What do you enjoy more - low level RPGs or high level RPGs?

[Wyrmlord]

As a teenager, I always preferred the epic scope of a high level party fighting lots of high level enemies.

The logic was obvious and simple. Bigger is better. Go heavy or go home. If it doesn't involve either side doing five attacks per turn, each doing damage of five times a medium level enemy's hitpoints, then it's a dull affair. Half a dozen summoned pit fiends and lots of crashing meteors should be littering the battlefield.

It's why I preferred Hordes of the Underdark over the other NWN campaigns (although it was better for other reasons too). It's why I never imported a character from NWN2 and always started MotB from scratch. It's why I liked BG2 more than BG1. Or why I played Fallout so slowly that there would be a larger mutant army, thus giving more XP and thus a higher level PC. Or why Icewind Dale 2 was a joy to solo as a Sorcerer on Heart of Fury mode.

But I have slowly changed my mind just about this year or last year. Having played enough of BG2, I found a new joy in BG1. Going from 2 magic missiles to 3 magic missiles changes a fight incredibly. Using the Web spell and Potions of Freedom completely changes the tide of a fight, as opposed to being an impotent tactic in BG2. And then I think there was a lot more tension in Fallout when it was a coin's toss difference between you and your enemy being shredded to pieces instantly. I no longer derive pleasure from my current Sorcerer HoF in ID2 and want to go back to the simpler low level fights of ID1. Even in a simpler, dumbed down game like KotOR, I have gone from finding Taris dull (as a 13 year old) to finding Taris much better than the rest of KotOR (at 22).

So what do you guys prefer?

 

[Regvard]

Depends on encounters. As a high level party, you have more options for dealing with enemies. Though it is meaningless if the encounter design is bad and you can just roflstomp your way through with Horrid Wilting or some such.

That's why, ideally, you would have a party start at lower levels and gradually progress while encounters get more complicated and challenging. Best of both worlds.

Though no encounter design can stand up to min/maxing idiots. Stop playing the same game 12312312 times.

 

[laclongquan]

Depend on the design.

The joy of customizating your char in class, skills, perks is what's so great about the start of BG2, NWN2 MOTB, and cheat starting FNV at level 30 (using addlevel and a slower leveling mod).

On the other hand, there's much to be said about playing FNV at low level (using slower leveling mod).

It's entirely dependant on two factors: options in combat and role-play.

 

[Commissar Draco]

As Gentlemen above said both are fun... although when playing second seventh time to check Easter eggs I might cheat a bit to skip the slow beginning.

 

[sser]

I don't have much of a preference for either one, but I do believe "low level" type gameplay tends to foster better storytelling.

"High level" gameplay tends to equate to fan fiction levels of derivative and uninspired shit.

 

[Lilura]

Using the Web spell and Potions of Freedom completely changes the tide of a fight, as opposed to being an impotent tactic in BG2.

Impotent?
Web is still extremely OP in BG2, ToB and even Ascension because they can be loaded into sequencers and stacked down to carpet the ground. Hordes of fire giants can be rendered immobile and I have defeated Ascension bossfight encounters without taking damage thanks to Web. Not bad for a level 2 spell...

Only in SCS2 is Web less effective due to enemies cheating (Invisibility sometimes bestows free action status, see SCS2 Ascension Illasera fight) or having multi-layered spell protections.

Edit- I should add you don't need sequencers for Web to be effective, BG2 has means to get faster cast-time and companions are arcane-heavy. And in BG1 you don't necessarily need Free Action status because archery is very effective, meaning you don't need to wade into the AoE to kill the immobilised enemies.

 

[Mezebriel]

I think it all depends on combat mechanics in said games. For example i liked "high leveled" trickster dante in dmc3 more than low leveled one just becouse he had more skills at his disposal. But then when i think about bg2 and nwn2 motb with full spellcasters party... it makes me think of micromanagement hell. While at low level in tactics games like fft there were skills to be used... low levels in bg and h&s like diablo were just autoattacks till enemy (or you) died.

 

[MicoSelva]

Recently we seem to be having an outburst of epic-level, um, 'RPGs' (dragons attack!, reapers attack!, an army of darkspawn attacks!), so I have a tendency to look in the other direction, but it does not mean I don't like high-level RPGs.

Both types have their advantages over the other. Commiting yourself to one or the other seems like a narrow-minded approach. Sometimes You want to banish a demon lord back to hell (Watcher's Keep ), sometimes you want to run some errands for a crazy old lady in the slums (The Hive Ward ). It depends on the mood, and it's nice to have the variety to choose from.

 

[Zeriel]

Like MicoSelva said, ideally, a bit of both is nice. I like a long, well-rounded game where you do a lot of low-level stuff establishing yourself and the fiction, then finish off with something suitably epic.

Games that are nothing but epic encounters tend to get pretty trite, and the over-use of "THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!oneoneone" creates this weird effect where you don't take anything seriously. I think that's where most of my love of "low-level" stuff comes from: an associated tendency to favor quasi-realism over batshit insane heroics.

 

[St. Toxic]

I like cleaning basements from rats and attics from spiders for a handful of coins and a pat on the back.

 

[Zeriel]

Beats doing it because your country told you to, I guess? Money is money!

 

[Kem0sabe]

Both, high level offers more variety in terms of encounter design and overall game concepts (you can face gods and other extremely powerful creatures), low level on the other hand allows you to identify more with the characters and have a more "realistic" experience, something i enjoy a lot.

 

[St. Toxic]

Beats doing it because your country told you to, I guess? Money is money!

Heh. What kind of shitty country tells its citizens to kill rats in basements? Though I guess the Liberal could have answered that one.

 

[octavius]

Generally I find CRPG are most fun when you are over the hurdle where you don't have many options but to whack the monsters with a weapon and only hitting 1/10 of the time, and before it all becomes a cheese fest.
As others have mentioned, at higher levels you have more options and can have more varied encounter design. This is definitely true for the Gold Box games, and the high level Dark Queen of Krynn and Pools of Darkness are my favourites.
But I soon lost interest in Baldur's Gate when starting the Throne of Bhaal expansion, and I actually prefer BG1, escpecially if modded with SCS.

 

[JarlFrank]

Mid-level RPGs. Low level is crap due to there being way too much reliance on random chance (one lucky roll can decide combat) and too little tactical variety (since everyone has starter gear and only few abilities and spells). High level is crap due to HP bloat and due to your characters usually being overpowered.

My favourite level range in D&D is levels 5 to 10.

 

[ghostdog]

It depends on the ruleset.

For instance, high level D&D sucks dwarf cock.

 

[MicoSelva]

Mid-level RPGs. Low level is crap due to there being way too much reliance on random chance (one lucky roll can decide combat) and too little tactical variety (since everyone has starter gear and only few abilities and spells). High level is crap due to HP bloat and due to your characters usually being overpowered.

This only applies to D&D ruleset and its derivatives, quite a narrow-minded approach.

 

[Gord]

Mid-range obviously.
5-15 +/-1

Good variety of abilities, spells and enemies, therefore not as boring as low level, but at the same time without the bloat and implausibility of epic levels.

 

[Irenaeus]

At times, I like extreme levels for variety, both low and high, but most fun happens at mid-levels.

 

[TeknoBM]

High level ofcourse. If you are a God among men you got to be a god among gnomes, green slimes and space blue whores aswell

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

High level play is quite nice when the world doesn't scale up and you don't get trash mobs of med/high-level enemies like in BG2 where you can encounter level 8 bandits that don't even have any magic items.
It would be cool if there would be low level mobs but they'd basically run away instead of facing you or would try to ambush you, use various traps, etc. (Tucker's Kobold's style)

 

[Xavier0889]

I tend to prefer low/mid level adventures, specially in D&D. When you can cast Cloudkill, Greater Malison or Chaos as many times as you want, fun (and therefore challenge) ends.

 

[octavius]

I tend to prefer low/mid level adventures, specially in D&D. When you can cast Cloudkill, Greater Malison or Chaos as many times as you want, fun (and therefore challenge) ends.

Of course the challenge ends if you rest after each battle to rememorize those spells.

 

[Xavier0889]

Yes, but you have a fixated tactic for each fight. Before learning those spells you have to make every sling bullet count.

 

[mondblut]

The logic was obvious and simple. Bigger is better. Go heavy or go home. If it doesn't involve either side doing five attacks per turn, each doing damage of five times a medium level enemy's hitpoints, then it's a dull affair. Half a dozen summoned pit fiends and lots of crashing meteors should be littering the battlefield.

Totally. Higher levels = more options at everything.

Going from 2 magic missiles to 3 magic missiles changes a fight incredibly.

Lol, why even bother?

Low-level games are only there to grind in preparation for higher level sequels. BG1 is a shining example.