In Praise of Low-Level Campaigns

[vrock]

I generally enjoy DMing for characters that are under 10th level or so. I find that beyond that point that battles take forever and I can't keep the group from becoming disinterested during larger battles. I know that's probably my fault, but i don't have the time to devote to all the work that is involved with sustaining a champaign after that level. I think I once had a game last until 12th or 13th level, but since most of my players have families and other obligations we could only meet once or twice a month, and only for 4 hours or so at a time. At that level one large battle can last hours.

I find that from 3rd to 8th level is where the game is most enjoyable for me. I don't need to spend hours working on NPC's, tactics, and game mechanics, so I can devote more time to creating a good story.

As a player, and that's a rare occurance in D&D games, I would love to play in a high level game, but the story would have to be good. It would seem to me that at level 15+ there are only so many options for things that can challenge you that the game either has to transport you into other planes, or you are stuck in the old hat - "Save the world!" senario.

 

[jmucchiello]

I like high-level play more than low-level play but I don't scoff at low-level play. Heck I've even played below first level but that's a shameless plug in my sig. I think the level of play liked is determined by your attitude toward gaming. Some people don't like an anything goes universe. They prefer a stable, controlled fantasy world and at low-level you don't have to worry about the players pulling a rarely used power out of nowhere to derail game. I also guess the fun first crowd is more likely to like high-level play over low-level play.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Amen. A well-run, well-played low level campaign is a blast. It's not what powers your character has; it's what you can do with the abilities you do have that make the game fun.

 

[Wombat]

I, too, am in the Low Level camp.

Aww, you already guessed that!

What follows, of course, is strictly a matter of personal taste. YMMV.

I have a very difficult time running higher level games for several reasons. First of all, I have a hard time imagining a world were dragons (many multiples) are running around, yet the world has been intact until the players arrived at the appropriate level. What were the dragons doing up until this point? There are also the implied "realities" of D&D at higher levels that I do not care for: plane-hopping, vast arrays of magical items, monsters that seem to be built more around breaking game rules than having a place in the world, etc. Nope, not my kinda game. I guess this is also why I don't care too much for Michael Moorcock -- his writings and high-level D&D games feel about the same. Either that or overly-powerful superheroes, on the level of Dark Phoenix and Galactus. Again, not very appealing to me at all.

I won't even enter into the whole miniatures matter; that is a separate issue and most folks already know my views there.

I find the more "human level" adventures of characters below 8th level to be much more fun, believable (to my group and myself), and fun. At lower levels all of us understand the objectives, the powers, the limitations, and the goals of the characters. For me & mine, that is a far preferable arrangement.

Just a few random thoughts of my own.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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

I missed this earlier or I would have chimed in, but thank you Psion, that is exactly the case. And I disagree with JD's assertion that

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.

I never said that high level is 'required' to have an interesting game. I merely stated that it was absurd for the OP to claim that playing at low-level was the only way to have interesting tactical variables in a battle because there are clearly more such variables available to a high-level character.

I feel that the system we're presented with eradicates multi-tasking and versatility as a by-product of level progression...The 3.5 miniature combat rules make tactics useful in D&D for the first time (arguably), but they become less useful once characters are self-contained fortresses...Spells and DR often aren't used (or even useable) in a tactical manner...
...

This has nothing to do with what I think makes an good game--I was speaking to this assertion, and while I'm at it, I will also disagree with this:

Am I wrong in believing that lower-level characters are more likely to face multiple foes? Goblins, orcs, kobolds etc are a joke for high-end games, which often focus on singular, powerful enemies.

Long-time GMs of high-level games that I have encountered quickly discover that for fun high-level encounters, this is simply untrue--fights with multiple enemies are often more fun and challenging than those against a single BBEG.

 

[Mystery Man]

First of all, I have a hard time imagining a world were dragons (many multiples) are running around, yet the world has been intact until the players arrived at the appropriate level. What were the dragons doing up until this point?

Trying to avoid all the other high level characters wanting to slay them because "the players" don't live in a vacuum.

I won't even enter into the whole miniatures matter; that is a separate issue and most folks already know my views there.

After a certain level miniatures become useless.

 

[Agamon]

Great post. I agree. In my homebrew, "epic" is 9th to 10th level. And every adventure is meaningful and important, even, or especially, the first one.

 

[der_kluge]

Obviously this is one of those "different strokes for different folks" kinds of threads.

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, and tactically plan for mass destruction against multiple demons. If I wanted that, I'd go play Final Fantasy.

But that's not to say that one couldn't have a subtle, fast moving game at high levels. Just not playing d20 you couldn't.

No thanks.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

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.

Clearly, you haven't met my office mate.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I find that high level play is much more demanding for the DM than low level play. As PCs gain power and flexibility, they come up with plans, strategems, and ideas that many DMs are not prepared to deal with fairly, hence the preference by DMs for lower level play.

The last 1-20th level campaign I ran, I found that as the DM, I ran out of ability to control the game past 15th level. At that point, the PCs could do a lot, and have been played by each player for more than 15 months. I on the other hand, was running monsters at that power level for the first time every time, and did not use their abilities to the max. The next time I run a high powered game, rest assured that I will be better prepared!

And the players loved high level games. I literally had players who'd been playing for 15 years begging me not to end the campaign too quickly because they'd never had the ability to cast 9th level spells before. They, did get to 20th level, I had fun, they had fun, and it wasn't any less fun than the 1st-5th levels, but I definitely had to do more page flipping to get to spells I was seeing for the very first time!