Thinking of D&D adventure in the general abstract

[Quasqueton]

I was looking through some of my old D&D books last night, and a strange realization struck me. When I think of D&D, I tend to always think of levels 1-5. When I’m just free thinking about adventuring in D&D, the default concepts, monsters, magic, etc. seems to always be around the low levels.

I’ve played in a high level game – beyond 20th level.

I’ve DMed up to 9th level in serious campaigns.

I’ve read high-level adventures, made high-level characters, even created a few high-level dungeons. But when I’m thinking of heroic fights and grand adventures, I always seem to think of fighting off orc raiders, and running from giants; fireballs and lightning bolts are high-power.

I believe this is because probably 70% of my D&D gaming experience has been in the low levels. This was around 90% in the first 10 years of my “career”.

When you think, abstractly, about D&D adventure, do your thoughts tend to cover a certain level area, or do you naturally consider all up and down the whole range?

Quasqueton

 

[Aesthetic Monk]

If I think of D&D that way at all, I think mid levels. At low levels, the PCs are too poor financially and too weak physically/magically/etc. to really take on the iconic trappings of D&D--decent (probably magical) weapons/armor, good equipment, potent area spells, and the like. The game's really best, IMO, at those mid levels. After that point, at the "high" and "very high" levels, PCs are dealing with world-shattering concerns, save-or-die spells, and the like, (probably) not the "standard" dungeon crawl.

 

[Umbran]

When you think, abstractly, about D&D adventure, do your thoughts tend to cover a certain level area, or do you naturally consider all up and down the whole range?

I tend to think up and down the whole range. Orcs and big old dragons and giants both come readily to mind, and you don't get serous about the dragons until later on.

In addition, when thinking about design and analysis of action-adventure stuff in the abstract, in a sense the level doesn't matter. Abstract, rather by definition, is about dealing without specifics. You leave out the detail of whether the opponent is a tribe of orcs or a family of giants, and deal instead with the fact that it is a group of opponents with some familial/tribal relations binding them together to act as a group.

 

[Abe.ebA]

It's odd. When I think about d&d...thematically I guess it would be? Or maybe cinematically? In any case, when I think about it in general rather than in the specifics of one adventure, I can't really pin it down to a level range. On the one hand I think about fighting dragons, ancient liches, and hordes of demons. On the other hand, I still imagine the heroes cautiously exploring dark catacombs and shrinking back from the sight of shambling undead, or riding nervously through a dense canopy of trees laced with webbing. I suppose my imagination just conjures up all of the exciting, dramatic parts while leaving out the bits where a treasure trove becomes "Oh, 5k gold and a couple +2 swords? I guess we can sell them or something..." and a pit full of zombies becomes something you don't even bother rolling the damage on.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This is a very interesting post, Q.

When I think of D&D in the abstract, it's the low-levels, with a bit of mid-level fantasizing thrown in.

To me, the upper end of mid-level (certainly by 9th level) is the "end game" of D&D.

 

[Joshua Randall]

We know from WotC's pre-3.0 market research that most people start their PCs at 1st level. And that most campaigns only last until the mid levels. Ergo, for most players, most of their time is spent at the low- to mid-levels.

So it's not surprising that our default assumptions about the game involve what we most often experience; i.e., low- to mid-levels.

If there were a sudden cultural shift such that campaigns routinely started with 10th level PCs and lasted until 20th -- well, we'd have to start thinking about those higher level tropes.

As Umbran said, at those levels you can fight dragons. Or the scarier demons and devils. And so forth. Plus, you can rapidly travel long distances using teleport or windwalk. Or go to other Planes. So the default adventures become less local and more far-flung.

I agree with Wulf -- this is an interesting topic. It makes me want to start a new campaign and somehow convince the players that their PCs will be 10th level right from the get-go. (In reality, I would get heavy pushback on this.) But I'd love to see how it plays out -- and get to use all those higher CR monsters I never use now!

 

[3d6]

I think that most of my playtime has taken place around level 10 or so, and I tend to think of 10th-level campaigns when I think of D&D, where you fight beholders and mind flayers and dragons and what have you.

 

[Drowbane]

To me, D&D doesn't start till 6-10.. and I fantasize about taking such characters into Epic. In reality, we always seem to start at 1st or 3rd and take 'em to about 6th before a campaign peters out.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think in epic dramatics. Fights in the Elemental Plane of Fire over a lava river or against a death knight riding his black dragon steed in the seige of a city. Grand things that I dream about doing while I wait for the PCs to level up enough so that I can really let loose the reigns on them and cackle with true delight.

 

[el-remmen]

For me having a 4th to 6th level character is a sweet spot (maybe in 3E it might be more like 5th to 7th (I haven't played in a campaign that lasted past 4th, and I ran one that lasted until 11th)), and I would be happy never advancing past there.