Which "phase" of D&D do you prefer?

[Ogre Mage]

Level 6-10

Count me in as one of those who prefer levels 6-10. Usually by that time, the characters have been around enough to have developed a well-rounded personality and perhaps a bit of a reputation. The PCs are also experienced enough to have developed their abilities in specific directions (prestige classes). There is also a nice balance between the classes, with fighter-types, divine casters, arcane casters and rogues all getting a good chance to contribute. And yet the DM can still give the sense that there are forces in the world much greater than the PCs without having to resort to great wyrms, avatars and the tarrasque.

I don't like the low levels (1-5) because it's not very heroic dying from a crit from a goblin's non-magical dagger. Also, mages suck from levels 1-3. I've done low-level campaigning so many times I'm kind of sick of it. If you've seen one orc, zombie and kobold you've seen them all.

I've only played in two ongoing campaigns which progressed beyond 10th level and in both cases the DM began having a lot of trouble balancing the enounters properly. Running a high level game is more work, I think. There's so much more that you have to think about. I'm sure it could be a blast if done properly, though.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I voted no preference. Low level campaigns can be fun, as can high level campaigns.

 

[Mystery Man]

I like running a game where everyone has fun. Levels, powers, etc, matter little to me if the players and I aren't having fun.

As for power levels, heck any power is fun, just so long as I'm the one enjoying it.

Levels 6-10 are for wussies!

 

[drakhe]

It's al about character

I don't realy have a preference because I generaly don't care about the stats/skills/... of my character. The group I play in (ad&d + heavy housruling) is all about character. Most nights we hardly roll dice at all. Once you can look past that character sheet, it's almost a whole different game. In our group, the paperwork we keep in front of us are our traveling journals and any handout's received. On the occasion we do roll we'll be jumping all over the place trying to find our char.sheets.

Another reason why I don't realy have a preference: if your DM is doing a good job of keeping the opposition balanced with the party, it'll always be a chalenge. And sometimes I like the extra choices available at higher levels as much as I like the simplicity of lower level characters.

 

[diaglo]

i prefer to take ~900hrs of roleplay to achieve 1 lvl.

3-4hrs/session; 5 sessions/week; 50 weeks/year; for 10+ years.

characters gained roughly 1 lvl per real life year in my campaigns.

and the players liked it.

edit: so that meant playing for 5 years or so in the first category of this poll.

2nd edit: besides, all new characters started at 1st lvl in the campaign.

 

[Desdichado]

I picked the first two slots, but really my preference is 3-8 or something like that. 1st level is too fragile, IMO -- as a DM I have to be extra careful to not kill 1st level players, and as a player I'm a bit too paranoid. So I typically start 3rd level or so, and I like it up until close to 10th, but it's already starting to feel like high level to me at that point.

 

[Malk]

I picked other because there is no option on the poll for truly enjoying the game from levels 1-20. The scaling of dnd is one of things that i most love about the game, going from nobody to somebody on a grand scale. Its great.

 

[maddman75]

6-10 is by far the best. After that 1-5, followed by 11-15. I'll usually kill a campaign from 16-20. Basically the further the game gets from fantasy fiction the less interested I am in it.

 

[der_kluge]

i prefer to take ~900hrs of roleplay to achieve 1 lvl.

3-4hrs/session; 5 sessions/week; 50 weeks/year; for 10+ years.

characters gained roughly 1 lvl per real life year in my campaigns.

and the players liked it.

edit: so that meant playing for 5 years or so in the first category of this poll.

2nd edit: besides, all new characters started at 1st lvl in the campaign.

HOLY CRAP! That's got to be some kind of record!

 

[der_kluge]

Basically the further the game gets from fantasy fiction the less interested I am in it.

I believe this quote sums it up best, as to why high-level D&D isn't very popular. And Hong's references to Wuxia (which I have no idea what that is), there doesn't seem to be any real basis for the kinds of power that this level of D&D represents.

I was joking with one of my players, and I was saying that if they made a movie out of my campaign, most people just wouldn't get it, since there'd be so many outer planar creatures, so much damage reduction stuff, and so much magic, that people would just leave the theater utterly confused. There's no basis.