In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[DamionW]

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.

That was the point I'm trying to make. Yeah, powers don't get anywhere near flashy for characters until 5th level or so, but trying not to die for the first four defines your character's personality and connections to me. How bold or cautious are they? What kind of friends outside of the party helped them through the rough spots? What kind of minor grudges did they develop (not just against BBEG, but little evil guy, too)? That all matters to me, even if goblins get to be trite to go after.

 

[Hairfoot]

Thanks for the excellent discussion, all. Even searing criticism is bearable when it's articulate.

It sounds heretical, I know, but enjoy challenges with a more mortal scope. I feel that late-level progression is largely an illusion, and detracts from a broadly-challenging game. I'm not excited by climbing levels just to fight something with bigger numbers and a cool picture in the MM.

I'm pleased with the combat and skills rules in 3.5, but I find that the rapid power progression makes them redundant fairly quickly. Who bullrushes an opponent at level 12? Not many. Any character who could make an effective bullrush is better off trying to score hitpoint damage.

Consider this: the PCs have to infiltrate a fort and kill the command group inside (who have an appropriate CR). However, the fort is guarded by a black dragon, which the PCs have no chance of defeating. The challenge is to get past the dragon and take on the foes inside, some of whom will be numerous and weaker than the PCs and some on an equal footing, then get out alive. That done, the PCs can come back with the assistance of a flight of griffin-riders to help with the dragon.

Many players I've known would have an aneurism in this situation, because they're being faced with an opponent they can't overcome through violence and they're reliant on non-combat skills and planning to avoid catastrophe. That type of mission is rare, because the goal is not to find the most powerful foe and kill it - which is what most D&D is about.

Think of some other mission objectives:
1. Fight a running battle with more powerful opponents to distract and lure them away while an NPC carries out the real mission
2. Run a sapping operation under an enemy's castle over the course of a week, keeping it hidden from the guards and discreetly killing any who find you without raising the alarm
3. Escort a dangerous prisoner to a destination while fending off attacks and ambushes from would-be liberators

These are complex, military-style missions which test the aptitude of players and require the specialities of all classes. But high-level characters would never do these things, because:

1. Hero-players often rile against someone else doing the important stuff
2. Why sap? We're heroes. If we want a castle, we teleport in and fight until we win it.
3. A 17th level prisoner doesn't travel by caravan - he's ported straight to where he's going.

Basically, the pay-off in higher levels is increased damage-dealing and the ability to ignore the limitations of being mortal. With that, you put yourself beyond multi-tasked missions.

There's an argument to be made that high-level characters have as many, or more, options and challenges becasue they join a higher league of NPCs and monsters who also have those abilities. However, I find that high-end games often turn into a cartoonish arms race, with PCs and enemies vying to pull out bigger and better spells, weapons, and abilities to stack the numbers and win the day.

A lot of these complaints are really about player attitudes, not the game of D&D. But I do find that the power curve makes a group more and more reliant on their RAW abilities than their ingenuity.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Basically, the pay-off in higher levels is increased damage-dealing and the ability to ignore the limitations of being mortal. With that, you put yourself beyond multi-tasked missions.

There's an argument to be made that high-level characters have as many, or more, options and challenges becasue they join a higher league of NPCs and monsters who also have those abilities. However, I find that high-end games often turn into a cartoonish arms race, with PCs and enemies vying to pull out bigger and better spells, weapons, and abilities to stack the numbers and win the day.

And I'm saying that this straw-man of high-level games as a cartoonish arms-race is not accurate, or perhaps it is only accurate given a poor GM. In my game that went from 1st to 21st level, strategy and ingenuity are tantamount. The players have defeated seemingly insurmountable odds when they worked together and came up with intelligent plans to defeat their foes.

As an example, one of their enemies had an orb that generated a spherical aura that cancelled one of the two types of arcane magic in my campaign as well as psionics. The problem is that the enemy was very powerful in her stronghold, particularly in that she used the other type of magic. After many unsuccessful ideas, the players commissioned a 500-ft long immovable rod and used it to fly the barbarian around the edges of the sphere until he could traingulate the exact position for a precision strike.

Sometimes, when they got too cocky, they were beaten down. After the party took down a powerful dragon, one of the players got power-hungry and treasure-hungry and decided to research a weaker dragon and kill it himself, in its lair. The dragon had the lair trapped and the player died. He rezed, returned, and was killed again, and his soul trapped in a gem. Though they've beaten things more powerful, they still have never defeated that dragon.

 

[DamionW]

My friend sent me a PDF of Robin Law's "Rules of Good Game Mastering," and he breaks player types into some basic categories:

1. Power Gamer: Needs to min/max to try and make his character the best
2. Butt Kicker: Just wants combat to blow stress
3. Tactician: Needs complex military-style conflicts to be tackled with ingenuity
4. Specialist: Likes one specific character template in every RPG (i.e. the ninja)
5. Method Actor: Wants to roleplay every interaction to explore motivations
6. Storyteller: Wants to watch a plot develop that's entertaining
7. Casual Gamer: Just plays to kill time, not to expend effort on it

Hairfoot, your concerns do seem mainly with player attitudes more than mechanics, but don't discount your own preferences in that mix. You're probably the most pure example of a tactician gamer I've met, one who wants a complex situation of PCs versus adversaries with a myriad of options and the correct selection options results in the players solving the conflict without loss of life. That is what seems to be apparant from your posts. That is all well and good, but what of the 6 other player styles? Are they necessarily wrong because they don't enjoy taking 5 hours planning a castle raid to the minutest detail? It is a game and the overall objective is having a group of people collaborating to create an enjoyable passtime. If your tactical scenarios end up being interesting only to you or you and another of your group while leaving others out, are you solving the tactical quandry in real life of gathering people to have fun together? Therein lies the real question.

Me? I identify more as a storyteller. I like watching a plot develop similar to a good novel or movie unfolding. I don't need lots of buffs for my PC, even at high levels, but I want to be intrigued by the interplay or my characters choices and the plotline. That's my argument against skipping the low levels, because while you can jump to more powerful characters, you dump plot in the process. I don't enjoy that. If the rest of the group does, I'll have to bear it, but I'll try and convince them otherwise.

The key to being an effective player and especially a good GM is to understand what an RPG overall is. People collaborating to create an artificial reality that is fun for everyone involved. If you're the DM and none of your players are fellow tacticians, don't be surprised by their aneurisms. Maybe they just want to play to kick butt in a fake world. I don't like that personally, but I can't call it wrong. Just find some more like-minded tacticians, or work with your current players to find the balance between the tactical set-ups you likes, the cool magic items the power gamer wants, the dramatic self-exploration the method actor wants to dabble in, or whatever preferences are present. The key is to remember everyone wants fun, and everyone has to agree to work together to make it happen for all parties. That's the secret.

 

[Hairfoot]

the players commissioned a 500-ft long immovable rod and used it to fly the barbarian around the edges of the sphere until he could traingulate the exact position for a precision strike.

I can't deny "barbarian-on-a-stick" is an attack worth waiting for!

You're probably the most pure example of a tactician gamer I've met, one who wants a complex situation of PCs versus adversaries with a myriad of options and the correct selection options results in the players solving the conflict without loss of life.

That cap fits. But I've been every other gamer on that list, too! I'd think most experienced D&Ders have had each of those phases.

Being more strategic seems like a natural step toward getting more out of the game, especially since the rules now emphasise 3D environments and miniature-play so strongly. It just surprises me that players with 15 years experience still want to stop thinking and start rolling dice, the same way we did in high-school.

I any case, I've said my piece(s), and rather than wrap myself up in circular arguments, I'll leave it at that. Thanks one and all for the feedback.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What people resent this type of thing? Plenty of people around here like this type of game. And saying that if people don't enjoy them, its their fault or the fault of the people they play with is rather presumptive of you. Some people perfer higher level games and it has nothing to do with the implied lack of ability you are claiming.

Agreed. I like high-level games, both as DM and player, for the increase in the number of options available. A 3rd level fighter can hit things, maybe trip or bull-rush well. A 14th level fighter has a wider range of options, due to more feats, magic items, and what have you. A 1st level wizard gets a couple spells. A 10th level wizard gets a magical toolkit. A 18th level wizard is Mr. Fixit.

I like low level play for what it is. I like high level play for what it is.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Me? I identify more as a storyteller. I like watching a plot develop similar to a good novel or movie unfolding. I don't need lots of buffs for my PC, even at high levels, but I want to be intrigued by the interplay or my characters choices and the plotline. That's my argument against skipping the low levels, because while you can jump to more powerful characters, you dump plot in the process. I don't enjoy that. If the rest of the group does, I'll have to bear it, but I'll try and convince them otherwise.

I just want to pull out the idea that starting at higher levels is "dumping plot." I didn't cut my roleplaying teeth on D&D, so that may contribute to my attitude, but I don't see starting at 1st level any more a propper begining than 3rd or 6th or 15th.

I've read and enjoyed stories where the main character started out as a 5 or 6 year old child, but I don't think you need to start a D&D character out as a 1st level commoner with 5 negitive levels to work off and the child stat adjustments in order to tell a good story. Any character, 1st level or 15th, has to have a background. A 1st level character can have a background of already adventuring, but as a squire or torch-bearer who is now ready to be the hero, or a 15th level character can have a background of having been trained in isolation since childhood, and now being released for his first mission. A character's power level to me doesn't have to define their plot development.

 

[molonel]

I've been following this thread. I haven't really had time to reply as the thread merits. So instead of cutting and pasting other people's thoughts, I'll simply share my own.

I can't play low-level games, anymore. I've played them and played them and played them. I've played them from nearly every possible angle. They just don't hold any allure for me, anymore. I would rather DM a low-level game than participate as a player.

The caricature of high-level and Epic gaming that I've seen in this thread makes me wonder how many of the folks praising low-level gaming have actually PLAYED high-level and Epic games. Because their descriptions don't even remotely match my own experiences at high and Epic levels.

Low-level gaming can be fun. There is no doubt about that. But there is nothing inherently superior about low-level gaming, except that the mechanics prep-time for a DM is substantially lower. Throwing together a low-level combat encounter is simple. Throwing together an Epic combat encounter that challenges a party without killing them is work, and requires knowing the capabilities of your gaming group.

But imaginatively, I prefer high level games and Epic games. Figuratively speaking, I got tired of playing Frodo. I wanted to play Aragorn or Gandalf. I wanted to fight balrogs instead of orcs. One of my favorite moments in the last couple of years was facing Miska the Wolf-Spider in a converted 2e -> 3e Rod of Seven Parts campaign. The magic unleashed on both sides was titanic. From the perspective of a Tolkien lover, it felt like something out of the Silmarillion.

I respect different gaming styles. I enjoy low-magic games, and I've played many, MANY low-level games. But I simply must protest the caricature of high-level and Epic games by many in this thread.

 

[molonel]

I just want to pull out the idea that starting at higher levels is "dumping plot." I didn't cut my roleplaying teeth on D&D, so that may contribute to my attitude, but I don't see starting at 1st level any more a propper begining than 3rd or 6th or 15th. I've read and enjoyed stories where the main character started out as a 5 or 6 year old child, but I don't think you need to start a D&D character out as a 1st level commoner with 5 negitive levels to work off and the child stat adjustments in order to tell a good story. Any character, 1st level or 15th, has to have a background. A 1st level character can have a background of already adventuring, but as a squire or torch-bearer who is now ready to be the hero, or a 15th level character can have a background of having been trained in isolation since childhood, and now being released for his first mission. A character's power level to me doesn't have to define their plot development.

Well said. I've started games at both 10th level and 21st level, and I've seen fascinating plots and wonderful backstories come out of both. The average elf in D&D starts at over a century old. It's not like you are ACTUALLY playing the beginning of a character's adventuring career. You aren't "dumping plot" by starting later. In fact, most of the more imaginative players I know prefer to have a few levels to work with, and develop their backstories beyond something like, "Farmboy leaves his farm to find work in the big city."

 

[DamionW]

I just personally feel that if you have a strong character concept and know what you're character has been working on for in the time it's taken to get him up to the starting level of 5th, 10th, etc. it's hard to statistically represent the advantages one would gain socially. Take my manipulator post on page 2, where I rolled up a Rasputin mage from 6th level, but was given no individuals swayed by his influence after 5 levels of advancement and constant trying. All I had on paper to represent that advancement was the magic items granted to me and the abilities from my XP. If my life has been spent levels 1-6 masterminding plots, where are the fruits of my labor? That's the plot I feel being dropped. You can craft an interesting back-story, but the DM needs to give you bonuses for the effort you would have spent in-game that has been hand-waived to start you at 5th level plus. Treasure just doesn't cut it for me.