Are characters disposable?

[Dancingdeath]

I've always liked playing a character from level 1 until he either gets killed or retired. I've recently hooked up with a group that runs a brand new campaign about once a month or so meeting once a week. New characters are rolled for each. And never below level 5.

I feel this cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable. You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those levels or put anything other than a little lead into making them. It's like starting a video game halfway through. You can still say you played the game and all, but it won't mean anything.

I'm sure there will be responses saying that I'm being stupid or old fashioned, but that's just how the game's supposed to be played.

[rmg22893]

I've always liked playing a character from level 1 until he either gets killed or retired. I've recently hooked up with a group that runs a brand new campaign about once a month or so meeting once a week. New characters are rolled for each. And never below level 5.

I feel this cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable. You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those levels or put anything other than a little lead into making them. It's like starting a video game halfway through. You can still say you played the game and all, but it won't mean anything.

I'm sure there will be responses saying that I'm being stupid or old fashioned, but that's just how the game's supposed to be played.

What is a "level" other than a subjective measure of a character's power? Characters in that universe could just start at a higher relative power than typical characters.

[Dancingdeath]

And you could start playing Final Fantasy (pick one) at level 98 with most of the best gear in the game, and near the end. Well doesn't that sound fun. You miss the entire story getting there, but you get to push a few buttons, cast some of the best spells in the game and SAY you win.

Ever heard the saying "It's the journey, not the destination."?

You get to use higher level abilities and gear without having earned it. This is called instant gratification.

[rmg22893]

And you could start playing Final Fantasy (pick one) at level 98 with most of the best gear in the game, and near the end. Well doesn't that sound fun. You miss the entire story getting there, but you get to push a few buttons, cast some of the best spells in the game and SAY you win.

Ever heard the saying "It's the journey, not the destination."?

You get to use higher level abilities and gear without having earned it. This is called instant gratification.

When the journey is infinite, the enemies never stop being challenging, and there is no perceptible "destination", what difference does it make? Granted, this is all assuming a competent DM.

[Siosilvar]

And you could start playing Final Fantasy (pick one) at level 98 with most of the best gear in the game, and near the end. Well doesn't that sound fun. You miss the entire story getting there, but you get to push a few buttons, cast some of the best spells in the game and SAY you win.

Ever heard the saying "It's the journey, not the destination."?

You get to use higher level abilities and gear without having earned it. This is called instant gratification.

Except for the fact that, in D&D, there's always a bigger fish. Starting at a higher level just means you fight higher-level fish, not that you're the biggest thing in the lake. There's no destination to get to.

It's just a different playstyle. Some people like to play a character from level 1 up, like you. Other people would like to jump right in and save the world, or manipulate events on a country-wide scale, or whatever else, without slogging through the lower levels first, because they're not interested in lower level stuff.

[Dancingdeath]

Where do you draw the line? What is too high a starting level? It just opens up room for abuse.

How are you supposed to feel challenged without going up against insanely powerful monsters (which are supposed to be rare) around every corner? It makes life harder for the DM, less rewarding for players, ans cheesy overall.

[Tebryn]

I'm sure there will be responses saying that I'm being stupid or old fashioned, but that's just how the game's supposed to be played.

You ask a question, chastise the reply and add this to the end of the your post...what was the point of asking. But heck, I'll bite.

Who said that is how the game is supposed to be played?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I feel this cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable. You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those levels or put anything other than a little lead into making them. It's like starting a video game halfway through. You can still say you played the game and all, but it won't mean anything.
This is an entirely valid opinion. I disagree, but I'm not offended.


I'm sure there will be responses saying that I'm being stupid or old fashioned, but that's just how the game's supposed to be played.
This is not valid, and somewhat offensive. It's one thing to say "this is how I like to play the game," and quite another to say "all other ways are wrong."

I, for example, like starting at higher levels for a variety of reasons: the game's less instantly lethal, characters have enough abilities and options to be interesting, character builds can be more mechanically distinct, there can be more interesting encounters, more epic stories, and so on. And, to be honest, I don't want to waste time playing the parts of the game I don't enjoy.

None of that stops you from playing the game you like. Start all your characters at level one. Set your eyes on level 20 and shoot for the stars. But don't tell me that when I start me campaign at level 10 that I'm doing something wrong.

[Siosilvar]

Where do you draw the line? What is too high a starting level? It just opens up room for abuse.

How are you supposed to feel challenged without going up against insanely powerful monsters (which are supposed to be rare) around every corner? It makes life harder for the DM, less rewarding for players, ans cheesy overall.

Generally, all characters will start at the same level.

As for feeling challenged? Well, how do you play when you get to that level through "normal" play? How do you challenge a superhero? You introduce super-level threats. Necromancers starting the Wightocalypse, the next nation over decides they'd like to invade yours, the Far Realms start corrupting the Everfree Forest, the Paladin decides he'd like to take the Nine Hells head-on, or something like that.

[Dancingdeath]

It's just a different playstyle. Some people like to play a character from level 1 up, like you. Other people would like to jump right in and save the world, or manipulate events on a country-wide scale, or whatever else, without slogging through the lower levels first, because they're not interested in lower level stuff.

I'd love to be a millionaire rockstar, but can't play an instrument or sing. Can I skip that and go straight to being rich and famous?

Also, I'm about 3 weeks away from getting my EMT license, but I eventually wanna be a paramedic. I can skip that too?

I had a DM once that illustrated a point I'm trying to make beautifully. He gave the party (all level 4, and this was in 2e) access to a deck of many things. We all announced how many draws we were taking and started drawing away. 20 minutes later we were all dead, imprisioned, or something equally bad. Now the point I'm trying to make is this, "Just because you can, does not mean you should".

[Thumperganker]

most encounters (probably about 80-90 percent) should be relatively easy regardless of level, only the last 10 percent of them should be difficult or hard. if every encounter is geared up to be "epic" than the dm is doing it wrong. Regardless of starting level i think the fact that its only a couple gaming sessions is more of the problem. I say this cause i believe story is paramount. Because the characters can't develope, nor can the story, i believe that could be why you feel that it might seem hollow. To fix anything though you'll have to address the people you play with. If you aren't having fun with it , then there is a problem and something needs to change, after all its a game :)

[Dancingdeath]

You ask a question, chastise the reply and add this to the end of the your post...what was the point of asking. But heck, I'll bite.

Who said that is how the game is supposed to be played?

Not chastising. Amicably arguing my opinion. Don't take anything I say on here personally. I'm allowed to disagree. This is all just a friendly discussion.

[Siosilvar]

I'd love to be a millionaire rockstar, but can't play an instrument or sing. Can I skip that and go straight to being rich and famous?

Also, I'm about 3 weeks away from getting my EMT license, but I eventually wanna be a paramedic. I can skip that too?

I had a DM once that illustrated a point I'm trying to make beautifully. He gave the party (all level 4, and this was in 2e) access to a deck of many things. We all announced how many draws we were taking and started drawing away. 20 minutes later we were all dead, imprisioned, or something equally bad. Now the point I'm trying to make is this, "Just because you can, does not mean you should".

:smallannoyed: Okay, when it comes right down to it, D&D is a fancy game of pretend. So yes, you can skip straight to the rich and famous part, or straight to being a paramedic. In real life? No. But D&D isn't real life. D&D is a game. Fun. Playing it your way can be fun. So can doing one-shots or higher level campaigns or what have you.

[eggs]

The only way to play the game is commoner, barefoot, walking uphill to the dungeon, wrestling the monsters with your hands, tying their oniony treasures to your belt, walking back uphill to your house, and LIKING IT.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd love to be a millionaire rockstar, but can't play an instrument or sing. Can I skip that and go straight to being rich and famous?

Also, I'm about 3 weeks away from getting my EMT license, but I eventually wanna be a paramedic. I can skip that too?

I had a DM once that illustrated a point I'm trying to make beautifully. He gave the party (all level 4, and this was in 2e) access to a deck of many things. We all announced how many draws we were taking and started drawing away. 20 minutes later we were all dead, imprisioned, or something equally bad. Now the point I'm trying to make is this, "Just because you can, does not mean you should".

So they had bad luck or drew too many times?


The only way to play the game is commoner, barefoot, walking uphill to the dungeon, wrestling the monsters with your hands, tying their oniony treasures to your belt, walking back uphill to your house, and LIKING IT.

I'm playing a Dwarven commoner in one PBP in the forums.

[Siosilvar]

The only way to play the game is commoner, barefoot, walking uphill to the dungeon, wrestling the monsters with your hands, tying their oniony treasures to your belt, walking back uphill to your house, and LIKING IT.

Onions? Psh, the Jansens only believe in turnips. No other vegetables exist.

[Big Fau]

And you could start playing Final Fantasy (pick one) at level 98 with most of the best gear in the game, and near the end. Well doesn't that sound fun. You miss the entire story getting there, but you get to push a few buttons, cast some of the best spells in the game and SAY you win.

I thought the point of the Final Fantasy series was screaming at the console because the developers like to cut corners when designing enemies and you can't get past a certain boss without resorting to online guides. And when you finally do, you find out that you screwed up your characters several levels ago and don't have the abilities needed to actually deal with the boss on-hand, so you have to either level grind for three months or start over.

Or am I mistaken?


Regardless, the only major difference between starting at level 1 and starting at level 5 is that you aren't as easily subjected to Rocket Tag. Rocket Tag is a massive flaw in this system, and one some people have been trying to cut out for many years.

Also, Pokemon starts you off at level 5. Just saying.

[Dancingdeath]

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

[rmg22893]

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

The reason is because in an infinite continuum such as D&D, your argument has no sway. There is no difference whatsoever in the long run between level 1 and level 100 if your challenges are appropriately scaled.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Alas, characters are disposable. I've thrown many a sheet into ye olde recycling bin after a greataxe crit, or failed save versus death, or random death trap.

In all seriousness, however, consider the following: What if you were going to play an offshoot version of D&D, where first level characters essentially had the statistics/treasure of a fifth level D&D character, and you progressed normally from there? Is the game inherently cheesy for starting at such a high power level? This "game" I posited is the same as playing a game of D&D where you start at 5th level.

I suppose you could say you missed the "hard part" where your character "earned" that power... But does every game you play start at level 0, where your character spends many hours (hours in meatspace, mind) learning to crawl, speak, avoid soiling himself, et cetera? Because if you're not going from infant on, you are skipping ahead to the fun stuff, at least a little bit.

[INoKnowNames]

I thought the point of the Final Fantasy series was screaming at the console because the developers like to cut corners when designing enemies and you can't get past a certain boss without resorting to online guides. And when you finally do, you find out that you screwed up your characters several levels ago and don't have the abilities needed to actually deal with the boss on-hand, so you have to either level grind for three months or start over.

Or am I mistaken?

I couldn't get past the ****ing scorpion for several years. Although I still started off with a girlfriend, a scary black man with a machine gun, enough basic magic to be able to instantly kill mooks, and the ability to limit break. Plus I had a job as a mercenary who can do anything. Sounds a bit much for just a level 1 character, don't ya think? (Even though you start at 6, 6 out of 99 is still pretty much a level 1 character, with maybe 20% exp earned to the next level, so my point is still valid.)


Regardless, the only major difference between starting at level 1 and starting at level 5 is that you aren't as easily subjected to Rocket Tag. Rocket Tag is a massive flaw in this system, and one some people have been trying to cut out for many years.

Also, Pokemon starts you off at level 5. Just saying.

Didn't one Pokemon game start you off with -2- Level 20 Pokemon, and you were essentially the most Bad Ass Mother ****er since Gary Oak? Hell, you started off with the ability to actually steal pokemon from other people; you just held back on principle.


The op seems like someone who believes that the game (D&D) has to keep the limits it has built into it. But not only do most of those limits only stop you when you can't imagine ways around them for your game, but each and every one of them is capable of being removed if your group and your dm disapprove of them. The game is what you make of it. Starting off as rock stars or paramedics or dragons or Iron Man or awakened animals that perform martial arts; it can be all what you and your group wants, and there's nothing wrong with that. Be Level 1, and enjoy climbing to the top of Mount Olympus by hand. Or be Epic Level, and Jump into Space and screw every single law of physics with one hand while strangling aliens with the other!


I suppose you could say you missed the "hard part" where your character "earned" that power... But does every game you play start at level 0, where your character spends many hours (hours in meatspace, mind) learning to crawl, speak, avoid soiling himself, et cetera? Because if you're not going from infant on, you are skipping ahead to the fun stuff, at least a little bit.

This has to be quoted for emphasis.


I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

If you're so steadfast to your opinion that you aren't wiling to listen, anything anyone says becomes sarcastic and filled with thinly veiled hostility. I honestly don't see the reason why you ask the question if you don't want to hear any answer other than one that agrees with yours. The game can be played any way possible, and everyone does it differently. Pure and simple.

I will note, as sonofzeal did, about the issue of cycling characters every game. That's indeed a bit of an issue. It'd be all but impossible for me to really care about the game if it went by that fast, and it's hard to roleplay when I'm not even bothering to care. I probably wouldn't play with a group like that, personally.

[rmg22893]

Didn't one Pokemon game start you off with -2- Level 20 Pokemon, and you were essentially the most Bad Ass Mother ****er since Gary Oak? Hell, you started off with the ability to actually steal pokemon from other people; you just held back on principle.

Pokemon Coliseum. Good times, good times.

[sonofzeal]

There's two separate issues: starting at level 5, and cycling characters every month.


Starting at lvl 5 is hardly an issue. The longest-running game I've been in start-to-finish started at lvl 7. In one local group it's tradition to start at lvl 10 or so. All it means is that characters are actually competent within their specialty, which often isn't the case below lvl 3 or so. The Hobbits weren't lvl 5 at the beginning of LotR, but Aragorn likely was. Luke wasn't lvl 5 at the beginning of SW, but Han Solo might have been. Wesley Crusher wasn't lvl 5 at the beginning of TNG, but Picard might have been. Just because someone starts at a mid level doesn't mean their story is any less interesting or dynamic.

Cycling characters though... yeah, I can see how that could be offsetting. I wouldn't mind a group like that, but I have to admit my favorite characters are usually ones that evolved over a long period of time. A month seems like too short for real roleplay. That seems like more of an issue than starting at lvl 5.

[KicktheCAN]

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

Nobody is responding with hostility. You posted a question and people are arguing it. This is a discussion. If you wanted to have people blindly reaffirm your ideas then this is not the venue for that. If you want to consider new ideas and alter your opinions then this is the place for that.

In short, if you are not open to new ideas then do not start a thread.

[INoKnowNames]

Pokemon Coliseum. Good times, good times.

Heh. I remember the sequal even gave you a taste of Power, letting you fight in a simulator match with a Level 50 Dragon against another Level 50, and you could win the match rather easiy.

Sadly, that power goes away, revealing a level 5 (at least not level 1) Eevee, but you could quickly evolve it in the next city over, and the badassness starts to return rather quickly.

[Captain Six]

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

Any time you say "this is the way the game is meant to be played" you will get backlash, it's how you said it not what you said. I agree, I like games that start at level 1 and I like long running games. Most people who posted here probably do, it's the most common way to play for a reason. I am not, however, telling people how to play their own games. Going back to your Final Fantasy example, Final Fantasy VII starts you out at 6 and levels you to 7 after the first fight. In Final Fantasy X level 98 might be par for the endgame but wouldn't even scratch a bonus boss. Levels mean what you make them. Even in 3.5 D&D a level 12 character could be a veteran warrior or a gold dragon that hatched five minutes ago.

[manyslayer]

I'd love to be a millionaire rockstar, but can't play an instrument or sing. Can I skip that and go straight to being rich and famous?

Also, I'm about 3 weeks away from getting my EMT license, but I eventually wanna be a paramedic. I can skip that too?


No, you can't and neither did the characters. Just because we didn't watch the development and growth, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You could use the same argument to say that almost every action film is done wrong because we don't see the super cop going through high school and then police academy and then years walking a beat before finally getting his gold shield and becoming a detective before becoming the maverick of the department.

For some people, character development is the main draw of RPGing. For others, it is finding fun and exciting combinations of abilities.

I like both types of play. My usual group runs long term campaigns (currently 6th level in mine and my character in my friends just hit 20). The other group I play with runs generally one-shots or short arcs. This allows me to try different characters (and they are usually 3rd to 5th level).

[Mithril Leaf]

Although I strongly believe in working up from level 1 and aiming at 20, there's nothing innately wrong with starting at a higher level. You don't have to play boring backstory stuff, so why should you have to play boring adventures if you really don't want to and everyone else is amicable?

[eggs]

As a DM, starting at level 3 or so means that I don't have to kickstart the plot for new characters every time an Orc rolls over 7 with its 2d4+4 damage dice.

The sense of advancement is cool, and I don't feel as attached to the level 12 characters I've used for 1-shots as I do to the level 12 characters I build from level 2-3. But on the same token, I don't feel any less attached to the characters starting at level 12 than I do to all the ones that died at level 1 by startling their pet cats.

[NamelessNPC]

I've always liked playing a character from level 1 until he either gets killed or retired. I've recently hooked up with a group that runs a brand new campaign about once a month or so meeting once a week. New characters are rolled for each. And never below level 5.

You create a new character when yours dies in the middle of a campaign? We don't do that. Never. Your friends and party members resurrect you, paying for it from their own pocket if they have to, and they don't steal the deceased's items.

I feel that what you do

cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable. You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those resus or put anything other than a little lead into making them. It's like starting a video with infinite lives. You can still say you played the game and all, but it won't mean anything.

So to speak.

[Morithias]

I find how "disposable" characters are depends on how long you spend making them.

If your character is "level 1 dwarf fighter, power attack, and cleave." Yes..the character is VERY disposable.

On the other hand if the character is a geslalt dark changling cleric 1/ranger 1/deathstalker 5/warshaper 3/legacy champion 10 + rogue 20. Who you have wrote 5 paragraphs of backstory for and spent the better part of 2 months making, the character isn't going to be disposable at all to you.

I find one of the best things to do is have characters jump from campaign to campaign if you find yourself restarting a lot. "Oh hey we went from level 1 to level 5 last campaign and this campaign is starting at level 5, I think I'll use my old character." This REALLY works well if your stories have continuity and take place in the same setting.

Overall I do not find characters disposable. This may have to do with the fact I spends days if not weeks on every character working out backstory, builds, and so on, but you'll never hear me say "Patricia is something that I can just throw away when I'm done." If you ever hear me say that, it means your campaign was either so epic I'm retiring her, or you kill her off in a way where I can't raise dead her.

[Dancingdeath]

You create a new character when yours dies in the middle of a campaign? We don't do that. Never. Your friends and party members resurrect you, paying for it from their own pocket if they have to, and they don't steal the deceased's items.

You've misunderstood what I said entirely. No, we do not replace characters with new ones. We just end up starting a new campaign with DIFFERENT characters every month. In a brand new, unrelated campaign with a completely different story and NPCs.

[NamelessNPC]

Well, I'm pretty sure the opening line of the thread states that you play characters until they die. If it was just an opening line and you don't really mean it, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

In any case, my point is that it is all a matter of scale, some people will be more attached to their characters, and others (like this extreme example of your new group) will treat them like characters in Mortal Kombat. In any case, I agree in that I wouldn't want to play with that group, but you sounded pretty self righteous when you said it.

[Big Fau]

You've misunderstood what I said entirely. No, we do not replace characters with new ones. We just end up starting a new campaign with DIFFERENT characters every month. In a brand new, unrelated campaign with a completely different story and NPCs.

It sounds like either your group or the DM has issues keeping a single line of thought. Have you considered PBP, or perhaps running a game yourself?

One thing to note that some people find themselves running out of ideas for an ongoing project after a certain amount of time, and choose to start over in order to stave off stagnancy and complacence. Some other people also have trouble staying interested in the same environment, and choose to start a new game with a chance to explore something they've never had a chance to try. And sometimes real life gets in the way.

Your group may have some issues, but from the sounds of it you are getting overly-attached to a concept. You may find things more enjoyable if you ran your own campaign or if you joined a PBP.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

We just end up starting a new campaign with DIFFERENT characters every month. In a brand new, unrelated campaign with a completely different story and NPCs.Yeah, that part seems lame. One shots and short modules can be fun, but I'm a long campaign kind of guy. Also, IME rules-light systems work best for one shots and short games, meaning D&D is a bit of a poor fit.

That said, if your buddies like it and they're fun to be with, well, life's about compromises. I played indie one shots intermittently for the better part of two years when all I wanted was a long, brutal 3.5 campaign. I wouldn't say any port in a storm... but any port where the people are nice, even if you don't particularly like the scenery.

[INoKnowNames]

You've misunderstood what I said entirely. No, we do not replace characters with new ones. We just end up starting a new campaign with DIFFERENT characters every month. In a brand new, unrelated campaign with a completely different story and NPCs.

Yeah, that's an incredibly odd way to game. Every group does it however they want, but I'd -never- play with a group with that kind of habbit. Unless they were my friends, and I'd do my damned best to get them to be able to stick with one game and actually give the characters cloisure. I don't think I'd see a single person say that this view point is an odd one, either.

[prufock]

You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those levels or put anything other than a little lead into making them.
If you start at level 1, you haven't earned THAT level either. You're starting a character at adulthood instead of infancy. Why not play through your childhood?
Cheating? The concept of "level" is basically arbitrary. That you get x feats and x skill points and such-and-such a bonus to whatever are all arbitrary decisions in the game design. Starting at level 5, or 10, or 20 is no more arbitrary than starting at level 1.


that's just how the game's supposed to be played.
This is just wrong. DMG, page 199, "Creating PCs Above First Level." It's quite clear that starting level is intended to be variable.


How are you supposed to feel challenged without going up against insanely powerful monsters (which are supposed to be rare) around every corner? It makes life harder for the DM, less rewarding for players, ans cheesy overall.
Easy: You play in a different setting where the power of creatures is higher on average. Done.
It IS more difficult on the DM, that's the only point I agree with here. However, for an experienced DM, that's not a problem. The DM shouldn't be playing at a level that surpasses his comfort level.


Ever heard the saying "It's the journey, not the destination."?
Character level is not really a destination or a journey. The campaign STORY is the journey.


You get to use higher level abilities and gear without having earned it.
Even 1st level characters have starting wealth and abilities. As I mention above, it's an arbitrary starting level of power.


I'd love to be a millionaire rockstar, but can't play an instrument or sing. Can I skip that and go straight to being rich and famous?

Also, I'm about 3 weeks away from getting my EMT license, but I eventually wanna be a paramedic. I can skip that too?
This isn't a fair analogy. I'd love to be able to cast spells, or turn into a bear, or lift a car. Should the fact that I can't do so in real life restrict me from doing so in a game?


I had a DM once that illustrated a point I'm trying to make beautifully. He gave the party (all level 4, and this was in 2e) access to a deck of many things. We all announced how many draws we were taking and started drawing away. 20 minutes later we were all dead, imprisioned, or something equally bad. Now the point I'm trying to make is this, "Just because you can, does not mean you should".
You should have selected zero. All this really illustrates is the DM's lack of foresight and sense of game balance. Starting at a higher level and being given unbalancing items are two different things.

Ending by return.

I've recently hooked up with a group that runs a brand new campaign about once a month or so meeting once a week. New characters are rolled for each. And never below level 5.... I feel this cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable.
Why don't you a) run a game of your own for this group starting at level 1, b) suggest a longer-term low-level game, or c) find a different group? Wouldn't one of these options solve the conflict between their preferred play style and yours?

[Knaight]

Regarding disposable characters, initial level variance, and campaign length:
I'd consider disposable characters to be a tool that can be used, but prefer to avoid them for most cases. I favor playing a character until their story arc ends, which doesn't necessarily mean death or retirement. However, I also like using side characters, and this is where disposable characters enter. Say the main characters are about to enter a city, where they will likely stay for some time. Say this city is politically unstable, and is ripe for political intrigue. Having a new group of characters show up, be in the middle of it, and likely all end up horribly murdered can get that across far better than mere narration, and it makes sure that players have influence. Or is introducing disposable side characters somehow a storytelling faux pas now? I'll need to inform a great many cherished authors then.

Level variance is much the same. Some stories are about a bunch of bright eyed novices taking on the world. Some stories are about the decline of people previously idolized as the world moves past them. There are numerous kinds of stories. In a game sense, level 1 characters only fit for some of them. Those idolized heroes struggling in futility to keep up with a changing world that is moving past them all rose to glory before, all have long histories, and all have to start at a higher level than 1 for it to be possible at all. The same applies to many other stories. Is it cheating to start reading Lord of the Rings where Aragorn is already competent? I thought not.

The length of campaigns is similar. There's room in the world for short stories and long novels, for near anthologies involving many characters and many stories who interact in a world and for detailed character studies that follow all of one person.

As such, I view a statement that boils down to "you should play all games from level 1 until character death or retirement in the form of a long campaign, and everything else is cheating" the same way as "you should read only books that follow the hero's journey from the beginning and follow these characters and only these characters in the form of a long novel, and everything else isn't really reading". I'd consider it absurd. Sure, there are good works involving hero's journey type stories, or coming of age stories, that do follow one or a few characters closely in the form of a novel. It's a valid story type. Calling it the only story type and denigrating all other types just makes it look like the speaker has absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and basically no understanding of the medium.

[Arbitrarity]

Like 99% of the forum; 3E's level 1 is terribly balanced. Starting level is a function of play preference.
Characters usually should not be thrown away, and story/character continuity generally results in more epic stories and better quality (depending on DM). Your gameplay style may vary.

[Big Fau]

Like 99% of the forum; 3E is terribly balanced. Starting level is a function of play preference.

Fixed for accuracy. But we love it anyway.

[Tvtyrant]

that's just how the game's supposed to be played.


Ever heard the saying "It's the journey, not the destination."?
You get to use higher level abilities and gear without having earned it. This is called instant gratification.

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

Your opinion seems to be that there is a single way to play the game right, and that the rest of us are cheating. I am not sure how you expect people to respond to you throwing an objective gauntlet down like that, but some introspection on that point might indicate why people respond with hostility.

For instance, take someone arguing that anyone who played without shattering the game using the weaknesses of RAW was wrong because it was an inherent part of the game, and then responded to arguments for personal choice with "feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion."

Sure, you can hold to whatever opinion you wish, but creating a thread for the sole purpose of telling people they are bad-wrong for playing differently is going to draw people's ire.

[Dancingdeath]

Sorry to all those who I have apparrently offended.

[LordBlades]

It's all about personal preference IMO. For example, I dislike starting at level 1 for several reasons.

First of all, level 1 is rocket tag regardless whether you like it or not(at higher levels you do have some manner of choice). One hit from an average weapon can knock most characters unconscious. One crit from an average weapon can kill most characters. I am reluctant to invest much time&love into a character that can die from a random die roll and there's nothing I can do to either prevent or repair that (no money for resurrection magic).

Secondly, having a few levels to play with, gives me quite a bit more room background- and flavor-wise. For example, let's say I want to play a warblade/wizard gish and start at higher levels, I can either do the skilled warrior that picked up some magical tricks later in life, or the guy that trained in both magic and battle since childhood. If I was starting at level 1 I'd have to write the story of a guy with no magical ability whatsoever at this point (warblade 1).

In my group we usually start a campaign at the level most suited for what kind of story the DM wants to run (it's usually 4-5 though). Right now we're playing in a campaign where the main plot spans across multiple planes.
The DM decided to start at level 9 (where we would have access to Plane Shift) rather than start lower and run several months of side adventures to get us high enough level to be able to participate in the story he wanted to run.

[Wavelab]

I agree that it's about personal opinion. I've played many campaigns and many characters from level 1 upwards, reaching epic many times and I've found that while starting at level 1 you learn your character better, the higher levels have more options than a fighter just spamming attack or a wizard just exhausting his spell slots in a few rounds.

At higher levels you can have an actual fight requiring actual strategy while at level 1 it is indeed rocket tag. That's why I like starting at level 10+ since you can already be semi-specialised and since you can actually do whatever the hell you want.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Eh, I think people get too uptight about strong opinions. That's what internet discussion forums are for. That said, about 5 people including myself have brought up the childhood argument, which basically asks what allows you to skip to 1st level without cheating? I'm curious about the response.

[Arbitrarity]

Eh, I think people get too uptight about strong opinions. That's what internet discussion forums are for. That said, about 5 people including myself have brought up the childhood argument, which basically asks what allows you to skip to 1st level without cheating? I'm curious about the response.


DMG, page 199, "Creating PCs Above First Level."
Any abstract discussion about character power can see Exalted.

Also, I'm really tied of "I don't really care about this, but I'm totally right and am going to keep defending my position in this argument. Everyone else obviously cares too much, you munchkins"

[Rimeheart]

From my skimming over this. I would also hate starting a new character every month. I will admit, I do not worry much about a character dying. However I dislike the idea of only four sessions to play with a character. That is where my dislike for your groups standard play comes in.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Any abstract discussion about character power can see Exalted.

Also, I'm really tied of "I don't really care about this, but I'm totally right and am going to keep defending my position in this argument. Everyone else obviously cares too much, you munchkins"I just said people got uptight. Obviously we all care enough to make a post, but that doesn't mean people have to get crazy offended any time someone says 'yer doin' it wrong.' Sure, 'yer doin' it wrong' is almost always itself wrong, but oh well. People are wrong on the internet.

Speaking of being wrong on the internet, my question was directed towards the OP. To rephrase, if one shouldn't skip to 5th level, why does one get to skip to 1st level? Why not play an infant? We are, in fact, in agreement. (You munchkin :smallwink:)

[Arbitrarity]

I just said people got uptight. Obviously we all care enough to make a post, but that doesn't mean people have to get crazy offended any time someone says 'yer doin' it wrong.' Sure, 'yer doin' it wrong' is almost always itself wrong, but oh well. People are wrong on the internet.

Speaking of being wrong on the internet, my question was directed towards the OP. To rephrase, if one shouldn't skip to 5th level, why does one get to skip to 1st level? Why not play an infant? We are, in fact, in agreement. (You munchkin :smallwink:)

My reading comprehension has apparently deteriorated. I seem to have moved the 5 from "other people" to "level". Second part of the post was sorta directed at
I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.
but I put it there due to misreading you as writing something similar.
Also, I'm totally a munchkin. I build characters at levels above 1, because level one characters are boring as hell to build, unless you trawl very far for cheese. If someone asked me to start a game at level 1, first I'd check if the party needed a fighter, then I'd probably play a Warforged Crusader with Adamantine Body.
LIKE A MUNCKIN.

TL;DR HURR DURR

[Morithias]

My reading comprehension has apparently deteriorated. I seem to have moved the 5 from "other people" to "level". Second part of the post was sorta directed at
but I put it there due to misreading you as writing something similar.
Also, I'm totally a munchkin. I build characters at levels above 1, because level one characters are boring as hell to build, unless you trawl very far for cheese. If someone asked me to start a game at level 1, first I'd check if the party needed a fighter, then I'd probably play a Warforged Crusader with Adamantine Body.
LIKE A MUNCKIN.

TL;DR HURR DURR

I find a lot of munchkins are very emotionally attached to their creations, and never consider them disposable due to the HUGE amount of work they put into them. I know I'm like that at least.

[eggs]

These forums have been known to make people so offended that they showed up at the bus stop plumb *dead.*

But since this thread is seeping teary indignation toward players with the audacity to start playing makebelieve as anything other than the weakest makebelieve character possible, offended may not be the proper word for some readers' reactions to the OP and initial counterresponses.

"Hurt" might be a better fit - the hurt that only a strained incredulity gland can deliver. :smalltongue:

But back to disposability, it takes one of my players two hours to fill out the little boxes on her character sheet. Even when she says she's got it just about done ahead of time. There is no way that stupid druid is ever dying.

[Arbitrarity]

I find a lot of munchkins are very emotionally attached to their creations, and never consider them disposable due to the HUGE amount of work they put into them. I know I'm like that at least.

I'm actually making a bit of a joke there, given the way I define the term. I suspect you're using different definitions from the "common forum agreement", which I haven't checked in a while. Last time I checked, we defined it something like....
Practical Optimizer: Selects concept, optimizes concept. Focus on concept implies attachment to roleplaying. Positive connotation.
Powergamer: Selects optimal concept. Optimizes. May use cheese. Neutral to positive connotation.
Theoretical Optimizer: Selects concept, theorycrafts optimization to functionally unplayable degree. (this has nothing to do with actually playing games. May fit into other category)
Munchkin: Selects optimal concept. Cheats. Negative connotation.
I tend to hover at the high end of practical optimizer. I take concepts for power reasons often, but also for things like mechanical fun (Chameleon cheese). I'm don't have enough system mastery/creativity to be a good theoretical optimizer.

Yeah, one of the reasons I think having powergamers/optimizers around is good is because they have enough system mastery to fill out character sheets and take actions in a reasonable amount of time. They might take time deciding, but resolving? No problem. They can even make up for slower players to a small extent.

[Morithias]

I'm actually making a bit of a joke there, given the way I define the term. I suspect you're using different definitions from the "common forum agreement", which I haven't checked in a while. Last time I checked, we defined it something like....
Practical Optimizer: Selects concept, optimizes concept. Focus on concept implies attachment to roleplaying. Positive connotation.
Powergamer: Selects optimal concept. Optimizes. May use cheese. Neutral to positive connotation.
Theoretical Optimizer: Selects concept, theorycrafts optimization to functionally unplayable degree. (this has nothing to do with actually playing games. May fit into other category)
Munchkin: Selects optimal concept. Cheats. Negative connotation.
I tend to hover at the high end of practical optimizer. I take concepts for power reasons often, but also for things like mechanical fun (Chameleon cheese). I'm don't have enough system mastery/creativity to be a good theoretical optimizer.

Yeah, one of the reasons I think having powergamers/optimizers around is good is because they have enough system mastery to fill out character sheets and take actions in a reasonable amount of time. They might take time deciding, but resolving? No problem. They can even make up for slower players to a small extent.

Sorry...I'll try to keep those terms in mind. I thought the original definitions was the "real man" "roleplayer" "Loonie" and "munchkin" or something like that?

[Arbitrarity]

I dunno if that's common parlance here anymore, since I haven't spent much time in this side of the forum since it got split up.

Oh, I split up optimizer, but I think the term I was looking for was min/maxer. See http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512.

[godryk]

You can certainly play video games whenever you want. It's something that you do by yourself, at home. Even if you have weird work shifts and a possessive girlfriend, you are still able to play Final Fantasy every now and them.

However, you need to meet up with some other people in order to roleplay and people have different lives, schedules and interests, not everyone is able or willing to meet every week. If you know you and your buddies can only meet every 2-3 weeks for, let's say, five months, you won't be able get you character too far. I've never been able to play with the same character for more than 7 levels. The absolute record among my friends is playing for 16 levels. Indeed this guy was playing all day long back in his teenage years, and it took him almost two years.

I don't know how often people level up, but when I've played or DM'ed, it takes around 2 or 3 sessions. If you play every other week it takes you a month to level up. Not every one has a group that can/wants/enjoys meeting up forever.

What I'm trying to say is that it is impossible for some people to get to play a 10th level character if he had to go all the way from the start. And for some other people, the time investment isn't worth it.

[Ashtagon]

In the context of the 4e paradigm (although 3.x is also guilty), in which higher levels mean exactly playing the same game, just with bigger numbers, I think starting play at a higher level is meaningless. There are formulaic ways you can "tier down" just about any combat opponent.

In the context of older editions, in which it was expected, and to some extent part of game design, that you would have a radically different play experience at different levels, then it makes a lot of sense to start at a higher level. BECMI is the classic example, in which it was intended you would go from dungeoneering to wilderness exploration to nation building to apotheosis and then on to playing as an immortal. Most later editions have toned that progression of changes down to some extent.

[Kish]

I feel this cheapens the characters and makes playing them less enjoyable. You can make a character any level you want, but that's tantamount to cheating. You haven't earned those levels or put anything other than a little lead into making them. It's like starting a video game halfway through. You can still say you played the game and all, but it won't mean anything.
I'm real unclear on what the bragging rights of "I played this character from level 1 to level 20" are supposed to be, either.

If you've found a group whose playstyle doesn't appeal to you, you should stop playing with them. You don't need a message board to agree that starting at level 1 is the One True Way to do that.

[Alienist]

I've noticed on here that if you post an unpopular opinion, and then try and defend your point of view, then you are met with sarcasm and thinly veiled hostility. Feel free to disagree, but I stand by my opinion.

I completely and 100% agree with what you just said and I quoted.

HOWEVER - the forum has rules. One of the rules is that you're not allowed to say that other people's ways of playing the games are invalid, or that your way of playing is the only "right" way of playing.

What was being objected to (in an oblique fashion) was your breaking of the forum rules.

So in this particular case I think what you interpret as hostility was supposed to be a gentle nudge towards political correctness in the form of not drawing attention to your breaking of the rules, not political correctness in regard to joining the hive mind/gestalt.

Please feel free to refer to:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

Which is the link up the top of every page. It's worth reading, especially because certain behaviours that would be considered the norm in other so called civilised portions of the internet are verboten in this one.