In your opinion, is a low-level gaming experience better?

[Kuja]

I'll throw in my 2c for the 5-10 bracket as well. A caster really doesn't come into his own until level 5 or so, at which point you start gaining access to the really fun blastyblasty spells. Even melee classes experience some of this, since at around 5-6 they finally gain enough abilities/feats to come into their own as the Immovable Objects or professional lawnmowers. Below that, you're constantly crapping yourself hoping you don't bite off more than you can chew and that nothing comes along to crit your face off in one round. But once you're past that, folks relax a little bit because they know they have a greater margin for error (though a good DM will still keep reminding them of just how squishy they can be) and when folks are a little more relaxed about their characters, I find that games tend to proceed much more enjoyably.

Unless someone decides to be an asshole, but we won't get into that.

[xammer99]

This is an interesting thread with a couple of facets. Normally I don't post here b/c of the vitriol most folks spew, but this one I'll take a crack at.

1. Me: I've been playin RPGs for over 20 years now, with a good 75%+ of it being as a DM, so my answers will reflect my experiences as a DM above all else. I started w/ the old red box and that cheesy little solo adventure as the Lawful Fighter that I always get nostalgic over.

2. D&D sucking: 3e certainly has its pros and cons, but I've played more systems in my 20+ years now than I can count and with more groups than I care to admit. This has taught me a few universal truths about judging systems. If the players & the DM sucks, then no system will make the game good. Conversly, if you enjoy the players & the DM, then any system can be good. Be that system H.O.L.E., 3e, GURPS, or anything else. So it is not accurate to say 3e sucks, it is instead accurate (especially given its market dominance) to say that 3e sucks for you or more likely, you've just had bad experiences with it being run & played.

For me, I like 3e. Is it perfect? No, but it beats the alternatives I've tried.

Pros:
1. Easy to learn. Its a simple & straight forward system that offers some nice complexities as well.

2. Its easy to DM. All the extra tools out there, expecially the character creators, make it easier to DM.

3. It has many extras. The WotC backing gives it you lots of extra stuff being created that can give ya plenty of nifty extra stuff to run with and help a player & DM out in coming up with somethin cool.

Cons:
1. There is SO much player material. If a DM is not careful and forceful, then his game will get out of control as everyone goes scrambling for the most munchkiny crap they can.

2. The system is written with a steep reliance on magic items in its core. That lends itself to monty hall games unfortunately easily.

3. There is SO much DM material. All the tons of suppliments, modules, and stuff makes it easy to be a lazy DM and just run "Monster Manual" games where said DM cracks open the MM and runs games out of it.

Regardless of all this, things still come back to that single immutable fact. If the players & the DM suck, then the game won't be fun. Further, if you get a player in your group who is actively disdainful of the system being run (no matter what system) then the game will suffer.

Now, back to the central question....what levels are fun.

As a DM it breaks down like this for me....

Level 1-2: I enjoy these very much as a DM because of the thrill and threat of it. Players are cautious and don't go charging in, they play smarter. But its a bit to easy to get killed for'em. As was stated, one bad crit and the ball game is over.

Level 3-9: This is my personal "sweet spot" as a DM. Things can be challenging, but foes & stories do not have to be utterly fantastic to make it so. Instead numerous of smaller, less skilled warriors, orcs, and such can present a challenge to the players. Its when I start throwing more political challenges at the players to overcome instead of meerly physical ones.

Level 10+: This is frankly where the game starts breaking down again for me because it returns to the same problem of level 1-2. Instead of damage being the primary threat in a fight, death effects begin to reign. So instead of facing an unlucky crit dropping you, you are faced with an unlucky save. Also this is where the magic item curve starts catching up and a character becomes less of a character/role and more of an artillery platform for the horde of items. Its also where the power gamers who've been optimizing their characters start to really stand out from those who've been roleplaying more.

Now, this is not to say that 10+ sucks, it doesn't have too, but its not as fun for me to DM.

As a player, level matters even less. If I have a good DM who is in his comfort zone, then I'll have a good time as a player. IF the DM's comfort zone is high level games, then it'll be a good game. If its low, then it'll be good too. Just so long as the Dm can wrap his brain around it and get it right.

[Coalition]

One page that I enjoy looking at for updates The Alexandrian, this specific page shows what happens (towards the bottom) if you focus your NPCs on specific tasks. Look for the 1st level blacksmith, who can 'take 10', and produce masterwork stuff.

Einstein, from that page, is a 5th level expert.

So you can introduce them to a village of 1-3rd level people, and there are a surprising number of really capable people there. A third level tracker, with all of his skills and feats focused on tracking, will be able to lead them to lots of places, correctly.

As for sorcerers, it looks like they are changing spells to be one of three categories: 1/day, 1/encounter (or several hours), and once per turn. As you get higher levels, the spells can be done faster. I.e. a sorceror might be able to cast a single fireball per day (affects lots of enemies, and does lots of damage), a firebolt once every few hours (lots of damage, one enemy), and magic missile repeatedly (one enemy, low damage).

This keeps the sorcerer's player from thinking 'my character was designed to have 5 fights per day. If I only get in three, I'll be more likely to survive'. Now the player is thinking whether to use their once per day fireball spell, while also looking for a tough opponent to use the firebolt spells as well. In the meantime, the sorcerer is popping off magic missiles to deal steady damage to weaker targets.

It also avoids the issue with a 20th level spellcaster cleaning out several levels of hell, leaving with only a couple hit points, and getting killed by a goblin with a dagger. That wizard would have used up his 2-3 Meteor storm spells, but if it has been a couple hours since the last fight, he still has fireball spells, and even if he just escaped from a fight he can cast firebolts every turn.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I get tired of the argument that rules don't matter because good players and GM's will have fun with a shitty system. You can learn to hit bullseyes with a rifle that has a curved barrel and kaleidoscope sights if you practice enough, but you'll never be as good as if you had spent the same amount of time with something that was well designed in the first place. I find the whole idea that you can separate rules from roleplaying to be laughable. If the rules don't produce believable outcomes and the cause and effect relationships are nonsensical, then you're fumbling around with no perspective, and roleplaying suffers.

Superhero systems and fantasy systems shouldn't be kludged together, and I suspect that the reason a lot of people prefer low levels is because it still resembles fantasy and not superhero. A system where you don't gain HP or increased damage as you level and where magical items aren't an integral part of the system that every character is expected to have a huge stash of remains interesting at higher levels, especially if it doesn't subscribe to the common meme that all non-adventurers are low level. You can't really have every knight in the kingdom be a 16th level fighter in D&D because it mashes fantasy together with superhero, and a 16th level fighter is a virtual god among mortals. With a system that's truer to its setting you can keep some perspective and not let the PC's shoot ahead of all the "mere mortals" so quickly.

[Covenant]

That's a really good point--there's a sort of uneasy evolution from fantasy where combat is deadly and foes are terrifying... to epic fantasy where you're the equal to ten Orcs but a large beastie will still make you run and hide, kinda a Tolkein level, to the level of super-heroics. I really like superhero games, but it's not a real happy transitional period.

Are there many/any levelless systems for fantasy games? Besides a GURPS type thing, or is that about it? I think the treadmill of levels is aggrivating--I much more prefer a feeling of skill increase to moderate degrees, more like what you see in a serial television show. Your Daniel Jackson doesn't end up smiting universes with his mind, but he does stop falling into allergic fits everytime he steps into the scene, and can actually fight later.

It seems like D&D has such a dominating presence in RPG materials though that a vast majority of fantasy games are highly level-centric.

[General Zod]

Are there many/any levelless systems for fantasy games? Besides a GURPS type thing, or is that about it?

Exalted is levelless due to using the Storyteller system, but then again most of it would be considered fairly high-level stuff in D&D, so I'm not entirely sure if it counts. Of course, I also haven't kept track of any changes that they might have made since first edition. . .

[Stark]

I wholeheartedly agree with Arthur. While you can make do with any engine (I've played a Palladium game lol) it is hardly as desirable as just using better rules.

The idea that D&D now indulges in MMO-style patching and balancing amuses me a great deal, however.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm fairly sure the problem with GMing high level games - and I'm an expert because I've never, ever played DnD before - is that they don't throw enough curveballs at their epic level players. And by 'curveball' I mean 'self depreciating silliness'. Or variation of same.

I mean, you have a bunch of righteous heroes with the sort of power that obliterates entire cultures of bestial near-humans on a pretty regular basis. Why don't you have them direct that to something constructive, such as taking over the world? The potential comedy almost writes itself. Good times all 'round.

[Stark]

In the 90s, that kind of 'let's actually let the power-levels take the campaign somewhere consistent and interesting' was outrageously out-of-the-box thinking. Everyone was just fixed in the idea that D&D was one sort of thing (usually dungeon crawls and half-assed war campaigns).

It's amusing when you think that most RPG players are cripplingly unimaginative... when the whole bloody point is imagination.

[MJ12 Commando]

Exalted is levelless due to using the Storyteller system, but then again most of it would be considered fairly high-level stuff in D&D, so I'm not entirely sure if it counts. Of course, I also haven't kept track of any changes that they might have made since first edition. . .

You can play a "heroic mortal" Exalted campaign. It's also INCREDIBLY brutal at that level, and magic is quite rare. Exalted can be played at low level (and the combat mechanics at that point no longer have the problems you see in Exalt-versus-Exalt combat), but, well...

You don't appreciate that free pass versus disease and infection they give, the ability of Exalts to always heal correctly instead of needing to get their bones set, and the ability to draw your wounds closed without medical aid until you suddenly don't have any of 'em.

[Lusankya]

I believe that in D&D, the different classes are also the best balanced in levels 5-10. In the early levels, the fighter-types are pretty much owning the game, while the wizard is hiding behind a rock wishing that he and his 5hp could do something once he's exhausted his magic missile. On the other hand, non-casters get seriously gypped later on, because spells tend to get exponentially more powerful, while feats scale linearly (assuming they're that great to begin with, and to be honest, most of them aren't).

[Rogue 9]

Wizards can still dominate the game at lower levels; it's just more difficult. Sleep, for instance, is pretty much a win button.

That aside though, I almost always start my games at lower levels. Mind, our campaigns are long-running and we'll take characters from first level to epic over the course of two years real time (and they still want me to come up with something else for those characters to do, months after finishing the main story arc). Creating a character at high level can be fun, but it's not as satisfying as building one from first level on up.

[Civil War Man]

You can play a "heroic mortal" Exalted campaign. It's also INCREDIBLY brutal at that level, and magic is quite rare. Exalted can be played at low level (and the combat mechanics at that point no longer have the problems you see in Exalt-versus-Exalt combat), but, well...

And if that isn't masochistic enough, there are Mortal sourcebooks, where you just play some ordinary shmo. That's trivial to convert to fantasy genre, since you just give them swords and bows instead of guns.

[SCRawl]

Wizards can still dominate the game at lower levels; it's just more difficult. Sleep, for instance, is pretty much a win button.

I think that "dominate" is overstating it by a fair margin. Wizards can be useful, or even essential, at low levels; a well-timed spell can mean the difference between life and death for the party. But to say that they can be a dominant force at low levels is misleading. They have fewer spells per day than they can count on one hand (the majority of which won't be very useful in the context of a fight), and they are next to useless in combat.

As I said in an earlier post, the low-level MU is such a fragile creature that he practically has to be rolled up in bubble wrap until needed, and then put away again afterwards. Useful, but hardly dominant. At least in terms of overcoming enemies, the fighter classes surely dominate at the very low levels.

[Edi]

Depends on the system whether low or high level is better. D&D? I don't play that shit anymore. Precisely because it's so horribly broken shit that I would have to spend so much time tryiong to work around the rules instead of with them. If I want a D&D type system, I'll go back to Arcanum. I'd rather play with the old 2nd Edition DragonQuest system any day. In that system, it's actually better once you do get some experience and manage to level some skill ranks in some stuff so that instead of being a complete neophyte, you can actually do something.

Some of the magic gets fairly ridiculous if you manage to get it to high Rank, but the characters are still more or less as fragile as they were when they started out. So that single goblin with a chipped sword is still dangerous if he gets in close and manages a critical hit.

For a science fiction type game, I'm partial to Star Frontiers, which was a damned good system to work with. Most of the equipment stuff you could change as much as you wanted. It was the starship rules expansion that was so low tech and kludgy that we ended up rewriting almost all of it and we had ten years of fun with that campaign.

[Imperial Overlord]

High powered adventurers (leaving aside the whole "how badly does D&D suck argument?") can't be run like low level adventures and some people try to do exactly that. I've had fun as both, but do to running far too many low level mages in D&D campaigns in high school in campaigns that ended before they hit mid level, I can't stand low level D&D as a player. I've had fun running and playing in high powered and low powered campaigns. Both can be well run. It takes more work to run a good high powered campaign, but its rewarding.

The game mechanics do matter. Yes, you can partially overcome the limitations of a bad system, but that takes time and effort that isn't being spent on the game.

For fantasy RPGs, I have big soft spots for WFRP and Earthdawn.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That's a really good point--there's a sort of uneasy evolution from fantasy where combat is deadly and foes are terrifying... to epic fantasy where you're the equal to ten Orcs but a large beastie will still make you run and hide, kinda a Tolkein level, to the level of super-heroics. I really like superhero games, but it's not a real happy transitional period.

Are there many/any levelless systems for fantasy games? Besides a GURPS type thing, or is that about it? I think the treadmill of levels is aggrivating--I much more prefer a feeling of skill increase to moderate degrees, more like what you see in a serial television show. Your Daniel Jackson doesn't end up smiting universes with his mind, but he does stop falling into allergic fits everytime he steps into the scene, and can actually fight later.

It seems like D&D has such a dominating presence in RPG materials though that a vast majority of fantasy games are highly level-centric.

Tensided has no levels, no HP progresssion, and moderate skill progression.

P.S. Whenever I gripe about things I hate in RPG's, my proposed alternative is always Tensided.

[Lord Poe]

I played D&D during high school and a bit after. I stopped when some male players had their female characters hitting on my male character.

=shudder=

[Stark]

Man, Edi ruled D&D way better than I do.

Tensided is very neat. Avoiding all the power-inflation balance issues (even if you like huge power games, power inflation usually causes balance issues anyway) and having a character system not based on 87,000 feats/perks/etc is definately a step in the right direction.

[Coalition]

Are there many/any levelless systems for fantasy games? Besides a GURPS type thing, or is that about it? I think the treadmill of levels is aggrivating--I much more prefer a feeling of skill increase to moderate degrees, more like what you see in a serial television show.

One game I enjoyed (before our group broke up for Christmas) was Legend of the Five Rings. You are a samurai in Japan, trying to keep the empire in order, killing uppity peasants, and defeating the demons trying to invade from the Shadowlands, while upholding the honor of the Emperor.

Still, you could houserule a no-levels option for D&D. Make a steadily increasing XP requirement for better skills and stats, more feats, better saving throws, etc. People keep track of total XP received and spent, so the GM can tweak the requirements as the group goes along.

Of course, the one thing that should be done for a character is that of the XP spent, at least half of it has to go to skills that were used. This is so you don't get the fighter defeating wave after wave of desert raiders to improve his swimming skill.

[Darth Raptor]

Yeah, for anyone sick of the same old shit, I'd definitely recommend Tensided. The things I like most are how combat is realistic without being complicated, and the random element stays relevant from beginning to end. It has an "anything can happen" feel to it and not in the lame "what logic, lol?" way that d20 does. Instead, your characters are putting their lives on the line in a fair approximation of reality. And yeah, it is deadly, but not masochistic. While even a n00b can surprise you and a master can fail hard, the impact of luck is well-balanced with everything else. Skills and equipment are still very important.

As for the thread topic: My best experiences have also been in that midling range. Since I play wizards more often than I don't, I hate the impotent low levels, but also the boredom of high-to-epic. Yeah, I suppose it would be great if the DM did fun stuff like "now YOU guys take over the world", but that never happens.

[LadyTevar]

I believe that in D&D, the different classes are also the best balanced in levels 5-10. In the early levels, the fighter-types are pretty much owning the game, while the wizard is hiding behind a rock wishing that he and his 5hp could do something once he's exhausted his magic missile. On the other hand, non-casters get seriously gypped later on, because spells tend to get exponentially more powerful, while feats scale linearly (assuming they're that great to begin with, and to be honest, most of them aren't).

D&D fixed some of the balance issues with fighters when they introduced the Book of Nine Swords aka Tome of Battle. Having a 15th level warrior who can make two attacks on all adjacent opponents with a +4 bonus to each strike really makes up the difference. The Maneuvers outlined in the Tome really give warriors an edge up in the BadAss area... so much so that the MagicUser dual-classed just so he could deal out some of the pain like I was.

[Ford Prefect]

I believe that in D&D, the different classes are also the best balanced in levels 5-10. In the early levels, the fighter-types are pretty much owning the game, while the wizard is hiding behind a rock wishing that he and his 5hp could do something once he's exhausted his magic missile. On the other hand, non-casters get seriously gypped later on, because spells tend to get exponentially more powerful, while feats scale linearly (assuming they're that great to begin with, and to be honest, most of them aren't).

D&D fixed some of the balance issues with fighters when they introduced the Book of Nine Swords aka Tome of Battle. Having a 15th level warrior who can make two attacks on all adjacent opponents with a +4 bonus to each strike really makes up the difference. The Maneuvers outlined in the Tome really give warriors an edge up in the BadAss area... so much so that the MagicUser dual-classed just so he could deal out some of the pain like I was.

Oh man, I remember that ludicrous Paladin 4/Crusader 1/Ruby Knight Vindicator 10/Grey Guard 5 combo Nitram put together when I asked him to make a bunch of broken characters. Designed to abuse the Tome of Battle exquisitely. Good times.

[Mr Bean]

The problem with high end combat is that casters can't be balanced. Not with the spells given. I don't care if your 20th Level fighter has AC 35 a +5 Platemail with half a dozen enchantments and a +7 Vorpal Sword of Munchinking. A 14th Level Wizard can wipe the floor with him. How? Fly+Greater Invisibilty or a Wand of Invisibility+ Damage dealing spell of your choice.

Ahh but in conditions X with situation Y I could counter that!
Ok, no problem because here's another one Disjunction, oh look all your magic equipment is just so much metal now.

Or how about maximised Enervation with a true strike?
Illusion magic combined with trap the soul?
Reverse Gravity+Primsatic wall?
Or the old Forcecage+Cloudkill or Acidic fog?
Or any one of the other save or die spells magic users have access to, Finger of Death, Imprisonment, Weyrid ect.

That's the issue, once most casters get their fifth level spells the fighters(Even with the source books) start falling behind, once they have access to eight level spells, the fighter types are in the dust.

While a 20th level fighter needs roughly one million gold worth of magic items to be as powerful as a naked Sorcerer with a high Charisma and 12 levels in his class and Eschew materials. And that's why high end campaigns are rarely that good in D&D because once you start hitting the Epic end of things you best come up with some damn good justification why all these uber critters are running around and trying to off your PC. Rather than a monster manual A-Z throwing of monsters at them.

[Uraniun235]

Epic is just ridiculous anyway.

You forgot to mention that because of the save-or-dies, high-level casters are pretty vicious against other high-level casters as well - it basically comes down to whoever shoots first.