There's a discussion about level progression elsewhere, where it was claimed
...Currently, D&D is easiest (and most fun) to play at low and mid level...
How do others feel? What level ranges are the most fun to play and/or DM? Personally, I'm with James -- my players and I seem to enjoy play from 4th to 9th levels the most (playing and DMing).
Regards,
Jack
I also think that the middle levels are the most enjoyable. 1st and 2nd are a bit difficult and dangerous, but can be formative.
3rd to 8-10th level seem to me to be most enjoyable, as the characters slowly get more powerful and are able to move things.
From 10th level onward, the system slowly falls apart - the characters are so powerful that most menaces are not that menacing anymore - and how many ancient dragons, liches or archdevils can reasonably run around at one time ?
Hell, in the higher levels of the AoW AP, the characters are assumed and it is necessary to use transportation magic like we use a car. The inner logic of the gameworld is streched ever thinner to provide adequate challenges the higher the PCs level becomes.
In the AD&D2 campaign I play in, just last weekend our party - consisting of a human fighter Lvl 10 or 11(slowly growing paladin-like), a human wizard (evoker)/Cleric (Lvl 8/8 or thereabout), a human wizard (level 11), my dwarven fighter /cleric (Lvl 8/8) and a Rakasta fighter 10 (Bodyguard for the wizard/cleric) - killed a nightwalker in only two rounds (courtesy of several powerful magic items, surely, but still). Our DM was nearing desparation after that fight. Our party is very powerful for their level, but still the nightwalker should have been more of a challenge. Just as an example for my above statement.
Stefan
Pretty much the same but I expand it from 1st to 10th, anything beyond 10th just seems to drag horribly.
FH
Ditto what everyone said.
G3
I dunno. I find playing at all levels to be a lot of fun. I wish I got the chance to run games at high level more (but I definately prefer to start campaigns at 1st level, which cuts down on that).
Part of what 'opened up' high-level play for me was a shift in mindset. Once I realised that the high level characters should be the Lancelots, Achillies(es) and Aragorns of their world, that cleared up a lot. Then, provide plenty of downtime between high level adventures (of an order of years, usually), and a lot of the versimilitude issues go away.
But I don't like the Epic level rules at all.
Personally, I really prefer high levels (10+). As a DM, it allows me the freedom to throw some really cool things at my players and expect them to come up with their own solutions. As a lazy DM this really appeals to me - I can just come up with memorable plots and scenarios that require the PCs to use their high level spells and abilities.
In my own game we just finished up a beefed up version of "Heart of Hellfire Mountain," and the fight against the pit fiend Beltorius (who I gave eight extra fighter levels to) was one of my most memorable scenes in gaming history. There was a point where the half-ogre Ftr12/Dragon Slayer10 ran up to the pit fiend and was literally torn to pieces by Beltorius' furious attacks. The twisted broken body was casually tossed aside by the pit fiend's tail. The gloating roar that Beltorius let out gave the rest of the party pause to reconsider their foolish plan of attack!
So, in ending - high level playing is cool, but it really needs to revolve around memorable scenes (the Hellfire Mountain adventure consisted of four memorable scenes which took a total of two 6 hour gaming sessions).
I'm with Weird Dave on this one. I’ve played everywhere from first to 20th level and have enjoyed every scenario. High-level adventuring should be about defeating overwhelming odds and accomplishing legendary tasks.
I believe it is the Dm’s task to come up with significant challenges for his players. You just have to look at the PC’s stats to see where their vulnerabilities lie. It’s quite difficult to have all the bases covered. Are they good against long-range attacks? Can they teleport away from a well-placed ambush? Maybe they are not suitably equipped for underwater combat. What happens if someone casts a dreaded Mordenkainen’s Disjunction on them?
I love Superman as much as Seinfeld, but his weakness as a superhero is that he only has one real weakness, which makes him ultimately uninteresting. Superman stories may give you some clues on how to challenge super PC’s. Maybe they have hostages or civilians to worry about, making their fireballs and other area-damaging spells inappropriate. Perhaps they have a dilemma (which of the simultaneous threats do I solve first?) Or maybe it’s a race against time.
It may come a time when you’re tired of sending overwhelmingly challenging monsters at them. At such a point you may ask yourself: “What made the party so powerful?” Adventuring, of course. There can always be more powerful, evil adventurers out there, with just as many spells, feats and special abilities. If they’ve had time to study the party, they can strike with particularly deadly effects. Just make sure they have some contingent teleportation spells cast on them, so the party doesn’t get a ludicrous amount of loot if they defeat them… :P
I am with the slight majority on this one. I prefer playing and DM'ing 1st up to around 9th or 10th, what used to affectionately be called "name level".
That being said, I have played in and DM'ed many high level parties and while combat tends to drag when everyone has either 4 attacks, or a cohort, or summons, or something to that effect, it is rewarding and often fun.
I tried using an updated and modified version of Birthright in a former campaign to establish player strongholds once they all reached 9th, but some of the players found it to be dull and too "board-gamey", which is a shame, because the other players really enjoyed it, and I saw it as a fun way of keeping the original PC's around and doing stuff while germinating new PC's to play within that setting.
"A hero's work is never done. Which is one of the minor reasons I don't recommend the profession."- Walter Slovotsky
Yeah, usually levels 3-8 are the funnest for everyone involved, IMO. New class abilities at almost every level, exciting monsters to face, and the statistics are fairly easy to figure out. Combat takes no longer than a half hour if everyone is well versed in the rules. And finally, the math all still works. Past 8th level, everything seems to change for the longer and more convoluted, making it harder for DMs to add personality to the huge lumps of stat blocks. The math breaks up, with unassociated class levels sometimes skewing CRs dramatically.
I guess the other comment I wanted to make was that D&D is fun across the board. Personally I find the higher levels the most enjoyable, but if I were to run a weekly game of PCs levels 15+ at that point I would be driven across that fine line of sanity. I've got a high-level campaign that's been going on for many years, but we only play about once every 3 or 4 months (if not longer). Playing that campaign any more than that would grind it into the ground, so we play other low-level campaigns in the meantime.
In the end, high level and low level each have their pro's and con's. Epic, however, is where the game really starts to break down.
Here's one more comment for the record. A lot of people say that high-level games require more work on the DM's part. I actually say ... yes and no. It really depends on the campaign and the style of the DM/players.
For instance, I am currently running the World's Largest Dungeon for a group of 8 players, which we play about once every three weeks or so. I love the concept of the WLD, and the written material is great, but I hate the maps (stupid corridors going nowhere!). So, rather than having my players map the thing, I decided I was going to map out each individual room on a half-sheet of graph paper. Once they reach that room, they get the half-sheet, which they can make notes on and reference back to. This creates a ton more work for me, since I'm essentially trascribing all of the maps in the World's Largest Dungeon onto new pieces of graph paper. But the payout is worth it, and the work really isn't that bad (it helps me understand where things are in relation to one another for one). A lot of work - but that's the nature of the campaign, and I expect that amount of work to same the same throughout the levels (1st to 20th).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For instance, I am currently running the World's Largest Dungeon for a group of 8 players, which we play about once every three weeks or so. I love the concept of the WLD, and the written material is great, but I hate the maps (stupid corridors going nowhere!). So, rather than having my players map the thing, I decided I was going to map out each individual room on a half-sheet of graph paper. Once they reach that room, they get the half-sheet, which they can make notes on and reference back to. This creates a ton more work for me, since I'm essentially trascribing all of the maps in the World's Largest Dungeon onto new pieces of graph paper. But the payout is worth it, and the work really isn't that bad (it helps me understand where things are in relation to one another for one). A lot of work - but that's the nature of the campaign, and I expect that amount of work to same the same throughout the levels (1st to 20th).
That is so cool! I love that idea. It would also work very well for the RToEE. I playtested that module, and all we got were some janky copies of hand drawn maps. I made copies of the copies and marked them up. It really helped me refine my DMing style by giving a single page reference (the map) that included a list of the encounters and important events. However, I never thought about how useful it would be for players to have such a tool.
So, rather than having my players map the thing, I decided I was going to map out each individual room on a half-sheet of graph paper. Once they reach that room, they get the half-sheet, which they can make notes on and reference back to. This creates a ton more work for me, since I'm essentially trascribing all of the maps in the World's Largest Dungeon onto new pieces of graph paper.
I shudder at the thought of the amount of work you have to put up with!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I believe it is the Dm’s task to come up with significant challenges for his players. You just have to look at the PC’s stats to see where their vulnerabilities lie. It’s quite difficult to have all the bases covered. Are they good against long-range attacks? Can they teleport away from a well-placed ambush? Maybe they are not suitably equipped for underwater combat. What happens if someone casts a dreaded Mordenkainen’s Disjunction on them?
I love Superman as much as Seinfeld, but his weakness as a superhero is that he only has one real weakness, which makes him ultimately uninteresting. Superman stories may give you some clues on how to challenge super PC’s. Maybe they have hostages or civilians to worry about, making their fireballs and other area-damaging spells inappropriate. Perhaps they have a dilemma (which of the simultaneous threats do I solve first?) Or maybe it’s a race against time.
I'm ashamed to admit that I've played, but never DM'd past level 12 (I always get bored with the campaign setting). However, I have heard this advice from other high level DM's. Once you switch your mentality from dungeon crawling to a superhero style roleplaying, high level campaigns are much easier.
That being said, if superhero style roleplaying (and I'm talking the Avengers/Justic League here, not Spider-Man/Batman), you're probably not going to like high level play all that much.
One problem I always encounter with high level play is the way the big boss monsters are suddenly the nameless mooks. For example, in most campaigns, a lich is the BBEG that controls a nation, or a large cult, or another nefarious organization that the PC's must thwart on their way to mid to high levels. Say the PC's defeat a CR 16 lich when they are 14th level. A 20th level adventure would need a half dozen liches like this to even challenge the party. Which begs the question of why such powerful creatures would gather together when they could be out controlling their own network of villiany much like the CR 16 lich.
Some DM's can pull it off, but my general preference is for 3rd-12th level.
Here's one more comment for the record. A lot of people say that high-level games require more work on the DM's part.
Who says this? Where can i get a copy of this record? And...GM'ing requires time and effort no matter what kind of game the group is playing and at what level...
As ever,
ACE
I would also like to say another thing. It's my personal opinion, so you are entitled, as always, to disagree with me.
It's not the characters or the levels they are at or the classes or equipment or abilities they possess that make the game fun.
I think it boils down to two things:
First, it has to do with the story you are telling.
If you have a bunch of first level characters start out naked, without any equipment, in the middle of a castle's prison (as I had a few of my players do once), the story is one of desperation, survival; every encounter can be tense and/or scary.
Second, it has to do with the people you are interacting with. If the players don't get along well, they are not going to have fun no matter how cool the characters they are playing. Same goes to the DM who fails to bring any excitement to the table: "At the end of the corridor you find six more fiendish ogres wielding masterwork battle axes... roll for initiative...."
Dungeons and Dragons has been described as "cooperative storytelling", a description I think goes quite well. And we all know that truly great stories are all about EMOTION. If you can make your players laugh in comic situations, feel fear during creepy encounters, feel anger at ruthless villains and/or weep about a tragedy you come up with... you can DM for me anytime. By the way, I've never made a player cry (well, unless I killed his lovingly crafted PC, but that's not what I meant). Can anybody out there share a story or two about feeling true sadness in a D&D game?
It won't matter if you are playing an adventure called The Smurfs attack Waterdeep (SAW). If the DM and players really get into it, they will have fun no matter what level his or her smurf has attained.
Who says this? Where can i get a copy of this record? And...GM'ing requires time and effort no matter what kind of game the group is playing and at what level...
As ever,
ACE
Well, you know ... ummm, people ... they say it. And I think I heard it somewhere from ... umm .. you know, the THEM them ... I think. Or something like that.
My players and I always started at level 6, and I thought we always did that because we didn't want to be weak and wussy and not even be able to lay waste to half a kobold village before downing a cure potion. Maybe it was because we wanted to be able to have a chance to play with tangible options, and low-level characters were too restrictive.
We were always onto another campaign by level 10-11, and I always thought it was because we had some kind of Campaign-ttention Deficit Disorder. Maybe we just stopped being able to identify with the characters.
I dunno why we did it, but the thread gives me ideas why, we only really ever played levels 6 through 12.
Wish always came from an item, not the party Wizard. Resurrections were done at the temple, and not by the party cleric. When I stop and think about it, we were pretty pansy...
Usually retire the character about 12th or so level. I like the lower levels because of the choices I have to make..."Can I potentially make it through one more fight with a trio of orc guards or should I quaff the healing potion". The next set of levels, 4-8th, are fun because you start to meet the monsters that can wipe you out fairly quickly with all the funky attacks. The last few levels >12th are where you put in the final touches...meet the CatLord, grab "Wave" out of White Plume, kiss a nymph and survive the death save. or whatever. Actually played a fighter to about 15th or so level and had him start fighting with a weapon he was unfamiliar with in his off-hand, just to make the fights last a little longer (didn't take off the girdle of stormgiant strength, though, I wasn't that dumb). I also remember starting the "Slavers" series with 1st level characters and about an hour in, we were getting our asses handed to us and I noticed the recommended level minimum was 4th ...turned to another player and mentioned that we were outclassed and he said "makes it fun, doncha think?"
4th-8th is probably my fav levels to play.
To me, there are several "phases" that D&D play goes through.
1-2: You're the heroes by DM fiat, not because there's a lot to back you up. One hit can lay most anyone flat, one crit can kill anyone. The party is nervous about most encounters-- a lucky roll can derail the campaign very quickly.
3-8: Solid; the heroes are clearly heroic. A wide range of foes can oppose the group-- the system seems to work very well here.
9-13: The characters are incredible and can do an amazing amount by themselves. You can get into fun extrapolations, PC led plots can change nations. The system starts breaking down; save or die effects start cropping up, making combat very swingy. What the wizard/cleric memorize at the beginning of the day comes to dominate the day's experiences-- guess right, it's a cakewalk, guess wrong and it's a slog.
13+: Spell casting classes dominate, save or die becomes common, already swingy combats become greatly so. Plots can involve very heroic topics and repercussions. Foes become very complex to run; unfamiliar spell casters are horribly slow or way below optimal.
(We haven't played to Epic levels, but I expect 13+ on steroids-- save or die nearly every round going both ways, titanic plots, a wealth of options for spell casters. Non-spellcasters remain relevant for plot/historical reasons, but could take a vacation and little would change.)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I prefer the mid- to low-level range too, but I'm not fond of starting games at level 1. Most of my games start at level 3 or 4 and run until the party's average level is 12. The biggest reason I think the higher levels are unappealing to me and my group is the magic that becomes available. Teleport starts to become common, spells like disintegrate can obliterate even tough opponents on a bad die roll, and the cleric can provide more than enough healing to keep everyone alive for several fights in rapid succession. The save or die effects tend to favor the PCs because most PCs will have higher average saves than monsters of their level (but, I suppose, if you're throwing LOTS of save or die spells at the party, the law of averages will win).
Magic is my biggest reason for stopping around the level 12 mark. Sometimes, if I have grand ambitions for the plot I'm working on, we'll go to 15th level, but usually, 12 or 13 is where it ends for me.
I utterly despise the Epic rules. Balancing on air without the use of magic? Escape Artist checks to PASS THROUGH A WALL OF FORCE?!? Ridiculous, imo.
i never start a game below 8th unless my players ask me to, i hate low level games, one shot can kill a unlucky player so i stopped starting at level 1 and 2, then all the really fun adventures happened between 6th and 10th so i started players at 8th and started rocking, As for how long do the games go? i have had 3 partys get all the way to 27th level, i love the epic games because it really is "Oh no if we dont stop that man the world will be destroyed!!!" as for the rules? meh, if i wanted realisum i would play Cyberpunk.
I'm running a post-Age-of-Worms game from 3rd to 11th, and that seems to be the sweet spot.
5th-15th.
I also like an occasional epic game, but it is difficult to make epic characters or prepare epic adventures.
|
I love playing higher levels -- 12th - 20th.
I love running mid levels -- 5th - 10th.
I have a family, job, and a life (is that allowed?). Keeping track of all the special abilities, spells, options, feats, magic items, etc. of a lot of really high level bad guys is incredibly time consuming and difficult unless you take a fair amount of time to prepare. In contrast, I can whip out a pretty good game at 7th level without cracking a book.
If I had the time, I would prefer high level overall.
Regardless, I prefer to play (and have a family and a life), so for now it will remain at mid levels.
|
|
Personally, I really prefer high levels (10+). As a DM, it allows me the freedom to throw some really cool things at my players and expect them to come up with their own solutions. As a lazy DM this really appeals to me - I can just come up with memorable plots and scenarios that require the PCs to use their high level spells and abilities.
In my own game we just finished up a beefed up version of "Heart of Hellfire Mountain," and the fight against the pit fiend Beltorius (who I gave eight extra fighter levels to) was one of my most memorable scenes in gaming history. There was a point where the half-ogre Ftr12/Dragon Slayer10 ran up to the pit fiend and was literally torn to pieces by Beltorius' furious attacks. The twisted broken body was casually tossed aside by the pit fiend's tail. The gloating roar that Beltorius let out gave the rest of the party pause to reconsider their foolish plan of attack!
So, in ending - high level playing is cool, but it really needs to revolve around memorable scenes (the Hellfire Mountain adventure consisted of four memorable scenes which took a total of two 6 hour gaming sessions).
Do share the memorable scenes, please. I'd love to hear them.
Thoth-Amon
To me, there are several "phases" that D&D play goes through.
My thoughts, perfectly.
I'd always been with the majority here, vastly preferring the low and especially mid levels (3rd - 10th). Then I played a converted "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" and learned what atrocities could be committed at high levels with what I refer to as an "epic style" of play. It was a whole new game, suddenly. We could dispense with a lot of the stealth and careful setup of elaborate schemes for self-preservation, and just attack, and come out looking like Rocky-- or still get whatcked out, if we tried it on the wrong encounter. No way to know in advance that a frontal assault on the necromancers' city would be successful and an incredible amount of fun... nor of knowing that a single winterwight as written in the Epic Level Handbook can TPK a party that doesn't take it seriously enough. This magnified the uncertainty level in the game, in a way, and added a bunch of fun. I love all levels now, except maybe 25+; it's time to retire your characters, at that point.
Low level, experienced players find themselves weak and lacking in options. One or two spells, no combat options except "run in and hit". Once you know the rules like the back of your hand, first level can be downright boring, at least without the supplementary experiences of character acting, story, tactical miniatures or perhaps extra difficulty.
High level gets harder to run. I've had one player find themselves baffled by the sheer number of options a twelfth level cleric has. I think she retired to take over from Kireth Trantle as high priest of the Pelorite temple in Istivin.
As much as I like all levels, the higher level games are the best for me. There's a lot more work involved, sure, but the payoff is worth it. Players love it when they've reached that level where they can blast something with horrid wilting or whatever, or have reached a level where they can confront a balor and feel like they stand a chance. A creative DM is always having to throw the PCs curve balls ("Hey! I didn't know a balor could do THAT!") but keeping them on their toes is part of the fun.
I don't agree that the game becomes too unbalanced at high level, that it degenerates to make-your-save-or-die, at least no more so than any other level. First level PCs? Please! One hit and your out. The game does get more complicated and a lot of stuff (like teleport) becomes second nature but is that a bad thing? Nah, it just means the DM's gotta provide adventures that still challenge the players regardless of their abilities.
I think that high levels are more fun if the PCs started from first and got there the hard way. PCs built at high levels fell more like an exercise in chariter optimisation. The fights are a lot more work and can go down-hill for either side with one unlucky saving throw. i enjoy running all levels (my currant group is at level 12) but i like the PCs to earn them through leveling. ive tried starting at 6th level but it didn't feel right.
I think that high levels are more fun if the PCs started from first and got there the hard way. PCs built at high levels fell more like an exercise in chariter optimisation. The fights are a lot more work and can go down-hill for either side with one unlucky saving throw. i enjoy running all levels (my currant group is at level 12) but i like the PCs to earn them through leveling. ive tried starting at 6th level but it didn't feel right.
I totally agree with you on this, Drig. Creating characters at a high level to start is a chore. Nothing beats building a party from the ground up and ultimately getting to the higher level monsters you've wanted to try for so long.
I think that high levels are more fun if the PCs started from first and got there the hard way. PCs built at high levels fell more like an exercise in character optimisation...
I totally agree with you on this, Drig...
So do I :)