.

 

[ForceUser]

Nice post. For me, however, it's not as much a matter of disliking low-levels inherently as it is a matter of familiarity breeding contempt. I've been playing D&D for 18 years. In that time the two highest level campaigns I've been a part of ended around 13th-15th level--other than those two games, I've never been part of a game that's gone over 8th level or so, and the vast majority of the campaigns I've participated in haven't made it past 5th-level. We're talking hundreds--reboot after reboot after reboot.

I'm sick to death of low-level play. I'm tired of looking in the Monster Manual and seeing hordes of cool monsters I can never use, and I'm tired of not ever attaining a character's highest-level powers. It's nice to fight dragons once in a while (you know, real dragons). It would be nice to cast 9th-level spells. It would be nice to be able to hurl an EL 20 encounter at a group of players. It would be nice to have PCs capable of traveling the planes under their own power, able to go where they choose. It would be nice to be able to develop the same campaign over a span of years, watching characters mature in power and influence. It would be nice to be able to tell a truly epic story. In general, you can't do any of these things with 1st to 5th level PCs, and I want to do them. It's frustrating, really.

In my 18 years of D&D, I've seen more than my share of goblins and dire rats. Now I want dragons and pit fiends.

 

[Mystery Man]

It would be nice to be able to hurl an EL 20 encounter at a group of players.

It really is truly one of the funnest things in DnD ever.

 

[The Shaman]

I've been playing D&D for 18 years. In that time the two highest level campaigns I've been a part of ended around 13th-15th level--other than those two games, I've never been part of a game that's gone over 8th level or so, and the vast majority of the campaigns I've participated in haven't made it past 5th-level. We're talking hundreds--reboot after reboot after reboot.

Why is that?

It would be nice to be able to develop the same campaign over a span of years, watching characters mature in power and influence.

Absolutely - it's the best part of the experience for me.

However, I like to work through levels one to five as well as six to twenty - that's part of the experience, too.

 

[ForceUser]

Why is that?

A variety of typical reasons, but one of the most recurring is that the primary DMs within the past decade--myself and one other--have been too quick to cast something aside if, in the short term, it wasn't working out as we'd expected or hoped. We've restarted campaigns far too often, trying for that "perfect" role-playing experience--whatever that is.

Absolutely - it's the best part of the experience for me.

However, I like to work through levels one to five as well as six to twenty - that's part of the experience, too.

Of course. As I said, I don't have an inherent problem with low levels other than I've revisited them far too often in my gaming career because of all the campaign reboots. I haven't had any patience as a long-term storyteller, a character trait which I am trying to overcome. I want my current campaign to last for years.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Last time I ran a high level game I swore it off completely. Combat just took way too long, and I've heard stories from people who play in games where a single combat actually spans multiple games. That just sounds like about as much fun as watching paint dry. I have the most fun in a game when the plot actually moves forward, not when I get to analyze the combat options

IMC, currently at 18th level played from 1st level, the party gets into combat about every other session. In part it is b/c combat takes a lot of RL time vs. game time but also to keep the game as much about the plot as possible and still be D&D. Some months we'll got 3-4 sessions between fights. Many times because the players decide to deal with things socially before leaping forward with blades drawn. (I love my players) Other times there are 2-3 combat sessions in a row, usually when diplomacy fails or is useless.

I don't feel that I am more challenged now than when I began. This campaign started with 1st level characters ~3 months after 3.0 was released. It's been a continuous learning curve since the beginning, so each level now is just like each level before; some new tricks, new powers, and a challenge to both DM and player.

There were times when I'd look at spells 2-3 levels higher than the campaign and not be sure if I could run that right. So when the normal game was on hold due to holidays, people out of town, etc, I'd run one shots with characters at higher levels than the campaign. Players would make something fun to play and I'd run something simple and full of scary monsters with powers I wanted to check out. We'd debate the rules, try those tactics that lurk in the back of our minds, and generally hash things out.

When the campaign hit the higher levels the players had a grasp on what they could and couldn't do and felt more comfortable about my calls in-game. We've ran various one-shots up to 27th level and I am confident I can maintain the plot and sanity of the setting to at least that level.

I can understand DMs not being comfortable when the power level increases a lot, possibly due to the players using a great tactic to defeat a BBEG letting the level faster than expected. But why kill off a good campaign? Take a break, run a module out of Dragon at those higher levels with secondary characters. The players won't have the emotional investment so they won't be as difficult to deal with and your campaign's plot and setting are safe so you are more relaxed. When you hit another power plateau, pull out those secondary characters, add a few levels and some more loot and run another one-shot.