[POLL] What's the D&D gaming level "Sweet Spot?"

[Garmorn]

For my group 1st through 15th, after that our DM's don't have the skills to run that level of power and flexiblity. But we are learning!

 

[Henry]

No munchie-bashing here; I'm stating a point with most gamers. The levels from 5th to 10th are "sweet" because at those levels the PC's are still "blue collar" - they have to work hard physically to get what they want, and they are frequently called on for the simple "save the town/princess/kingdom" missions.

After 10th level, the nature of gaming changes: long journeys are no longer missions in themselves, hordes of normal mortals are less of a problem, and money is not as tight, as some PC's at this level even have political power or are land or business owners themselves.

At levels 11th through 20th, the PC's are "white collar." They teleport from point A to Point B at will, they can hold back small armies, they can re-landscape terrain, and they are far wealthier than adventurers of lower level. Their concerns range from "save the continent" to "help explore and settle the wildlands, and negotiate on behalf of the government with the foreign nation over there." These guys are not concerned that a common troll has moved into the region and is threatening the swamp; they are called in when Gorgath, the Troll warlord with his 23,000 minion-strong army, has set up camp in the area.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I went 4-6 but that would be single class, multi-class 7-10.

 

[S'mon]

The group I'm GMing for seems to be moving into its 'sweet spot' with levels 4-6, plus a couple of 3rd level henchmen. I've found that at lower levels I tend to kill off too many PCs (including TPKs) and players can get frustrated when it happens two sessions in a row! At least now when they die it's because the dying (0 hp) ettin Criticals on its last blow, not because they're all massacred by a band of 8 orcs...

I've GM'd a lot of ultra-high level AD&D in the past, eg with Thrin/Upper_Krust - it's great fun, but a lot of hard work. I think the levels before 9th are the best in that the PCs are reasonably durable but don't have the resources to eg teleport or raise dead.

 

[kreynolds]

These guys are not concerned that a common troll has moved into the region and is threatening the swamp

They should be. After all, if they aren't concerned, how can they rightly call themselves "heroes"?

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I woulda said 3-8 but you naarrowed it down.

 

[Henry]

They should be. After all, if they aren't concerned, how can they rightly call themselves "heroes"?

Because that's for the lower-level heroes, DUH!

A) Fighting a single average troll for characters of 11th or higher level is child's play at a CR 6 below their level, and would bore players to tears. (Divine troll's whereabouts, Scry for said troll, attack him at most advantageous time, and WHAM! Free cooked Troll chum for the local fishermen)

B) This is the kind of job PC's contract lower level PC's for to take care of on their fiefs, while they are dealing with the neighboring baron, who is secretly using fell magics to dominate their patrons and allies and ruin their standing, or some other such nastier plot than a troll Bandito.

As I said, characters can't go through fighting the same challenges, because at some point, the challenges will become boring unless they change.

 

[DM with a vengence]

I voted for 7-9, but you could expand that one or two levels both ways with no problems.

At these levels, fighters get 2 attacks, Mages start casting serious spell, and they have enough resources to recover from a bad move without breaking the bank.

Much lower you aren't tough enough, and much higher and you become so powerful that you can safely ignore 95% of enemies you'll encounter.

 

[Desdichado]

kreynolds:
I can damn near promise you that's why their low. Either that, or some of these people have been seen bashing "munchkins" (in this case, people that play above 10th level) before and they don't want to be seen supporting high level play. Who knows.

You just don't get it, do you? I just posted a reply on the other thread to your implication that only ignorance keeps people preferring lower to mid-level play, but here you just come right out and say it!

Let me clear it up once and for all. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not ignorant, and I'm not stupid. I've done high, I've done low. And my "sweet spot" is somewhere between level 5 and 10. No, it's not because I've never played higher levels and "don't know what I'm missing." No, it's not because I'm some pathetic loser who won't claim to like high level in case I'm somehow branded as a "munchkin."

Gaaah! Look at the other thread. I don't feel like typing up all my reasons two times in a row. But this time I really do resent the implication that only people who don't know any better aren't just panting for the opportunity to play high level.

 

[kreynolds]

You just don't get it, do you? I just posted a reply on the other thread to your implication that only ignorance keeps people preferring lower to mid-level play, but here you just come right out and say it!

Let me clear it up once and for all. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not ignorant, and I'm not stupid. I've done high, I've done low. And my "sweet spot" is somewhere between level 5 and 10. No, it's not because I've never played higher levels and "don't know what I'm missing." No, it's not because I'm some pathetic loser who won't claim to like high level in case I'm somehow branded as a "munchkin."

Gaaah! Look at the other thread. I don't feel like typing up all my reasons two times in a row. But this time I really do resent the implication that only people who don't know any better aren't just panting for the opportunity to play high level.

Uhh...Joshua? My post had nothing to do with you. Note that the post in this thread was posted over an hour before the post you are referring too in the other thread.