Levels & Legends

[dwayanu]

Sometimes I find myself remembering pretty basic things I had forgotten.

Geoffrey has inspired some discussion of treating Holmes Basic as a game complete in itself. Some folks play a variation on 3E called "E6" (for "Epic Sixth Level").

I think one reason many people prefer what others would call "low-level" play is that they find character abilities beyond some point too unprecedented in their sources of inspiration. Further experience levels may get into a realm evocative to them more of superhero comic books than of classic sword-and-sorcery fiction.

However ... the habit of thinking in established D&D terms, perhaps of the game as a sort of genre unto itself, can sometimes throw a wrench in the works. The thought of a "giant," dragon" or "demon" may automatically conjure associated "stats" putting such a foe out of the league of lower-level heroes. Yet, those very heroes might be capable of defeating such monsters in fiction.

One solution is to keep an appropriate description of a monster and its significance, while using game ratings scaled down along with the new measure of what makes a "high-level" character.

To a significant degree, what makes monsters more challenging is not simply more hit dice or bigger damage rolls but unusual abilities. Perhaps more to the point, such qualitative distinctions are what make them most recognizable.

This "filing off the serial numbers" principle has application regardless of character level. Take the stats for a bugbear or ogre, but describe it differently, and you've got a new monster. Add the abilities of flight and fiery breath, and it can be a classic dragon -- or an infernal spawn of Hell.

[dwayanu]

In a broader sense, context makes a big difference in how players perceive game events.

Think, for instance, of the Conan story "The Tower of the Elephant." The sense of a time abyss and of awesome significance that Yag-kosha brings to the affair makes it much more than just another burglary.

Likewise, the defeat of a horde of "nobodies" is likely to be less memorable than ending the depredations of the infamous Black Circle.

Such significance need not depend on the hit dice of the foes. Even first-level characters are exceptional relative to normal men, not only in their capabilities but in what they dare.

[jjarvis]

Reputation an presence in the campaign mean a lot and can directly influence play. Which battle is going to be more meaningful?
1. A Fight with a maxed out hp Hill Giant
or
2. a fight with The Giant Gothmog, the guardian of the grey pass, devourer of Sir Dermold, who does bear a great club the dwarves of Andar call Haavad-bress <skull-wrack in common> (who just happens to be a Hill Giant).

[Finarvyn]

Dunno for sure if this is what you are trying to get at, but I think that there are a couple of issues to consider.

1. The scale of the campaign can be more mundane or epic and the characters tend to adjust to fit these parameters. For example, the Silmarillion is very epic but the Lord of the Rings is more mundane. If I want to run a campaign where characters deal with deities I set it up differently than if I want them to struggle with a band of orcs.

2. The interpretation of the rules can define much of #1 above. When running OD&D more like Chainmail, where a Hero gets 4 attacks or a Super Hero gets 8 attacks, 4th and 8th level characters tend to be very impressive. If we shift to the alternate combat system and define a single attack for each character, 4th and 8th levels don't seem as fantastic anymore.

3. Literature tends to emphasize individuals rather than rabid packs of characters, and I think that impacts the levels of characters used. Do you really want a character who can single-handedly defeat a dragon, and if you do what level would that character need to be? The adventuring party tends to add so many more resources compared to an individual character that levels can’t afford to become too spectacular, or else fantastic opponents become easy to overcome.

So, I run “low level” games because I like the feel of the game, because I tend to give low level characters more oomph, and because as a party the characters are already pretty powerful even at 4th level.

Just my two coppers.

[edsan]

Mar 4, 2009 8:16:19 GMT -6 jjarvis said:

Reputation an presence in the campaign mean a lot and can directly influence play. Which battle is going to be more meaningful?
1. A Fight with a maxed out hp Hill Giant
or
2. a fight with The Giant Gothmog, the guardian of the grey pass, devourer of Sir Dermold, who does bear a great club the dwarves of Andar call Haavad-bress <skull-wrack in common> (who just happens to be a Hill Giant).

This reminds me of something I have often felt: that RPG adventures, particularly of the S&S/Fantasy kind can be a whole lot more enjoyable with the use of...well, "smoke and mirrors" so to speak.

What I mean is that the excitement derived from a perceived threat to the characters and overcoming it, in the mind of a players, is much greater if it comes not from mathematics and stats ("hey, it's a 12HD creature immune to normal weapons.") but from the image of the threat as presented by the GM's descriptions, like your Gothmog.

I have had players almost soiling themselves in fear for their PCs (ok, I exaggerate slightly ) and then bask in the sweet glow of victory as they overcome a pitiful challenge or foe who in their minds had been perceived as immense and very threatening.

I have also had players overcoming what I assumed would be a major threat (from its stats) quickly and fearlessly because of devilish dice-luck. Turning what I expected would be a major confrontation and source of amusement in to a "meh-moment".

[Zulgyan]

I think that playing OD&D from level 1 to 10 is about fine in modeling what you are aiming at. A party of 10th level characters can have a fair fight against ANY creature in the books, and can even battle gods and powerful demons.

That said, they are not unkillable and invinsible. A big group of 3HD or 4HD types (troll, ogres) can be really a very tought fight.

Almost every battle will expend resources and hit points, since OD&D characters are easier to hit. So they can´t fight forever and keep going as nothing

This scale works beatiful IMO.

[waysoftheearth]

Game scale is something I've spent a lot of (too much?) time thinking about. What is the right scale for an enjoyable game?

I guess in the end it comes down to what the players enjoy -- but I have to agree that perception is everything. A climactic fight versus an Ogre can be just as dramatic as versus a Dragon -- thou there is going to be a lot less loot! And ever increasing loot is a driving force for a lot of adventurers (and their players).

Personally, I prefer the low end game and a shallower power curve as PCs level up. Maybe that's because every low end PC starts with all the promise of what they might become -- maybe because high end PCs are that much more complicated to manage. Maybe it's because (considering PC mortality) most gaming is at low levels. Maybe for no better reason that "just because", but there it is.

After thinking about all this for a long while I've made some changes in my game. Ordinary mortals (0th level) and 1st level PCs are a bit tougher, and there is less of an "increment" gained at each new level. My game only goes as high as level 12, but no one as got anywhere near that far yet -- which doesn't matter a whole lot because there are plenty of mighty foes to be faced at low levels.

[dwayanu]

Party size is definitely a big factor. The more characters teamed up against a monster, the lower their levels when one monster is not enough to work up a sweat.

On the other hand, the more damage a monster can dish out in a round versus any given opponent, the more dangerous it is to characters with fewer than some number of hit points.

Boosting a fire giant from an average of 9 points per hit to an average of 17.5 (almost double) with Supplement I or the MM is an example. In the former case, an average character with 3d6 hit dice can (barely) survive an average hit. In the latter case, the damage is 5d6.

Suppose it takes 12 hits to down the giant, and 8 fighting men (of levels 4-6) score an average of 3.2 hits per round -- so it probably takes them 4 rounds to down the monster. With a 70% chance to hit AC 2, it's likely to hit a couple (maybe three) of the men in return.

It's going to hurt to be among those, but it's not as risky for a 4th-level fighter with the lower damage. With the higher damage, 6th level is about the minimum to join that band unless one is really reckless.

Going up to the 7-9 attack column cuts the fight on average to just 2 to 3 rounds. Magic weapons could have a similar effect, but HP are still at a premium given the chance that someone is going to "take one for the team."

[waysoftheearth]

Party size definitely is a big factor -- bring along some hired spears en masse! Having mercenary fighting-men about might also lessen the odds of a PC being the one to take a hit for the team.

On the other-hand, against a nasty fire giant, the monster's intimidating bellow might be enough to make most of those hired spears soil their hose and flee before the they ever come to blows

[Finarvyn]

Some discussion is happening at Matt’s WB Forum if you haven’t found it. One of my recent posts has to do with the “scale” of character levels, and I think it fits OD&D just as much as WB:

A 4th level fighter is a "Hero" and an 8th level fighter is a "Super Hero." This forms the basis of my scaling. A lone character who has a whole series (Conan comes to mind) is probably a Super Hero in my campaign, whereas a character part of a party is more likely a Hero. My scale is roughly like this:
1 = flunky
2 = warrior
4 = hero
6 = champion
8 = super hero
10 = top PC
12 = top NPC

Here's roughly how I would stat out levels for the fellowship:
1 = flunky = the hobbits (early on)
2 = warrior = the hobbits (near the end of LOTR)
4 = hero = Gimli, Legolas, Boromir
6 = champion = Aragorn
8 = super hero
10 = top PC = Gandalf, Saruman
12 = top NPC = Sauron

I don't give Aragorn "Super Hero" status becasue he's not a single star of the show like Conan, but he's clearly better than the other Heroes so I nudge him up a little.

Fafhrd & Grey Mouser get 4-6 levels, depending upon how much you want to push them up. I'd keep 'em under 8th since neither is "the star" but since they form a duo they might be more mighty than a Hero. Maybe give Fafhrd level 4 fighter, level 2 thief so that he gets 6 total levels. Mouser might be level 3 fighter, level 2 thief, level 1 MU to give him an equal number.

Again, this is just my way of doing things. Remember that Chainmail says that Super Heroes are "Few and far between, these fellows are one-man armies!" This is really what helped guide me.

Hope that helps!

[snorri]

I would argue, btb, that Aragorn is level 5: "Rangers are Hero-types with a +1 on
attack dice.", in Chainmail, p. 30. More or less, it supports your view he's not a superhero.

[badger2305]

Eek. Be careful about trying to map Tolkien onto D&D. This is what led to the somewhat infamous "Gandalf Was Only A 5th Level Magic-User" article.

[harami2000]

Apr 11, 2009 10:38:33 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Eek. Be careful about trying to map Tolkien onto D&D. This is what led to the somewhat infamous "Gandalf Was Only A 5th Level Magic-User" article.

*g*. Good ol' Bill... No love for Platinum Dragons, eh?

Yeah, Tolkien didn't make the move to Lake Geneva: any such comparisons best left well alone.