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

[Kthan75]

I find satisfaction in both low level and high level, but a different kind.

For the low level, taking D&D, it's not the first few levels where you can't do crap and you die in the first "creative" encounter from the DM. Starts to be fun from level 4 and up to level 8-10, as some guys have said earlier in this thread.
In video games, TOEE is a good example because it's actually designed for low-level.

In high-end, and here i talk especially about MotB, there can be encounters which seem ridiculously difficult at first, and you have to find the correct combination of tactics/spells to beat that encounter.
I still have a few memorable fights from MotB (like the one with the vampire monks)

 

[BBMorti]

The only epic level game I have played that was done well was MotB.

I prefer to be one wrong step away from death at all times, I want the things I come across to be dangerous. This is why I tend to prefer lower level RPG's.. I have never played a game I didn't slide to maximum difficulty from the first time I touch it, since if I don't feel like I need to watch my step, and play well. Then my interest in the game disappears. I will also add to the difficulty of a game with mods and self-imposed rules when the game falls short at making it challenging.

 

[SwiftCrack]

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

 

[crawlkill]

Well, the character powerlevel doesn't necessarily have to dictate the scope of the game, right? If "high-level" means "having more buttons to press," then I guess it makes the combat more sophisticated. There does come a point (quite early) in BG2 where all combats still start looking exactly the same, though. "Enemy mage contingencies five protection spells. Fighters rush you, without Haste, for some reason. You pray you are not mind controlled or Held, because Dispel Magic continues to refuse to work on magical crowd control. Cast Chaotic Commands six times beor combat if necessary. Occasionally be backstabbed by a rogue." The alternative is "The enemy has no mages and is cut to ribbons instantly." Even the dragons and Twisted Rune my level 14ish party is hacking apart with no more thought than five summons + PfE Haste Bless Chant (do Chant and Bless even stack). In that sense...well, I dunno if it becomes -less- samey than BG1, but it can be more tedious. It adds more prep time to each fight and extends the lives of wizards who still rarely manage to actually accomplish anything.

In terms of high-level versus low-level storytelling, please keep end-of-the-world scenarios away from me. Fallout 1 sort of gets a pass because at least you're given time to care about the world on your personal quest before you go off to stop the mutants (and it's not like someone else wouldn't've overthrown the Master eventually if you hadn't, it was just everyone else was sitting on their asses). Fallout 2 sort of gets a pass because, well, the global FEV extermination is something you only find out about in the last half hour of the game, and up til then it's a personal quest. But Dragon Age's fucking dharksphhawhne and Mass Effect's Reapers are such implausible, generic enemies that I have nothing against personally except for their being babyeaters that my care gland won't squirt careamine. So if the consequence of my having more buttons to press is that I'm gonna have to be overthrowing Cyric before he claims every rentboy in Waterdeep or his own, I'll take lower powerlevels to keep the plot in check.

 

[WingedPixel]

I think it really depends on the combat system. Frankly, D&D is for low level CRPGs and any D&D based game generally sucks until you get fireball. Other systems that are designed for the computer, and I prefer the low/mid level phase where you still have all the interesting skill and class progressions infront of you. By the end game you levels come slower and you've already specialized your characters so there not many surprises. Also most games have either too easy or too hard/grindy higher level combat.

 

[J1M]

The problem with most games at high levels is that the PCs have so many interesting and powerful tricks available that the enemies need to be immune to almost everything. This ends up removing tactical complexity instead of enhancing it.

 

[Daemongar]

Looking at the responses, what game does high level right?

Pools of Darkness. 6 delayed blast fireballs per turn FTW.

Cleric: cast hold person, Mage: cast delayed blast fireball, Everyone else: clean up, or cast hold person/fireball if you can.

 

[Branm]

Combat wise I by far had the most fun with ToEE. i did install the circle of eight mod and got bored at around lvl 13ish. Game became to face roll when I stopped but prior to that especially at earlier levels it was a much appreciate challenge.


Loved Baldurs gate but as far as actual combat and tactical choices go I dont think its possible that a RtwP system can beat turn based.

 

[octavius]

Loved Baldurs gate but as far as actual combat and tactical choices go I dont think its possible that a RtwP system can beat turn based.

Well, there are more tactical choices in the IE games than in the Gold Box games.

 

[Gregz]

As long as the numbers don't become stupidly high, like everything dealing 9999 damage or some shit like that (and the biggest enemies having millions of HP), anything can work. High numbers are always stupid and makes you lose track and excitement on what's considered a good hit and how much HP a "boss" really have.

True, except in DnD games. I never really enjoy them until my mage is lvl 5 can cast fireball.

 

[Infinitron]

Somebody likes this thread

 

[CorpseZeb]

True, having a high level character gives you a few more option to resolve a problems, but on the other hand, a low level character offers you a all possibilities that game has. Granted, that is only a theoretical perk, so to speak, because, more you play, less choice you have, but true power of RPG lies (in the part, at least) in the future planing, character building in the advance of expected events, not (only) in the actual benefits of level advancement. So, in a way, I prefer having a low level rather than end-level omnipotent character, because often a "real" fun from game is a less excited then a imagination one.

 

[Baxter]

Hmm, now that I think about it, I have to say that I prefer low level more. I like the whole idea of my characters being no name, ambitious, wannabes and slowly rising to power.

I do like high level adventures, but only if I can transfer my characters to the sequel, which you don't see much of nowadays. I absolutely HATE when a game starts my party off on a high level..I want to earn it. I liked how a lot of the old games, Bard's Tale II for example, started you off low, but got you up to speed quickly by running you through a starter dungeon.

 

[bloodlover]

Both. I like having a low level character/party that will be raped at the start but rape later. Seeing this evolution in the game gives a bigger satisfaction. Gothic 2 where the damn wolves or goblins fucked you up just at the start is a good example. Coming later and killing them in one blow felt much more rewarding. Playing like this you also appreciate little things more.

 

[Carrion]

Many games tend to be best after you've gained a couple of levels, maybe specialized in a skill or two and learned a bunch of different spells while still being somewhat of a weakling in the game world. You still have to scrape by with limited resources and relatively poor equipment, there's a sense of danger about the game world, and managing to kill a (relatively) powerful foe and take its stuff can be a game-changer in addition to feeling great, but you have at least a bit more tactical options at your disposal than at the start of the game. At high levels the economy tends to get broken, you drown in loot and your character starts to get pretty good at everything, so that feeling of danger and achievement is lost. It depends on the game whether this is really satisfying or just boring, but it usually doesn't stay fun for that long unless the game's setting can support it instead of completely falling apart. In the worst case scenario you have epic level city guards and magicians everywhere, every dungeon has a Cthulhu, Lucifer or level 50 bugbear in them and you're most likely still running errands for random peasants because the developers didn't have a clue about how to create an interesting high-level setting. It sucks, but PS:T and MotB are great examples of what you can do with an epic level campaign if you go crazy with it and drop the generic stuff we've seen a million times. I'd say that I prefer the best high-level stuff to the best low-level stuff, but in most games the early levels are more interesting.

 

[Ulminati]

D&D Gets interesting around level 5 and falls apart after level 12.

 

[Dreaad]

The best games imo are the ones that make you feel powerful from the start but provide a challenge e.g. VTM: B. Even if the said challenge is hampered highly by the relatively bad combat.

 

[Xenich]

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

What is wrong with that? There were two distinct groups when I played pen and paper. One focused on story predominantly, statistical play was severely simplified because they enjoyed acting and dialogue. The other was the statistical players, the types that would get into arguments over terminal velocity, spell use under certain elemental conditions and various mechanics of of the game. While I didn't care for the former, I can respect that style and such led to games that focused primarily on that style of system. I enjoy a good story, but I want it to function within the system and not simply be the form of the gm playing Bard while the rest of the group puts on their acting hats.

In terms of encounter design for games, I think they can achieve the best of both worlds by creating games that give a large amount of control to the player in the "style" of game they choose to play. They could adjust the difficulty, and tune various parameters to their liking to get the experience they desire. For me, I want the game to be EXTREMELY difficult, to the point where poorly thought out approaches, less than ideal character design, etc... result in failure within the campaign. A game should be extremely challenging, after all, if stat development, tactical approach, etc... aren't important, the game would be better suited removing all of that and making it an adventure game. So, attention to character design and its interactions within the game should be important. There should be bad paths, poor choices, etc... or again, we are back to a bunch of people sitting around in a room simply enjoying acting dialog back and forth to each other. As I said, while I can respect that, it is something that I personally think it is a waste in a RPG and better suited for adventure games.

 

[Xenich]

The best games imo are the ones that make you feel powerful from the start but provide a challenge e.g. VTM: B. Even if the said challenge is hampered highly by the relatively bad combat.

I always preferred the ones that made you feel like you were the weakest scrub around, but through careful planning of your character and tactical approaches to obstacles in the game, you developed a niche where you were powerful, yet... still vulnerable if you poorly applied tactics.

 

[Gurkog]

Roguelikes are the only games where combat holds up at high level. Without knowing ahead of time what to expect the metagame is negated a bit and makes more options feel valid. That is assuming the game mechanics are chucked out the window by making everything immune to every interesting ability.