Can someone explain to me what the point is at starting at level 1?

[Masakan]

I legitimately do not see he reason for this it serves no purpose other than for the dm to have a little fun with the players before the game really gets going.
Unless the reason is story based like, you are a bunch of greenhorns starting out in the military, or some fledglings starting out at your home village.
I see no reason to start at level one at all.

[Rebel7284]

Because heroes starting from humble roots is a common trope?

[ComaVision]

1. It's simpler. My game's have started at level 1 because I usually have new players.
2. You get to develop your hero from square one, which some people enjoy.
3. The story calls for it.

There are many other reasons, I'm sure.

[Masakan]

1. It's simpler. My game's have started at level 1 because I usually have new players.
2. You get to develop your hero from square one, which some people enjoy.
3. The story calls for it.

There are many other reasons, I'm sure.

Ok i get that....why however are you at level 1 and randomly in a bar somewhere or in a dungeon or something, when realistically every goblin under the sun should be able to kick your ass if you get caught alone. Long before you even got there

[Strigon]

You get a real sense of development, it keeps things simpler for longer (a lot of people are just as turned off by high-level play as you are by low-level play), and it allows for the players to play on all scopes. You get a taste of what it's like managing mundane items, you get that awesome feeling of trying out your first magic item, and you know that eventually you'll be wrestling dragons and wiping out armies, but for now, saving a handful of people from goblins is an accomplishment.
Also, it allows for grander and longer stories.

And, every goblin under the sun should not be able to beat you, or your adventuring party.
Even from level 1, you're tougher and richer than most other people in the world; taking out a goblin or two isn't impossible.

[Rebel7284]

Ok i get that....why however are you at level 1 and randomly in a bar somewhere or in a dungeon or something, when realistically every goblin under the sun should be able to kick your ass if you get caught alone. Long before you even got there

That's why you would want to work in a group. Having an adventuring party is common I hear. ;)

And yeah, sometimes the story forces you into it in a drastic way.

[EisenKreutzer]

I legitimately do not see he reason for this it serves no purpose other than for the dm to have a little fun with the players before the game really gets going.
Unless the reason is story based like, you are a bunch of greenhorns starting out in the military, or some fledglings starting out at your home village.
I see no reason to start at level one at all.

As a player I love starting at level 1. I enjoy the gradual rise in power, and seeing your build slowly coming together.

I also prefer it because starting at level 1 allows me to really get to know every one of my abilities, feats and powers intimately. Having fiddled around with everything one piece at a time really helps me play my character optimally.

As a GM, I like players starting out small and growing bigger because as I get to know each players build, I can more effectively tailor each encounter to their power level. I also like knowing which resources they have available, and starting at low level makes it easier to remember what they have, and give sme time to study what they gain as they gain it. If we started at level 15, I would have to comb through spell lists and feat cains to get a clear picture of what character can do, and I just don't have the time or inclination for that when actually prepping snd running the game takes so much of my time.

Those are my personal reasons for enjoying low level play.

[tgva8889]

Starting at level 1 (which I, admittedly, have never done) also allows you to develop your tactics to fit the party better. When I'm making a character, I often focus solely on what I can do, but really I have more fun when I can figure out what tactics I need to use to best fit the party I'm in. Maybe I think I'll be best with one build, but the party really needs something else, so I adjust.

[Amphetryon]

I legitimately do not see he reason for this it serves no purpose other than for the dm to have a little fun with the players before the game really gets going.
Unless the reason is story based like, you are a bunch of greenhorns starting out in the military, or some fledglings starting out at your home village.
I see no reason to start at level one at all.For exactly the reasons you listed, above, in what reads as an apparent attempt at dismissing their legitimacy. Folks want to tell those types of stories, and so use the tools D&D provides (low levels) to tell them. Other folks want to have Characters that grow 'organically,' who have a tie to the Green Ghost Inn's innkeeper because the story developed that way rather than because they wrote it in their backstory before the first session, who have a nervous reaction around horses because of a near-death incident that happened in-game, rather than as a suggested addendum from a fellow party member to the off-screen development.

The fact that you apparently do not share these preferences, or wish to use D&D to tell those types of stories, does not mean the folks who do are having fun wrong.

[Masakan]

For exactly the reasons you listed, above, in what reads as an apparent attempt at dismissing their legitimacy. Folks want to tell those types of stories, and so use the tools D&D provides (low levels) to tell them. Other folks want to have Characters that grow 'organically,' who have a tie to the Green Ghost Inn's innkeeper because the story developed that way rather than because they wrote it in their backstory before the first session, who have a nervous reaction around horses because of a near-death incident that happened in-game, rather than as a suggested addendum from a fellow party member to the off-screen development.

The fact that you apparently do not share these preferences, or wish to use D&D to tell those types of stories, does not mean the folks who do are having fun wrong.

It's not even that i don't agree with that, in fact i don't mind that at all. Just give me more of a reason than "your level 1 because I said so."

[EisenKreutzer]

It's not even that i don't agree with that, in fact i don't mind that at all. Just give me more of a reason than "your level 1 because I said so."

People, myself included, have givenyou tons of reasons.

In the end, the only thing that matters is this: Some people prefer it that way.

[nedz]

Because a large part of the attraction of this game is aspirational as regards character development. This is at a maxima at level 1.

Also it keeps the back story simpler.

[Masakan]

Because a large part of the attraction of this game is aspirational as regards character development. This is at a maxima at level 1.

Also it keeps the back story simpler.

Idk i guess being an aspiring storyboard writer these kinds of things get to me.....that and im used to RPG's starting you at level 7 or at least giving you a free level or 2 which in dnd standard is at least level 2

[ComaVision]

Idk i guess being an aspiring storyboard writer these kinds of things get to me.....that and im used to RPG's starting you at level 7 or at least giving you a free level or 2 which in dnd standard is at least level 2

What? I can't think of any RPGs I've played that had me start higher than level 1.

[Amphetryon]

It's not even that i don't agree with that, in fact i don't mind that at all. Just give me more of a reason than "your level 1 because I said so."

Is it your contention that "you're level 6 because I said so," or "level 12 because I said so" or "level 18 because I said so" is somehow better? Could you explain how, if so? If not, then I'm missing what you're contending here as far as how it relates to 1st level.

[RolandDeschain]

Same reason you don't start in the middle of a movie or a book :smallconfused:

[Masakan]

What? I can't think of any RPGs I've played that had me start higher than level 1.

Jrpgs......


Is it your contention that "you're level 6 because I said so," or "level 12 because I said so" or "level 18 because I said so" is somehow better? Could you explain how, if so? If not, then I'm missing what you're contending here as far as how it relates to 1st level.

I don't like those either, But higher level you are it's presumed that you've seen a couple of dungeons and are at least remotely experienced. But i generally avoid campaigns if it looks like the dm just slapped everything together without rhyme or reason.

[dascarletm]

Preference of the players and the GM.

That is all.

Solved.

Is there an underlying reason for this thread? Perhaps you've been forced to start at level one your entire gaming career, and it is frustrating you?

[jiriku]

Thing is, your question is self-iterative. If every game starts at level 7, you could just as easily ask "why do we always start at level 7? Why not level 8?" There is no universally preferred starting point, so a game designer is compelled to choose an arbitary minimum starting level. And at a risk of belaboring the point, the number you would typically assign to the first available level would be "1".

CPRGs start you at level 1 as well. Some just arbitrarily call that 1 a 7 to give you the false belief that you've been given something for nothing.

[Aldrakan]

People start at level one because it is the start. If you watch a TV show or read a book, you generally start at the beginning. People don't need a reason to start at the beginning, they need to find a reason not to. And people have and that's fine, not everyone likes the start (much as people are sometimes advised to skip the first half of season one until the writers work out what to do with the show).

[RolandDeschain]

As a DM(and occasionally a lazy one) arbitrarily starting at level 7 would kind of suck.

I expect you to know your character, and its capabilities regardless of what level we start at.

You expecting me to know your character(as well as all the others) and its capabilities at mid to high levels stinks.

Oversimplification, but you get the point...

[EisenKreutzer]

Jrpgs......



I don't like those either, But higher level you are it's presumed that you've seen a couple of dungeons and are at least remotely experienced. But i generally avoid campaigns if it looks like the dm just slapped everything together without rhyme or reason.

First off, CRPGs =/= tabletop RPGs. Completely different medium,mcompletely different basic assumptions.

Secondly, what does starting at level 1 have to do with a poorly put together campaign?

Also, when are you going to adress the points (mine included) about preference?

[Masakan]

As a DM(and occasionally a lazy one) arbitrarily starting at level 7 would kind of suck.

I expect you to know your character, and its capabilities regardless of what level we start at.

You expecting me to know your character(as well as all the others) and its capabilities at mid to high levels stinks.

Oversimplification, but you get the point...

Starting at level 7 in a Jrpg is the equivilant of starting at level 2-3 in Dnd.
Being level 7 in DnD is like being level 30 in a Jrpg.

Just to clarify.

And starting at level 1 is always frustrating in general, and every DM I've had has used it as an excuse to **** around with the PC's I.E just that Tiny reminder that he's in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases. That's what irks me. it's like dealing with that jerkoff boss at work who loves to push his weight around for ****s and giggles, and you have to suck up to the guy because if you don't he's gonna make your life hell and laugh at you while doing it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Two reasons I can quickly think of:

1) Because people get more of a sense of fulfillment and accomplishment by taking the Luke Skywalker route. Building the character over time and seeing the progression, and letting the game develop more of the character. Others prefer to be Han Solo at the start, both of which are valid ways to play.
2) Some players or the DM are new...And starting higher can quickly cause messes unless the party is at least somewhat experienced.
3) A preference for low-magic/low power games, which can, in my opinion, be more easily done at lower levels.

[Psyren]

I see it as a challenge; A build that is good at all levels feels more elegant to me than one that is weak early and strong late or vice versa, and sometimes it takes a little work from you to make it good all the way up.

For instance, Totemist is very good at late levels, but at level 1 when you're stuck with light armor and no Totem Chakra it can be a pain. Thus I'm drawn to a race like Warforged for it, which gets a Con bonus and also can start the game with a natural weapon (its slam attack, plus I can take Second Slam or Jaws of Death for added punch.) Finding something I like to play at low levels but where I can continue using the bonuses at high levels becomes an optimization exercise for me.

[EisenKreutzer]

Starting at level 7 in a Jrpg is the equivilant of starting at level 2-3 in Dnd.
Being level 7 in DnD is like being level 30 in a Jrpg.

Just to clarify.

And starting at level 1 is always frustrating in general, and every DM I've had has used it as an excuse to **** around with the PC's I.E just that Tiny reminder that he's in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases. That's what irks me. it's like dealing with that jerkoff boss at work who loves to push his weight around for ****s and giggles, and you have to suck up to the guy because if you don't he's gonna make your life hell and laugh at you while doing it.

And you assume every GM ever is like this?

Friend, your problem is not with lvl 1 campaigns, but with ******* GMs.

[Mystral]

Starting at level 7 in a Jrpg is the equivilant of starting at level 2-3 in Dnd.
Being level 7 in DnD is like being level 30 in a Jrpg.

Just to clarify.

And starting at level 1 is always frustrating in general, and every DM I've had has used it as an excuse to **** around with the PC's I.E just that Tiny reminder that he's in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases. That's what irks me. it's like dealing with that jerkoff boss at work who loves to push his weight around for ****s and giggles, and you have to suck up to the guy because if you don't he's gonna make your life hell and laugh at you while doing it.

The main problem with starting at level 1 is that any random crit can kill you, no matter how well you play. At level 3, your character has enough hit points that the chance for him to go from full life to death is practically nonexistent for level-apropriate enemys.

I enjoy games that start at higher levels, as well. I wouldn't join a game that started below level 3 without it having a very good premise.

But remember, a DM who wants to be a douchebag can do so at any level.

[Psyren]

And you assume every GM ever is like this?

Friend, your problem is not with lvl 1 campaigns, but with ******* GMs.

And ****** bosses it sounds like :smalleek:

[Amphetryon]

Starting at level 7 in a Jrpg is the equivilant of starting at level 2-3 in Dnd.
Being level 7 in DnD is like being level 30 in a Jrpg.

Just to clarify.

And starting at level 1 is always frustrating in general, and every DM I've had has used it as an excuse to **** around with the PC's I.E just that Tiny reminder that he's in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases. That's what irks me. it's like dealing with that jerkoff boss at work who loves to push his weight around for ****s and giggles, and you have to suck up to the guy because if you don't he's gonna make your life hell and laugh at you while doing it.

If it doesn't feel like the DM is in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases, I want to know what level, or what edition, you're playing; I've not played a game of D&D or Pathfinder at any level where the DM's control and ability to TPK the party were ever in doubt. This is in no small part because I always understood that the DM was the one determining the difficulty of the encounters.

As before, I'm unsure what this issue has to do with 1st level.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As virtually everyone here has already pointed out, it's simply a matter of preference (I like lvl 5 for a starting point, myself).

As for why they might hold that preference, one answer I haven't seen yet is the possibility that the group likes just how much more important the dice are at that level. Everything is -very- swingy depending on how the dice feel like treating you during that encounter. This is exciting to some people. Such people typically prefer low-level play in general and, I suspect, favor the E6 variant in many cases.

[Masakan]

The main problem with starting at level 1 is that any random crit can kill you, no matter how well you play. At level 3, your character has enough hit points that the chance for him to go from full life to death is practically nonexistent for level-apropriate enemys.

I enjoy games that start at higher levels, as well. I wouldn't join a game that started below level 3 without it having a very good premise.

But remember, a DM who wants to be a douchebag can do so at any level.

Thank you! finally someone who gets it! And yeah your probably right.


And ****** bosses it sounds like :smalleek:

So you remember that huh? Yeah if i said I wasn't upset about that that would be a lie.

[Amphetryon]

You can't be killed by a lucky critical (or an unlucky Saving Throw) at other than 1st level? Really?

[Masakan]

You can't be killed by a lucky critical (or an unlucky Saving Throw) at other than 1st level? Really?
A BS crit can 100 to 0 you and place you well past the bleed out phase if your hit die is anything less than a D10.

[nyjastul69]

Some people find it more favorable to do so for their game. Some people find lower levels more enjoyable rather than higher levels.

[jiriku]

And ****** bosses it sounds like :smalleek:

Seconded. Dude. You need a better boss. Work doesn't have to suck that badly.


If it doesn't feel like the DM is in complete control and can kill you any time he damn well pleases, I want to know what level, or what edition, you're playing; I've not played a game of D&D or Pathfinder at any level where the DM's control and ability to TPK the party were ever in doubt. This is in no small part because I always understood that the DM was the one determining the difficulty of the encounters.

As before, I'm unsure what this issue has to do with 1st level.

I'd second this as well. Based on my campaign experience, fatalities at level 1 are drastically less frequent than fatalities at other levels. At level 1, DMs in our play group are usually taking great pains to go gently with challenges. Conversely, I am a bona fide Killer DM (TM) and my players are actually more afraid of me at high levels because they know the universe of options I'm willing to employ in encounter-building is larger. And even as a Killer DM, I've only TPK'd a party once in 20 years of gaming.

[Elkad]

The main problem with starting at level 1 is that any random crit can kill you, no matter how well you play. At level 3, your character has enough hit points that the chance for him to go from full life to death is practically nonexistent for level-apropriate enemys.

I enjoy games that start at higher levels, as well. I wouldn't join a game that started below level 3 without it having a very good premise.

But remember, a DM who wants to be a douchebag can do so at any level.

DM can control those random crits. Even without die-fudging. Don't give the badguys x3 weapons, and keep the bonuses down. 1d6 x2 goblins can't even manage to one-shot the wizard, unless he has a 6 con.

I like L1. I generally don't have a super-planned build, my backstory is no more than a few sketchy notes, and I often have no idea on my character's personality, goals, or motivations. I'll figure that out as I play.
So the first few levels have a personal adventure where I find out about my own character.

[TheIronGolem]

Thank you! finally someone who gets it!

No, not "finally". Everyone here gets it, whether they feel the same way you do or not.

[Psyren]

So you remember that huh? Yeah if i said I wasn't upset about that that would be a lie.

Remember what? I was only going off what you said in #23.

[Masakan]

Remember what? I was only going off what you said in #23.

Oh um uh...nvm

[Uncle Pine]

I don't think anyone explicitly mentioned this, but starting at 1st level is especially good if you have to introduce the game to a group of people who never played it: there are lots of options in D&D even at 1st level and starting at higher levels is just more intimidating for the players (who still don't know about all the classes, skills, feats, special attacks, magic items and spells and maybe didn't even completely understood what they are and how they work yet) and more bothersome for the DM because he has to guide the players through the choices they need to do to create their characters.

That said, remember that 2nd level adventurers wouldn't exist if 1st level adventurers didn't get out of the inn to kill innocent rats and goblins. Statistically, 80%* of the 1st level adventurers die the first time an orc with a greatsword charges them and score a hit: any adventurer that isn't good (and lucky) enough to fit in the other 20% doesn't deserve to live as a 2nd level adventurer in a cruel faux medieval fantasy world.

*Not an actual statistic, but what I think is a reasonable approximation.


EDIT: This obviously doesn't mean that people who for example start playing at 5th level are "doing it wrong": D&D is supposed to be a way to have fun, so if your group (DM included) wants to start at 5th level the right thing to do is starting at 5th level. I was just trying to make a point.

[smcmike]

1. Some of us like low level play, and also like leveling up. Starting at level 1 gives you more chances to level up before the game gets (to my mind) absurd. I WANT to kill goblins and zombies.
2. Level 1 can be lethal, but so can every other level. A full attack from a goblin might knock my 6 hp wizard out. A fireball at level 5 can easily do the same to my 22 hp wizard. If you have problems with DMs that treat DMing as a power trip, I'm not sure how leveling up helps at all. At level 1, I actually cut the DM some slack if my character dies: characters death in gritty low level combat feels like less of an affront than the arbitrary death of a higher level character, who I've spent more time on and feel deserves more respect.
3. Story.

Here's my question: can someone explain the point of continuing a campaign to level 20? How do you relate to characters and situations that have almost no grounding in real life or fiction? Real question, though not a criticism.

[OldTrees1]

Here's my question: can someone explain the point of continuing a campaign to level 20? How do you relate to characters and situations that have almost no grounding in real life or fiction? Real question, though not a criticism.

Check your premises. Your question(continuing a campaign to level 20?) and your concern(have almost no grounding in real life or fiction) are not the same.

[Vhaidara]

A BS crit can 100 to 0 you and place you well past the bleed out phase if your hit die is anything less than a D10.

Um, this applies far past level 1. Hell, the Orc from the SRD (CR 1/2) has a 15% chance to threaten a crit, and if he confirms, you have 4d4+8 coming at you. Minimum that's 16 (instakill on d4 classes), while the max is 24 (probably an instakill unless you're a barbarian).

Let's make him a level 1 barbarian, and give him a greataxe (because seriously, orcs use axes, not freaking falchions people). 3d12+21. Potentially 57 damage. That's going to be instagibbing people through levels 4-5.

And god forbid your GM decide that some enemy has a scythe and took power attack...

[smcmike]

Check your premises. Your question(continuing a campaign to level 20?) and your concern(have almost no grounding in real life or fiction) are not the same.

Well, thank you, but I was quite aware of that fact, which is why I asked a question rather than raising a criticism. Obviously my unstated premise is that I find more enjoyment in the game when I can relate to it, and that I find narratives that are similar in some way to real life or fiction to be more relatable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here's my question: can someone explain the point of continuing a campaign to level 20? How do you relate to characters and situations that have almost no grounding in real life or fiction? Real question, though not a criticism.

I don't quite go to 20 if I can help it (I try to cut things off just a bit after reaching level 17) but I'll field this one anyway.

First, we have to acknowledge that there are three -very- different games going on at high levels. Casters vs casters, non-casters vs non-casters, and an ad-hoc blending of the former with the latter.

Casters vs casters;

This is all about power. No..... that's not quite right. It's all about POWER. This is the game at its most complex. Each member of the adventuring party is individually capable of creating sweeping changes to the campaign world and their foes are nothing less than mortal gods (immortal, true gods being epic challenges). The appeal here is both in having that scope of power but also having to use every bit of knowledge you have as a player to play a complex game of cat and mouse chess with the enemies the GM puts together. Complex knowledge of the magic system is a must for mere survival and to excel requires skill in politics, spycraft, and sometimes even economics. On a personal note; I -love- playing this game but it's rare to find a group that can run at this level.

Non-casters vs non-casters:

This is the realm of play that most closely resembles lower level play, just scaled up to epic (in the colloquial sense) proportions. The power aspect is still there, individual members of the group are capable of defeating armies either through strength of arms (warrior classes) or cunning and guile (skill based classes), but they're not going to shatter the world if they carelessly engage foes on their own level. Depending on build choices, the players are running superheroes at this stage.

Blended:

This is the tough one, where the gentlemen's agreements and setting an acceptable optimization level become most important. The casters have to come down and the non-casters have to claw their way up to a middle point between the previous two. Because of the way they interact with each other, this type of play looks very different from either of the others. Ideally, the casters are choosing and shaping the battlefield (metaphorical or otherwise) and enhancing the non-casters who, in turn, do the heavy lifting on those fields. It's a hell of a thing to see when it works well but an absolute mess when it doesn't.

As for relating to the characters, that's not so hard. Whatever their powers may be and however insane they may get, the characters are still human(ish) underneath it all. We relate to them the same way we relate to superman, the hulk, spiderman, tony stark, et-al. They still have desires, fears, motivations, and foibles that we can relate to even if they can split mountains or create their own miniature realities.

[OldTrees1]

Well, thank you, but I was quite aware of that fact, which is why I asked a question rather than raising a criticism. Obviously my unstated premise is that I find more enjoyment in the game when I can relate to it, and that I find narratives that are similar in some way to real life or fiction to be more relatable.

I apologize, but that was my honest answer to your question. I play 20th level in a way similar to fictional heroes/fantasy stories. Hence why I was pointing out that your concern and your question were not the same thing.

[Curmudgeon]

Only at 1st level (using point buy and average gold) do you have total control over every aspect of your character. Your hit points are known (the maximum for your HD). At later levels you might roll 1s for HP gain. At level up you won't know how much gp you'll have (dues are necessary for joining organizations which are requirements for feats, ACFs, and PrCs), or if you'll be suffering from ability damage and thus fail to qualify for various feats.

Level 1 is when your character is shiny and just as you've designed. Later, things get random.

[Masakan]

Only at 1st level (using point buy and average gold) do you have total control over every aspect of your character. Your hit points are known (the maximum for your HD). At later levels you might roll 1s for HP gain. At level up you won't know how much gp you'll have (dues are necessary for joining organizations which are requirements for feats, ACFs, and PrCs), or if you'll be suffering from ability damage and thus fail to qualify for various feats.

Level 1 is when your character is shiny and just as you've designed. Later, things get random.
You do realize you can decide to take an average for rolls right?

[Psyren]

You do realize you can decide to take an average for rolls right?

I believe that's up to your DM

[Kantolin]

I will note that most stories don't begin at what D&D calls level 1.

You do get the 'Boy who only barely knows which end of a sword to point at the enemy who becomes a master swordsman over the course of the story', but that's actually a minority occurrence. Dragonlance is an example; the original trilogy begins with none of the characters at D&D level 1 - over the course of the story, I'd say the only main character who could /possibly/ be argued to be level 1 is Tika, and even that's iffy. 'The Knight who slays the dragon to rescue the Princess' stereotype implies, at the start of the story, that the Knight is capable of slaying or at least challenging said dragon (who is much larger than he is), as opposed to running around stabbing individual orcs for a few months.

Also, starting at [any given level] changes the initial character concepts while not removing them. The skilled Captain of the Guard, whos entire squadron - and indeed the town he was meant to protect - was assaulted by strange extraplanar aberrations? Generally, I think of 'Captain of the Guard' as being somewhere around level 5ish. If you're lower level, you could be 'a guard' but that doesn't give you the sense of responsibility that being the Captain who failed his men when they needed him the most does. Or I suppose you could be the Captain of the Guard who isn't anything resembling skilled enough to actually Captain guards and is weaker than any other Captains of the Guard anywhere else you run into, but that's a slightly different concept.

So while certain ideas are enabled at level 1, it also disables others.

It's also hard to scale 'down' when you are level 1. If the party is level say 10, as a DM you can challenge them with level 10 enemies. You can then throw a level 20 enemy at the party if you want the party to be most likely curb stomped unless they avoid conflict, and can throw a level 1 enemy at the party if you want them to most likely curb stomp the enemy. Or have an area that is 'generally too strong' for the party - scale up! But if your kobolds are comedic trivial encounters, you can then also have them there, so the party can go rampage through kobold lands if they want to.

Whereas when the PCs are level 1, even the CR 1/4 kobolds holding knives can get them, especially if the PCs aren't the most optimized, so you have to be more careful. You can't 'scale down' nearly as effectively. I know I've run games where unlucky rolls made the 'Rats the PCs can effortlessly take down so they can learn about the church of nerull' became 'Suddenly ad hoccing so this isn't a TPK'.

~~
BUT! That's not what this topic is about. This topic isn't 'I prefer games that start at level 7' nor is it 'Can someone explain the appeal of...'. Nope, it's 'What is the point?'

So - no starting level is objectively better than any other. It is no more pointless to be level 1 as level 7 as level 15 as level 50. Level 1 games are generally more simple, and that appeals to a lot of people. Also some people like making level 1 characters who can do 4d6 with reserve feats and one shot everything they run into. Also some people like having extremely gritty characters where everyone can die to just about anything that hits them, sometimes in a horror based game.

So there are plenty of reasons one /would/ start at level 1, and it's certainly not /worse/ than starting at a higher level. A DM can nearly-arbitrarily kill you at any level he feels like; just use an increasingly inappropriate amount of inappropriately leveled Balors (Even optimized level 20 wizards-with-prestige-classes will lose to optimized balors who have 20 wizard-with-prestige-class levels on top of that!), or by decreeing 'you die'. :P

Level 1 games are usually grittier, but that's a stylistic difference and not a problem.

[Masakan]

I will note that most stories don't begin at what D&D calls level 1.

You do get the 'Boy who only barely knows which end of a sword to point at the enemy who becomes a master swordsman over the course of the story', but that's actually a minority occurrence. Dragonlance is an example; the original trilogy begins with none of the characters at D&D level 1 - over the course of the story, I'd say the only main character who could /possibly/ be argued to be level 1 is Tika, and even that's iffy. 'The Knight who slays the dragon to rescue the Princess' stereotype implies, at the start of the story, that the Knight is capable of slaying or at least challenging said dragon (who is much larger than he is), as opposed to running around stabbing individual orcs for a few months.

Also, starting at [any given level] changes the initial character concepts while not removing them. The skilled Captain of the Guard, whos entire squadron - and indeed the town he was meant to protect - was assaulted by strange extraplanar aberrations? Generally, I think of 'Captain of the Guard' as being somewhere around level 5ish. If you're lower level, you could be 'a guard' but that doesn't give you the sense of responsibility that being the Captain who failed his men when they needed him the most does. Or I suppose you could be the Captain of the Guard who isn't anything resembling skilled enough to actually Captain guards and is weaker than any other Captains of the Guard anywhere else you run into, but that's a slightly different concept.

So while certain ideas are enabled at level 1, it also disables others.

It's also hard to scale 'down' when you are level 1. If the party is level say 10, as a DM you can challenge them with level 10 enemies. You can then throw a level 20 enemy at the party if you want the party to be most likely curb stomped unless they avoid conflict, and can throw a level 1 enemy at the party if you want them to most likely curb stomp the enemy. Or have an area that is 'generally too strong' for the party - scale up! But if your kobolds are comedic trivial encounters, you can then also have them there, so the party can go rampage through kobold lands if they want to.

Whereas when the PCs are level 1, even the CR 1/4 kobolds holding knives can get them, especially if the PCs aren't the most optimized, so you have to be more careful. You can't 'scale down' nearly as effectively. I know I've run games where unlucky rolls made the 'Rats the PCs can effortlessly take down so they can learn about the church of nerull' became 'Suddenly ad hoccing so this isn't a TPK'.

~~
BUT! That's not what this topic is about. This topic isn't 'I prefer games that start at level 7' nor is it 'Can someone explain the appeal of...'. Nope, it's 'What is the point?'

So - no starting level is objectively better than any other. It is no more pointless to be level 1 as level 7 as level 15 as level 50. Level 1 games are generally more simple, and that appeals to a lot of people. Also some people like making level 1 characters who can do 4d6 with reserve feats and one shot everything they run into. Also some people like having extremely gritty characters where everyone can die to just about anything that hits them, sometimes in a horror based game.

So there are plenty of reasons one /would/ start at level 1, and it's certainly not /worse/ than starting at a higher level. A DM can nearly-arbitrarily kill you at any level he feels like; just use an increasingly inappropriate amount of inappropriately leveled Balors (Even optimized level 20 wizards-with-prestige-classes will lose to optimized balors who have 20 wizard-with-prestige-class levels on top of that!), or by decreeing 'you die'. :P

Level 1 games are usually grittier, but that's a stylistic difference and not a problem.

Hmm...guess im just not into gritty stuff. But I guess that's what happens when you play DnD with a pseudo anime mindset. I say pseudo because i know the crazy stuff doesn't happen until 10 and I find it ironic that people get on certain things and concepts for being too "ANIME" when god wizards can do more bs than most anime characters can ever hope to.

[Kantolin]

Hmm...guess im just not into gritty stuff.

That feels much less hostile than your initial post, haha. :smallsmile: Me neither!

I don't like 'grim and gritty games', and I personally hate running games that are lower than level 5ish. That actually is the biggest reason I got tired of running the 5e D&D encounters - when 'two kobolds' are fairly likely to drop a PC it feels like it limits me on what I'm able to do while being interesting, as if deaths happen anything resembling frequently they stop meaning anything at all. The worst effect you can get is if you tell someone a couple days later, "Sorry about your elven paladin" and they respond, "Who?"

And I've played in games where that was the case. (I can tolerate it slightly more as a player than as a DM, but in that case I stated 'this game isn't really for me' and left despite ironically being the only character who kept their character throughout.)

The more gritty, the more often 'shifty coward' becomes the only viable archetype. If you want to play the hero in shining armour who charges into battle, and every time you do so you get a time out in the form of making a new character... it'll sure discourage you from wanting to be heroic. (Or I suppose you just won't care after awhile and will do whatever).

Kinda like how, if every time you have a family in game they are used as a punishment, it encourages everyone to be an orphan with no ties to any organization, person, nor group.

But! That said, one of my friends is running a level 1 horror game, and everyone therein is having an absolute blast. ^_^ So it's obviously not 'something is objectively wrong with level 1 games', and more 'Kantolin does not enjoy them personally', which is absolutely okay.

Are you having trouble finding other games? If not, have you tried DMing yourself?

[Threadnaught]

It is simpler and easier to create low level characters and it makes a more interesting contrast to how they'd appear when they're high level.

[Blackhawk748]

Some of us like Grim and Gritty, my personal favorite. This is why i love E6, its easy to DM and a lot harder to screw up a character.

[Masakan]

That feels much less hostile than your initial post, haha. :smallsmile: Me neither!

I don't like 'grim and gritty games', and I personally hate running games that are lower than level 5ish. That actually is the biggest reason I got tired of running the 5e D&D encounters - when 'two kobolds' are fairly likely to drop a PC it feels like it limits me on what I'm able to do while being interesting, as if deaths happen anything resembling frequently they stop meaning anything at all. The worst effect you can get is if you tell someone a couple days later, "Sorry about your elven paladin" and they respond, "Who?"

And I've played in games where that was the case. (I can tolerate it slightly more as a player than as a DM, but in that case I stated 'this game isn't really for me' and left despite ironically being the only character who kept their character throughout.)

The more gritty, the more often 'shifty coward' becomes the only viable archetype. If you want to play the hero in shining armour who charges into battle, and every time you do so you get a time out in the form of making a new character... it'll sure discourage you from wanting to be heroic. (Or I suppose you just won't care after awhile and will do whatever).

Kinda like how, if every time you have a family in game they are used as a punishment, it encourages everyone to be an orphan with no ties to any organization, person, nor group.

But! That said, one of my friends is running a level 1 horror game, and everyone therein is having an absolute blast. ^_^ So it's obviously not 'something is objectively wrong with level 1 games', and more 'Kantolin does not enjoy them personally', which is absolutely okay.

Are you having trouble finding other games? If not, have you tried DMing yourself?

I wouldn't make a good DM I like railroading narratives too much.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't make a good DM I like railroading narratives too much.

So run an AP, that way the players go in expect it to be on rails and you can focus on execution as well as RPing the NPCs they encounter.

[Masakan]

So run an AP, that way the players go in expect it to be on rails and you can focus on execution as well as RPing the NPCs they encounter.

AP? adventurer's path?

[Vhaidara]

AP? adventurer's path?

Yup. Don't know where to find the 3.5 ones, but I know they're out there. And Paizo puts out like 2 every year for Pathfinder that run from 1-20.

[Kantolin]

And Paizo puts out like 2 every year for Pathfinder that run from 1-20.

Emphasis mine. /Do/ they? I thought they went from like 1-12 or something, and will be quite cheerful if I am mistaken in my knowledge.

[Sileniy]

Emphasis mine. /Do/ they? I thought they went from like 1-12 or something, and will be quite cheerful if I am mistaken in my knowledge.

Modules or PFS things, maybe. But these are the big, six-book series, with the last book starting at level 14-15. Hell, the last part of Wrath of the Righteous starts at level 18.

[Vhaidara]

Emphasis mine. /Do/ they? I thought they went from like 1-12 or something, and will be quite cheerful if I am mistaken in my knowledge.

From what I know, they run 1-20. You're thinking of Pathfinder Society, which runs primarily 1-12, with a special retirement arc of scenarios that need to be done in the right order to hit 20 (yes, it's possible, just hard)

Nick: What mythic tier are you at by then? I know that's the really big thing in WotR.

[Crake]

Personally I run a homebrew campaign setting where level 1-2 is the norm, level 6 are heroic outliers, level 9-11 is all but unheard of and only a handful of level 15+ people exist. As such, starting at anything other than 1st cuts out a HUGE portion of a character's development. Breaking that glass ceiling in my game, and entering the world of heros beyond is a big step, and starting there, or even halfway there, seems somewhat pointless. The thing you need to remember is that by level 7+ characters cease to be in the realms of mundane mortals, even the fighters. While it doesn't seem that way relatively, a level 7 fighter with 18 con and improved toughness can, on average, survive a fall from terminal velocity, then get right back up and walk along his merry way with nary a care in the world, and completely recover from the ordeal in about a week. That's not something people would consider normal, and if you were to achieve a feat like that in front of normal people in my game, they would regard that as a much greater feat than being able to cast spells (because common people are quite distrusting of spells in my setting), and that's just from the sheer HP a character has from leveling up. Consider the level 10 wizard has enough martial proficiency to handle a weapon as well as a level 5, trained fighter, and about as much HP to boot (assuming a decent con score). This is just from him dabbling over his adventuring career. These characters are, by all accounts, superhuman, the story isn't so much about what the players do once they get to these levels, it's the players getting there to begin with. Stuffing all that development, which in my experience amounts to over half a year in character and story development, is just weak.

[Arbane]

Same reason you don't start in the middle of a movie or a book :smallconfused:

Yeah, I remember those first few thrilling chapters of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn and Gandalf were killing rats to level up.

Mostly, I think people start at level one "Because Gygax". In old-school D&D, heroes aren't born, they're made - by attrition. (For added hilarity, I seem to recall reading somewhere he usually started new character at level 3.)

In both the PF games I've been in, the GM started us out at levels 2 and 4, respectively.

[Yahzi]

Wusses. I start my players at level 0.

[jamieth]

From what I know, they run 1-20. You're thinking of Pathfinder Society, which runs primarily 1-12, with a special retirement arc of scenarios that need to be done in the right order to hit 20 (yes, it's possible, just hard)

Nick: What mythic tier are you at by then? I know that's the really big thing in WotR.

As far as I remember, most Paizo APs actually run to somewhere around 17 or 18, with Wrath of the Righteous being an outlier - it was specifically designed for Mythic play, and, therefore, runs the whole gamut up to 20/MR10.

[Thanatosia]

I think I'm with the OP in that I can't stand starting at lv1. Low level campaigns are fine, but I much prefer starting at lv3 or so.

The problem as others have pointed out, is that a single HD - even maxed - is so prone to sudden RNG death. One attack and all the effort you spent constructing that character just got flushed - meh. Later on one attack deaths only come from Save or dies generally speaking, and by the time save or dies are a thing, so is raise dead or the ability for your party to get one.

[Arbane]

Wusses. I start my players at level 0.

I was actually in a game like that - we all started as zero-level peasants in the same town, and the GM asked us before the game what class we were aspiring to.

The the drow sacked the town and carried us off for a year of torture. Fun!

There's at least one "retroclone" game that does this - In Dungeon Crawl Classics you randomly generate four zero-level peasants and send them into a starter dungeon. The first one who survives reaches level 1 and is your PC.

[hifidelity2]

Our group (unless its a one shot adventure) always start at Level 1
I like the building up of the Character from 1 to what ever height of power they finally obtain. I find you get much more attached to them and they develop a more complex character.
The main exception to this is if someone dies and then rolls a new character they start 1 level below the lowest level in the (surviving) party. THis stops a 1st level character trying to survive adventures built for a level 7 party

[bean illus]

Wusses. I start my players at level 0.

Yeah.

Let's go back to the very very beginning. See that part that says RPG? Know what that means?

It stands for Role Playing Game.

Now it's cool that some folks like to roll dice, and play, but some folks just like the original version.

[EisenKreutzer]

Yeah.

Let's go back to the very very beginning. See that part that says RPG? Know what that means?

It stands for Role Playing Game.

Now it's cool that some folks like to roll dice, and play, but some folks just like the original version.

It sure is Stormwind Fallacy in here.

[Barstro]

Yeah, I remember those first few thrilling chapters of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn and Gandalf were killing rats to level up.


But the Hobbits were level 1. Probably more like level 0.

I like starting at level 1 as a way to learn the character and mesh with the party. I've often changed how I would have advanced based on what has happened at early levels. But I can certainly understand others not getting that same sort of satisfaction.

[The Insanity]

Masochism?

[RolkFlameraven]

I hate starting higher then 1st myself. The PC becomes less a person and more of a pile of numbers to me the higher up in level I start to play them. At the same time half my group absolutely hates low level play because of how 'weak' they feel at those levels.

So we bounce around in what level we start game play at, sometimes its 1st, others its 5th or 13th so everyone gets a chance to be happy with starting at the level they wish to start.

As for the people who talk about how a first level PC dies at the hands of a lucky shot, how often does that really happen? I've TPKed my fair share of groups, and have killed a PC, or been killed as a PC more then a few times; but I can't think of a single level 1 who was killed. 3+ sure, but 1?

To be honest, I can think of more groups that started at higher levels that got schooled then ones that started at level 1, mostly because the higher level ones where a group of individuals with 'shticks' and not a group who knew what the others where really going to/could do. After a few levels/fights those groups congeal better yes, but those first few fights are always either harsh on the group, or one persons build far out shines the others.

[JusticeZero]

I want characters to have a tested and developed build that they've grown into, rather than one they don't really understand built for theoretical situations that don't work in the setting.

[Threadnaught]

Yeah, I remember those first few thrilling chapters of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn and Gandalf were killing rats to level up.

This looks like sarcasm, but they did hold a group of wolves at bay with torches while Gandalf and Legolas killed a wolf together.
They lured an overpowering encounter into destroying the entrance to a dungeon they decided to hide in from it.
Then they killed a whole bunch of Goblins and a Troll.

Gandalf then single handedly fought a Balor to prevent it from reaching the rest of the party, beat it through rolling nothing but crits against all of its natural 1s and gained enough xp that the DM felt they had to allow Gandalf level up multiple times and gain the Saint Template. It's obvious that the Balor was only there to encourage the players to hurry out of the dungeon.

Later on the party had graduated to killing Orcs with ease, Boromir being the most powerful character, was given the majority of the Orcs to fight and a boss fight against a unique enemy in Lurtz. Boromir fell into negatives, but not before killing all of the Orc Warriors so the rest of the party could take on Lurtz unhindered. Aragorn took out Lurtz in a handful of rounds, but by the time he finished and ran over to Boromir, Boromir had reached -10HP, the DM was however, kind enough to allow Boromir's player a few last words for their character.

Even later, after wiping out an army of 10,000 Orcs, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli travelled into a tomb to fight Ghosts, Aragorn proved unaffected by the Ghosts' Frightful Presence and had a Ghost Touch sword, so the Ghosts followed him for a while, temporarily granting Aragorn the benefits of the Undead Leadership Feat.
Now the party could take on a Mumakil/Oliphaunt/Dire Eliphant and each were single handedly capable of killing a Troll. Also Ghost Army.
They totally leveled up.

[TheIronGolem]

Yeah.

Let's go back to the very very beginning. See that part that says RPG? Know what that means?

It stands for Role Playing Game.

Now it's cool that some folks like to roll dice, and play, but some folks just like the original version.

Ahem.

"Level 0" or similar low-power games can be fun. I've done a few, and they were a nice change of pace. But if you imagine that doing it gives you any claim to being More Roleplay Than Thou, you are a thousand percent wrong.

[Brion]

Starting at level 1 (which I, admittedly, have never done) also allows you to develop your tactics to fit the party better. When I'm making a character, I often focus solely on what I can do, but really I have more fun when I can figure out what tactics I need to use to best fit the party I'm in. Maybe I think I'll be best with one build, but the party really needs something else, so I adjust.

This is very true for me. Sometimes starting at level 1 is kind of draining to slog through 3-4 levels of mediocrity before you start to see the character open up. But what I have found, especially with my current group, is that my character developed drastically differently than I expected. His personality, spells known (Pathfinder Oracle), tactics in battle, etc were shaped very much by our group composition and how others have built their characters. I can say without a doubt that had I taken my original vision straight into some of the mid level dungeons, we would have been slaughtered.

[bean illus]

Ahem.

"Level 0" or similar low-power games can be fun. I've done a few, and they were a nice change of pace. But if you imagine that doing it gives you any claim to being More Roleplay Than Thou, you are a thousand percent wrong.

I wasn't trying to claim that YOU were less role because YOU didn't start at -0-.
I was agreeing with the previous posters who said they enjoyed starting the story at the beginning. The OP was not about 'is it wrong to start at mid/high levels. It was specifically about "why start at 1st/low levels". My answer specifically addressed WHY some folks start at 1(or lower). They enjoy the role.
Looks like the post below at least partially aligns with my thoughts (bold is added).


This is very true for me. Sometimes starting at level 1 is kind of draining to slog through 3-4 levels of mediocrity before you start to see the character open up. But what I have found, especially with my current group, is that my character developed drastically differently than I expected. His personality, spells known (Pathfinder Oracle), tactics in battle, etc were shaped very much by our group composition and how others have built their characters. I can say without a doubt that had I taken my original vision straight into some of the mid level dungeons, we would have been slaughtered.
The way i adjust for the "slog through...levels" is to fiat advance the players to 2nd and 3rd levels a bit faster than xp would dictate (if they are experienced enough as players to be fluent with their sheets). Usually it's only about 1 or 2 sessions per level till about 3rd level. If i have a large campaign lined out (and the players are fluent) i may only play 3rd and 4rth for about 3 or 4 sessions before advancement.

[MyrPsychologist]

I hate the early levels. Both running and playing in them.

They're incredibly dull. Players don't have a lot of power or options to really approach problems from a creative angle, encounters are incredibly boring and monotonous, and it ultimately feels like the game is still waiting to really start. Now, that's not to say that people can't enjoy this lower level of power and find it appealing; it's just not for me.

Personally, I like to start around level 5. A lot of builds and concepts are really "coming online" at this point and people have much more power and flexibility in how they play.

[nedz]

I hate the early levels. Both running and playing in them.

They're incredibly dull. Players don't have a lot of power or options to really approach problems from a creative angle, encounters are incredibly boring and monotonous, and it ultimately feels like the game is still waiting to really start. Now, that's not to say that people can't enjoy this lower level of power and find it appealing; it's just not for me.

Personally, I like to start around level 5. A lot of builds and concepts are really "coming online" at this point and people have much more power and flexibility in how they play.

But they don't have to be dull. There are challenges you can throw at a low level party which even level 5 parties can solve trivially with spells, e.g. Fly. At low levels the dice rule so your level 1 characters can succeed on opposed skill checks on almost any skill whereas even at level 5 these checks would be unlikely to succeed outside of the skills which they have invested in. This swingyness swings both ways and so more things are possible, not less.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As for the people who talk about how a first level PC dies at the hands of a lucky shot, how often does that really happen? I've TPKed my fair share of groups, and have killed a PC, or been killed as a PC more then a few times; but I can't think of a single level 1 who was killed. 3+ sure, but 1?

To be honest, I can think of more groups that started at higher levels that got schooled then ones that started at level 1, mostly because the higher level ones where a group of individuals with 'shticks' and not a group who knew what the others where really going to/could do. After a few levels/fights those groups congeal better yes, but those first few fights are always either harsh on the group, or one persons build far out shines the others.

It's actually a little less likely to happen at level 1 because level 1 (and 2) are intentionally foreshortened by the XP table, requiring fewer encounters to level up than any other level. It can and does happen but it's not as frequent as it otherwise might've been.

I'd go so far as to hazard a bit of conjecture and say that more character death occurs at levels 2 & 3 than at any other level, in games that range from level 1 to level 10+.

[Arbane]

Masochism?

D&D has a strong tradition of "Earn Your Fun" that, regrettably, has been adopted by most MMOs. The idea is that you start as a speck of insignificant plankton and try to eat enough algae to one day transform into an invertebrate.

Wanting to start at the point where you can actually be competent at your character concept is seen a sure sign of munchkinism.

[Psyren]

D&D has a strong tradition of "Earn Your Fun" that, regrettably, has been adopted by most MMOs. The idea is that you start as a speck of insignificant plankton and try to eat enough algae to one day transform into an invertebrate.

Wanting to start at the point where you can actually be competent at your character concept is seen a sure sign of munchkinism.

That sounds like a DM problem rather than a system problem. D&D (and PF) give you everything you need to know to start above 1st level if you want - WBL tables, class tables, % of wealth by item type guidelines, challenge ratings etc.

If a DM ignores all of that and mandates the group start from 1 even if they don't want to, that's on that DM, and a mutiny is in order. (Also, your own sig.)

[Amphetryon]

It's actually a little less likely to happen at level 1 because level 1 (and 2) are intentionally foreshortened by the XP table, requiring fewer encounters to level up than any other level. It can and does happen but it's not as frequent as it otherwise might've been.

I'd go so far as to hazard a bit of conjecture and say that more character death occurs at levels 2 & 3 than at any other level, in games that range from level 1 to level 10+.
My purely anecdotal experience is that 5th level is the one most likely to see a Character death. NPC Feat synergies start to pile up nicely; monsters with Save-or-Die abilities beyond HP damage become more prevalent; and, of course, 3rd level Spells really start to let those who sling magic put some serious pain on an unsuspecting party.

[Sayt]

Yup. Don't know where to find the 3.5 ones, but I know they're out there. And Paizo puts out like 2 every year for Pathfinder that run from 1-20.


Emphasis mine. /Do/ they? I thought they went from like 1-12 or something, and will be quite cheerful if I am mistaken in my knowledge.


From what I know, they run 1-20. You're thinking of Pathfinder Society, which runs primarily 1-12, with a special retirement arc of scenarios that need to be done in the right order to hit 20 (yes, it's possible, just hard)

Nick: What mythic tier are you at by then? I know that's the really big thing in WotR.

It varies from path to path. Iron Gods goes 1-20, Wrath of the Righteous goes 1-20+MR8+, Carrion Crown goes 1-17, but generally speaking, the end of the campaign lands somewhere at or after 15.

[nyjastul69]

Wusses. I start my players at level 0.

The 1st Ed. Greyhawk Adventures book has rules for starting at 0th level.

[Psyren]

As does PF. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/young-characters)

[Milo v3]

I never really understood the point of playing a near-average joe in a game like 3.5e or PF, another game maybe but I generally prefer the parties I'm running to have an actual reason to be the ones saving the day over the many many many many more capable people.

[Strigon]

I never really understood the point of playing a near-average joe in a game like 3.5e or PF, another game maybe but I generally prefer the parties I'm running to have an actual reason to be the ones saving the day over the many many many many more capable people.

Well, when you're at low-level, the stakes have to be equally low.
Rather than having the King send them on an expedition to save his realm, have Old Man Jensen be getting a bit on in years, and not able to make the trip up the mountain to deliver firewood to his grandchildren living outside town.
At lower levels, they shouldn't be heroes so much as errand boys, or maybe small-town heroes, well-known in their little village, but vagrants anywhere else.

[RolkFlameraven]

It's actually a little less likely to happen at level 1 because level 1 (and 2) are intentionally foreshortened by the XP table, requiring fewer encounters to level up than any other level. It can and does happen but it's not as frequent as it otherwise might've been.

I'd go so far as to hazard a bit of conjecture and say that more character death occurs at levels 2 & 3 than at any other level, in games that range from level 1 to level 10+.

Yeah, that's how I thought it would be. Only needing 1000 xp to level gets you out of level 1 in short order. I guess if you where playing slow track in PF it could get messy, but does anyone play on the slow track? I did once, in my first PF game, that lasted two sessions before I swapped down to medium and most of our games have been fast unless its an AP that is set to medium.

[Elkad]

Yeah, that's how I thought it would be. Only needing 1000 xp to level gets you out of level 1 in short order. I guess if you where playing slow track in PF it could get messy, but does anyone play on the slow track? I did once, in my first PF game, that lasted two sessions before I swapped down to medium and most of our games have been fast unless its an AP that is set to medium.

Slow track? Even that is astoundingly fast compared to prior editions. The slow exp table looks similar, but awards are vastly greater.

I grew up playing where a wizard needed to kill an entire village of kobolds to make it from 1st to 2nd. Not only that, the xp tables differed by class. The thief leveled in half the time, and the barbarian had it even worse than the wizard. The barbarian hit 2nd level at the same time the wizard hit 3rd and the thief hit 4th.

Of course I have a lot less play time now. We level up every 5 sessions or so, whether it's now or 35 years ago, but the sessions are 6 hours instead of "from after school on Friday until we pass out from exhaustion sometime Sunday evening". A bit faster the first couple levels, but not by a lot.

[Milo v3]

Well, when you're at low-level, the stakes have to be equally low.
Rather than having the King send them on an expedition to save his realm, have Old Man Jensen be getting a bit on in years, and not able to make the trip up the mountain to deliver firewood to his grandchildren living outside town.
At lower levels, they shouldn't be heroes so much as errand boys, or maybe small-town heroes, well-known in their little village, but vagrants anywhere else.

I never understood why someone would use D&D to play something like that. It doesn't sound like the right type of system for that.

[An Enemy Spy]

I never understood why someone would use D&D to play something like that. It doesn't sound like the right type of system for that.

Well that's the beauty of D&D. It can be many different things to many different people.

[Deophaun]

Well, when you're at low-level, the stakes have to be equally low.

No.

I've run games where, at level 1, the players got their first mission from a succubus, slew a dragon at the climax of level 1 to steal a magic artifact, and then, because one player made the off-hand comment that he had never fought a beholder in all his years playing D&D, at level 2 they stopped a Far Realm breach and killed the beholder that was orchestrating it. Then, at level 3, they got pulled into the machinations between the leader of a cult of Tiamat, a lich, and another dragon, all while Pazuzuu himself was setting up the pieces for what would be the Paragon part of the campaign (he had already gotten the party's Paladin to unwittingly follow him).

Granted, this was 4e, which had a different understanding of what it meant to be level 1. But the principle is the same: games are only as small or large as the DM decides.

[Crake]

I never understood why someone would use D&D to play something like that. It doesn't sound like the right type of system for that.

Think about it this way, normally you would start your character at level 5, then go on an epic quest to save the world. But you had a backstory detailing how your character got to level 5 in the first place, right? Well, some people prefer to actually play out that backstory, to develop something more memorable than just some words typed out in a document somewhere. They play out the levels 1-5 and develop a background to their character, and once their character hits level 5 and becomes the village hero, that's when the king takes notice and sends them on an epic journey to save the world.

[frost890]

Ok i get that....why however are you at level 1 and randomly in a bar somewhere or in a dungeon or something, when realistically every goblin under the sun should be able to kick your ass if you get caught alone. Long before you even got there

Because the story rarely goes how you planned it. Player pick something up and make a theme of it or make it as a core concept of the character. I had a Paladin with an animated grapple hook. He ended up being an acrobatic griffon riding bad @$$. He never would have been that if I had make a character at higher levels. From skills to feats the events that transpire can change things in ways that you never imagined.

Also as a side note I have NEVER started my games with them just happening to be anywhere. If the players take a character and make a back story they will often tell you where the want to start out with out forcing them together. coming together can be just as fun as the plot. Two of my players kept fighting in a dungeon. it took them six times to realize that when they start fighting (with words and trading blows) when they are surrounded by enemies it draws attention. One ended up shielding the guy he just knocked out from veils of alchemist fire.

[frost890]

I never understood why someone would use D&D to play something like that. It doesn't sound like the right type of system for that.

It can be fun if you get the chance to build something in the area. take the old castle and clear it out, then you can start investing in it type game..

[Psyren]

I never really understood the point of playing a near-average joe in a game like 3.5e or PF, another game maybe but I generally prefer the parties I'm running to have an actual reason to be the ones saving the day over the many many many many more capable people.

You're assuming that the "day" needs saving at low levels though. It can be something as simple as "escort this merchant caravan through the mountain pass" or "two bears have been attacking our outlying farm" or "troglodytes have tunneled into the grainary." The kinds of assignments that even a NPC militia could handle, if there were one.

I also like starting from low levels because very often, I don't have every aspect of my character fleshed out when the game starts - I learn more about their personality through play, and then I pick abilities that fit that forming vision.

[Strigon]

No.

I've run games where, at level 1, the players got their first mission from a succubus, slew a dragon at the climax of level 1 to steal a magic artifact, and then, because one player made the off-hand comment that he had never fought a beholder in all his years playing D&D, at level 2 they stopped a Far Realm breach and killed the beholder that was orchestrating it. Then, at level 3, they got pulled into the machinations between the leader of a cult of Tiamat, a lich, and another dragon, all while Pazuzuu himself was setting up the pieces for what would be the Paragon part of the campaign (he had already gotten the party's Paladin to unwittingly follow him).

Granted, this was 4e, which had a different understanding of what it meant to be level 1. But the principle is the same: games are only as small or large as the DM decides.

If you read the context of my quote, you know that I was referring to someone who said that the PC's can't do anything at level 1 and still have it make sense. That example actually goes with his point; I've never played 4e, but unless level 1 is equivalent to ~level 10 of 3.5, none of those things make sense; anyone who went to hire them should have had far, far more promising candidates.
If you want to play super high-intensity games right out of the gate, there's nothing wrong with that, but it has no effect on the conversation we were having.

[YossarianLives]

Yeah.

Let's go back to the very very beginning. See that part that says RPG? Know what that means?

It stands for Role Playing Game.

Now it's cool that some folks like to roll dice, and play, but some folks just like the original version.
You do realize that original D&D was not a roleplaying game. Not at all. It was a wargame.

[EisenKreutzer]

You do realize that original D&D was not a roleplaying game. Not at all. It was a wargame.

Well... Chainmail was originally a miniature wargame where you controlled individual soldiers instead of units.

Original D&D was based largely on Chainmail, but it much more resembled what we think of as a roleplaying game than any kind of wargame.

[torrasque666]

You do realize that original D&D was not a roleplaying game. Not at all. It was a wargame.
Huh, Ernest Gary Gygax Jr. didn't mention that part when he was speaking at Concinnity this year. He did make mention that they got the idea of making a game from some other war games though. idea from Chainmail. That's right. Memory's a bit fuzzy, this was like 6 months ago.

[EisenKreutzer]

It's true that the lineage of Dungeons & Dragons includes wargames. Original D&D was based on Chainmail. But OD&D was definitely not a wargame.

[Deophaun]

If you read the context of my quote, you know that I was referring to someone who said that the PC's can't do anything at level 1 and still have it make sense. That example actually goes with his point; I've never played 4e, but unless level 1 is equivalent to ~level 10 of 3.5, none of those things make sense; anyone who went to hire them should have had far, far more promising candidates.
You mean the candidates everyone else were watching? The ones with established alliances, who have their own agendas and are therefore not easily controlled? The ones who could be traced back to a faction? Yeah, that makes far more sense. I'm sure the succubus wanted to approach people who could see through her disguise on their first meeting. Same with the lich and the dragon.

[Psyren]

You do realize that original D&D was not a roleplaying game. Not at all. It was a wargame.

You're thinking Chainmail there - D&D's predecessor, but not D&D itself.

That said, bean's post was pretty Stormwindy.

[Jay R]

It's true that the lineage of Dungeons & Dragons includes wargames. Original D&D was based on Chainmail. But OD&D was definitely not a wargame.

The question of whether original Dungeons and Dragons was a wargame or a role-playing game is a little more complicated that anybody is portraying it.

In favor of "wargame" is the actual wording on the white box:


DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames
Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil
and Miniature Figures.

When we played it, we knew that it was supposed to lead to miniatures battles. By the time you built a keep or cathedral, you were supposed to start supporting an army.

But we didn’t do it. I never met an early player who wanted to build the army and start having large-scale battles.

So if you insist on a simplistic answer, it’s this: It was written as a wargame, and played as a role-playing game.

That answer is almost as simplistic and incomplete as the others, but it does include a little more of the facts.

[Kantolin]

Well, some people prefer to actually play out that backstory, to develop something more memorable than just some words typed out in a document somewhere.

And that is fine! Nothing is wrong with that specific style of character creation.

It can cause headaches though. Say I want to be the Captain of the Town Guard, pegging me at level let's say 5. I detail some things I've done that are appropriate, the other guardsmen like my Captain because he's down-to-earth, albeit a little gruff. Unfortunately for him, Aberrations assaulted his hometown, killed all/most/alot of the denizens therein, and the survivors were forced to relocate. He's taking it really hard as he feels there was more he could have done - especially as he got out unscathed.

There's a quickie backstory.

Now, we /could/ start at level 1, but then a more appropriate story would be 'small town guard who would like to become the Captain of the Guard someday'. Which again, is fine!

But then... the DM's main game idea was 'war against the Illithid army and other aberrations', not 'small town guard dealing with a lot of minor problems and a chunk of years of mostly peace', so that could be more restrictive for the DM. He might not /want/ the game to focus on this guy policing his hometown to keep it safe.

Also, one of the other players is an elf from the elven high courts - the most minor of nobles but a noble nonetheless. He /could/ be coincidentally in podunk human town for multiple years, but he had his own story idea involving his wizard's academy and things occurring therein. How long as you spending on this backstory? Are you taking turns? If so, what does he do - are these solo adventures? Does he make a new character? Does this captain of the guard then end up in elven courts doing stuff after(/before/simultaneously?)

I mean... then:


Because the story rarely goes how you planned it.

And that's also true. In most games, for example, the party cleric only tangentially has time to even /see/ their local church, let alone become the respected leader thereof, or become a horrible heathen thereof, or whatever. They're a little busy trying to find the proof that Morghul, the necromancer, is poising as the honorable Lord Dellen during the day - how a vampire is managing to stay upright during the day is curious and implies he may have the staff of the sun, but they can't just go stabbing him because he's a nobleman in high esteem that... you know, the game's central plot, or at least the machinations of one of its characters.

So if I start as 'a random guard', odds are I'm going to end as 'A very high level character', but odds are pretty slim that I'll get to do the whole 'I can't believe I let my whole company get sneak attacked like that... maybe there were signs I could have noticed. How couldn't I have noticed when...'.

It's a much more interesting story to have Durkon's backstory involve 'he was thrown out of his home for no reason he can imagine and was exiled for no reason he can imagine after doing nothing wrong' than to play through a lot of scenes of not much happening. Him causing his mother to drop her dishes is a poignant memory, not something that needed to be dice rolled through.

...or well, it /can/ be - I'm not even saying it's /wrong/ to have minor events be the centrepiece of a campaign, just that it's not manditory.

Really - stories for higher level characters aren't 'missing' things, they're just different. 'Youth about to enter fighter academy', 'Fresh out of fighter academy', 'teacher at fighter academy', 'Ex-Teacher at fighter academy whos skills are still sought out by the other teachers' are all perfectly viable character options, they just start at different levels. It's possible for the youth to become the ex-teacher, but it's also possible for the youth to trip into a cult to Nerull, and they ran around and never graduated, and then you never got the fun psuedopolitical experience of having a rival teacher want to belittle your influence on the school, effectively never actually getting to start the character they wanted to play, unless the goal was 'Youth who wants to become a teacher at fighter academy someday', which is also a viable character... it's just a different one from 'Teacher at fighter academy'.

Neither is bad nor less nor more shallow. One could argue that the 'I am just a guy so let's see what happens' backstories are notably more shallow than ones with at least /some/ connections, but to each their own.



I had a Paladin with an animated grapple hook. He ended up being an acrobatic griffon riding bad @$$. He never would have been that if I had make a character at higher levels.

Well, if your character concept is 'Paladin with an animated grapple hook', then you can probably pull it off at whatever level WBL or at least your DM decrees an animated grapple hook is kosher (which, as a note, is probably not level 1 - but that's neither here nor there).

It would have still been 'Paladin with an animated grapple hook' at level 5, level 10, level 15, or level 20. What happens after the game starts depends on the game - he might have won a taunting match with a Cloud Giant, convinced a Devil to legitimately run an orphanage (and much to the devil's dismay, the creature of pure evil finds himself /enjoying/ it!), or might have raised a gryphon from youth. Or become an acrobatic griffin rider who's way cooler than Belkar. Depends on the plot and the character - the character could also have stubbornly stuck to their swordsmanship style in the face of their father yelling at them to be a wizard - nay, to spit in the /face/ of the world. They're not changing for anyone.

Or maybe they are. I don't know either! All that I can know is the events that lead up to the current point, which in no way necessitates starting at low levels.


Now personally, one of my flaws iwth low level games can be found in the Jade Regent adventure path. The path advertises a game of HIGH ADVENTURE where you're racing about on a really cool caravan! That sounds really awesome! Before game started, we were discussing various ways we could haggle our wares in various places, and we built our characters with the caravan in mind! we could not wait to get started!

Instead we spent the first several real life months of play trudging through 'the swamp near our houses' and smacking around some goblins and a skeleton or something.

This makes /some/ sense - level one characters, level one challenges. But the chores that led to the promise of 'oh don't worry, the fun we promised is coming soon!' bugged me. Came home from a rough day of work, plop down in a chair, get back to the chores to get to this whole 'caravan' thing we were excited about a few weeks prior. Especially since I hardly ever get to play and not DM.

I would have much preferred an In Media Res start - have the /caravan/ be attacked by goblins and a skeleton or something, and we swing around and defend it, and that leads to the second half of a note for Amieko that matches the one we found in the game's backstory, and blam!

But nope. Grumblecakes.

[torrasque666]

Well, if your character concept is 'Paladin with an animated grapple hook', then you can probably pull it off at whatever level WBL or at least your DM decrees an animated grapple hook is kosher (which, as a note, is probably not level 1 - but that's neither here nor there).

It would have still been 'Paladin with an animated grapple hook' at level 5, level 10, level 15, or level 20. What happens after the game starts depends on the game - he might have won a taunting match with a Cloud Giant, convinced a Devil to legitimately run an orphanage (and much to the devil's dismay, the creature of pure evil finds himself /enjoying/ it!), or might have raised a gryphon from youth. Or become an acrobatic griffin rider who's way cooler than Belkar. Depends on the plot and the character - the character could also have stubbornly stuck to their swordsmanship style in the face of their father yelling at them to be a wizard - nay, to spit in the /face/ of the world. They're not changing for anyone.

I think his point was that its easier to change a character's concepts at lower levels than higher ones. Even as early as level 3, you start to think about "What prestige class am I gonna take to advance my character's concept?" and in order to do that, you need to look at what feats and skills you have. If you decide to go in a new direction, you likely need to bring in a new character to do so as you have already locked in feats, skills, levels to a concept, while at lower levels you can simply delay prestiging out for a level or two.

[Jay R]

My experience is that a 10th level PC who started as first level and worked up has far more knowledge of the world, specific experiences to draw on, established allies and enemies, and a far more developed personality than one built as a 10th level PC. When my character starts as 10th level, I don’t feel like he really belongs to that world until about level 15 or so.

I want to play the character who has been fully formed by his experiences from the first level onward.

It’s not hard to design 1st level adventures. My last two games started them as:

1. servants of higher levels who die early on, when the best escape route leads through undeveloped country with low-level bandits, and
2. people from a small village sent to take a food caravan through the forest to market at a larger village. which turns out to have been overrun by goblins.

[Kantolin]

I think his point was that its easier to change a character's concepts at lower levels than higher ones.

Oh, this is true, especially for prestige classes.

Still, at level 1 that becomes 'spend five levels to qualify for a prestige', and that's if you decide immediately! So if the shadowdancer guild wants to recruit you, you more or less have to plan in advance regardless.

Still, that is true - at higher levels, it takes more DM adjucation. This is also true based on the optimization level of the party - if you are a (level 1) power attacking barbarian with hardly anything but strength, and the game tries to urge him into being a dervish or duskblade or warmind, then he's going to end up being a pretty lousy character unless the rest of the party is balanced around there too if he even goes for it. Now, if a DM is willing to work with you (the totem spirit of your tribe walks with you, encouraging you to be as cunning as wolf rather than mighty as bear!) then it can work at whatever character or optimization level (And may be more seamless).

Sadly, that feels more like a flaw with the 3.5 system than anything else. As for example, while I'm not fond of Paladins falling in general, do DMs really require fallen paladins to pre-empt their falling by taking ranks in hide that they never plan on using so they can qualify for blackguard? :P

(I mean you can optimize that, but I mean for people who are playing more organically).

Edit:
My experience is that a 10th level PC who started as first level and worked up has far more knowledge of the world, specific experiences to draw on, established allies and enemies, and a far more developed personality than one built as a 10th level PC.

I disagree. I believe that a character who started as a 1st level PC has /different/ experiences than a character who started as a 10th level PC.

Most games do not involve the characters leading an army amidst the game. Thus the prior character may never be able to give O-Chul's poignant line to Haley about the difference between war and a dungeon crawl.

Also, I'd bet that both the level 1 and the level 10 character are equally more interesting after /thirteen game sessions/ have happened to both of them. And also probably more different, which doesn't mean worse in either direction.

[Crake]

I disagree. I believe that a character who started as a 1st level PC has /different/ experiences than a character who started as a 10th level PC.

Most games do not involve the characters leading an army amidst the game. Thus the prior character may never be able to give O-Chul's poignant line to Haley about the difference between war and a dungeon crawl.

Also, I'd bet that both the level 1 and the level 10 character are equally more interesting after /thirteen game sessions/ have happened to both of them. And also probably more different, which doesn't mean worse in either direction.

I think his point was that a level 10 character must have done some pretty amazing stuff to get to where he is (in my world, level 10 is the upper limit for most NPCs, meaning if you're above level 10, you're literally 1 in 100,000,000), and that just putting that stuff in a written backstory cannot compare to months of character development. Sure your backstory may say you know this person, or that person, but you don't actually, because you've never interacted with them before. While both level 1 and level 10 would be equally developed as characters over 13 sessions, that's only when looking at them from an absolute perspective. If you look at the character's development as a percentage of their entire story/career, the level 1 character is 100% developed, while the level 10 character is significantly less so. Not only that, level 1 characters have more room for change and growth than a higher level character, because they have more levels in which they can adapt themselves to the setting and story.

So you basically have a level 10 character with a tailored backstory to suit the player's desire, but that doesn't quite blend as well into the world, vs a level 1 character, who's adventures to level 10 don't exactly give him the story he was planning for, but his character has actually DONE those things, and the world evolved around it.

That said, this thread isn't about which of those is better, it's about the OP not understanding why people start at level 1. Nobody's saying that starting at higher levels is bad, or wrong, though when you bring it up, they will happy give you their point of view on the matter. But this thread isn't about which is better, it's about why people play at level 1. If your stance is "that's fine, but here's what I prefer" then you aren't really arguing against starting at level 1, merely for starting at level 10. This thread is more about arguments for and against starting at level 1 specifically.

[Jay R]

I disagree.

How can you "disagree": with a statement that begins with "My experience is ..."? You could say that you have had different experiences, but "disagreeing" with my experience is meaningless.


I believe that a character who started as a 1st level PC has /different/ experiences than a character who started as a 10th level PC.

Possibly true, but totally irrelevant to my point.


Also, I'd bet that both the level 1 and the level 10 character are equally more interesting after /thirteen game sessions/ have happened to both of them. And also probably more different, which doesn't mean worse in either direction.

Agreed - but that's a comparison that ignores my point. You are saying that a (say) 14th level character who started at tenth level is the equivalent of a 5th level who started at 1st level (assuming that thirteen game sessions will amount to about four level increases). But I was comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a tenth level character who started at tenth level.

In any event, you failed to quote the essence of my position, so I will quote it myself:

I want to play the character who has been fully formed by his experiences from the first level onward.

This is not a statement that you can "disagree" with, except in the sense of saying that your preferences aren't the same as mine. Which is fine - play the game you want to play. But I was explaining why I want to play the entire game, not just the second half of it.

[Kantolin]

I think his point was that a level 10 character must have done some pretty amazing stuff to get to where he is (in my world, level 10 is the upper limit for most NPCs, meaning if you're above level 10, you're literally 1 in 100,000,000), and that just putting that stuff in a written backstory cannot compare to months of character development.

Well... yes. ^_^

Characters get different once the story starts. One character might end up hating drow and never end up having ever been in charge of another person. The other person might only tangentially know about drow, but the loss of his squad weighs heavily on him. Neither is 'better' per se - it depends on what the player wants.


If you look at the character's development as a percentage of their entire story/career, the level 1 character is 100% developed, while the level 10 character is significantly less so.

That assertion, however, I disagree with.

The story does not 'begin' at level 1, nor does it begin at level anything - it begins wherever it begins. Characters begin to grow and change and whatever from that point. It can begin with an obnoxious wizard all but kidnapping you from your home as he invites a pile of dwarves into it, or two months after the drow launched a well coordinated simultaneous attack on the unexpecting surface races, or when The Explorer arrives on a mysterious continent nobody has ever seen before, or as an ex-member of SOLDIER hops off a train at Mako Reactor 7.

It can start when the youth steps out of fighter college as a level 1 fighter and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the youth was about to step into fighter college as a level 1 or 0 commoner and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the teacher of a fighter college yawns, looks out the window, and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the legendary swordsmaster who founded the college decides to go give it a visit, looks up, and sees cracks form in the sky.

None of these characters are 'missing' anything. Heck, unless you start every game as very young children, they're all skipping some portion of their development that led them up to this point. Unless, I suppose, they didn't do anything up to the point where the story started, which is also okay if the game doesn't really center around much plot (in which it again doesn't really matter what level you start).

So regardless of whether the youth was trained by his father (an unskilled swordsman but a good farmer), or by his uncle (An extremely skilled swordsman but a lousy farmer), neither character is any less developed.

(If anything, the higher level character is more likely to have connections of any sort to the setting as a whole, reducing 'orphan who doesn't care about any organizations and doesn't really care about anybody' syndrome, but that's neither here nor there).



So you basically have a level 10 character with a tailored backstory to suit the player's desire, but that doesn't quite blend as well into the world, vs a level 1 character, who's adventures to level 10 don't exactly give him the story he was planning for, but his character has actually DONE those things, and the world evolved around it.

Yes (well sort of), but that's not... or well again, that's just 'different'. The girl learning the secrets of mounted archery from her parents isn't somehow more deep of a character or more fitting to the campaign than the parent teaching their daughter the secrets of mounted archery, it's just the latter is somewhat higher level.



That said, this thread isn't about which of those is better, it's about the OP not understanding why people start at level 1.

Oh, indeed! I stated this in my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19888859&postcount=50) as well, heh. I also said:


And that is fine! Nothing is wrong with that specific style of character creation.

So I indeed have no problem with people starting off at level 1. But there are a lot of reasons for being in a higher level game as well, and the comments I was responding to had the feel of 'These are specific to level 1', an assertion I don't agree with.

So! I apologize if I implied 'You shouldn't start at level 1'. Horror or Gritty games in particular are probably best served at level 1 where everyone is more fragile. There are advantages to starting at high level as well!


How can you "disagree": with a statement that begins with "My experience is ..."?

Er... I apologize, then. I wasn't trying to belittle your experiences or say they don't matter, and I apologize if my tone implied as such.:smallredface: That was not at all my intention!


Agreed - but that's a comparison that ignores my point. You are saying that a (say) 14th level character who started at tenth level is the equivalent of a 5th level who started at 1st level (assuming that thirteen game sessions will amount to about four level increases). But I was comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a tenth level character who started at tenth level.

I believe my point was missed as well. It is probable that a character who is played for thirteen game sessions will be more fleshed out than a character who isn't (It'd actually be a hundred and thirtyish, assuming an average of one combat a game if you're going strictly by the book, which most people don't). But that's a story thing anyway - you had to make a character who started at some point, and the guy entering fighter college is not more interesting than the guy who teaches at fighter college. Neither of these characters have 'missed' any plot from their starting level, and if either of them is played for a hundred thirtyish game sessions more they're very likely to be more well developed than the other.

In fact, /both/ of them had stuff happen before that point - most colleges don't take people who are completely unskilled, so the guy entering fighter college probably has some reason he's entering. They both probably have family, loved ones, friends, classmates, friendly rivals, less friendly rivals, that jerk from middle school.

...if anything, a character with at least a few levels under their belt is probably more fleshed out, as level one characters aren't capable of actually doing much, so the level one character probably has less responsibilities and less connections to the world as a whole. And thus are less likely to run into someone who has any connection to them either.

And, due to having more connections as a whole, are more likely to be connected to the plot - both level 1 and level 10 characters care if their homes and families are threatened by orcs, but the level one wizard who is told that the city of brass is being destroyed is more likely to go 'the wha?' (And if he cares, it'll be mostly at an academic level), while the level ten wizard who is told the city of brass is being destroyed has a much larger chance of going, "Wait - but Samuel lives there! We go way back - is he alright? What's destroying it?"

Let alone the fun of playing a character who has - or had - responsibilities. You can play a 'swordsman who was trained by their father in secret sword arts' at any level. At level one, it's far less plausible to be the head of a wizard's academy that was the first target of the drow, or is in grave danger of being their /next/ target. Immediate story connection, no rat killing required.

[Yahzi]

Personally I run a homebrew campaign setting where level 1-2 is the norm...
That sounds fantastic.

In my world level 0 is actually the norm, and people know that high-level fighters are very hard to kill; but otherwise... everything you said.

[ThisIsZen]

Honestly, I dislike starting at level 1 exactly simply because 3.5's basic numerical assumptions make level 1 the worst game of rocket tag ever played. High level D&D is more a high-stakes chess match than rocket tag. Level 1 is where, barring a few outliers, anything can put you below 0 with a single crit.

Mind you, the solution to this is to start at level 2, which pretty much preserves the same feel as starting at level 1 without the swingy combat, but it's my preferred solution. I've never been in a game that's gone 1-20, 2-20, or even 1-10 yet (though I suspect my current campaign is gonna get there). There's just something very iconic and engaging about starting as a standard schlub and eventually reaching the point where you can credibly meddle in divine politics.

[Crake]

The story does not 'begin' at level 1, nor does it begin at level anything - it begins wherever it begins.

That's the thing though, we aren't talking about the story, we're talking about the character. You have 2 examples, a story that develops a character, and a developed character driving the story. In one circumstance the character is learning and growing with the story (developing his character), in the other, the character is already mostly developed behind the scenes and then the character's current mindset is what drives the story in a particular direction. In the second instance, the character is more rigid, and instead of the story shaping the character, the character shapes the story, maybe with a few changes here and there. Aside from large dramatic events, like a paladin falling and becoming a blackguard, the character doesn't develop as much, simply because he has less room to do so.

While in either case the story can be just as good, the underlying argument is about the character, not the story they participate in. As you said, neither of the characters are "missing" anything, but the level 10 character's backstory was written in a practical vaccuum comapared to the rest of the world and players, and because of that, it will never have the same level of detail, nuance and involvement as the backstory of a character who was actually played from 1-10, because those things happened in collaboration in the world with other people involved, giving different points of view, and characters acting as they would, rather than what is convenient for the backstory. It's one thing to write into your backstory that you're friends with the innkeeper over in Peppleton, but it's another to have gone to Peppleton at some point during your game time, talked to Oswald, and gotten to know him, shared an ale, talked about the waning crops and the on-going wars, how he's worried for his family, but he doesn't want to give up his family's inn that's been passed down for generations. In one case, you just wrote it in, but if you were to ever actually go talk to him (if such a character even appeared in your backstory, which let's face it, most probably wouldn't even bother to include such a minor side character) then you would barely know where to start with him. It's the small things like that that flesh out a character, bring them to life, make the believable in a world with magic, dragons and gods, to blend seamlessly into the world rather than make them feel like a cardboard cutout for the first few sessions as you get your toes wet with the character's concept.

I'll admit that a higher level campaign can be useful for if you want to tell a conceptually higher powered story right away, but for any DM out there, I'd highly recommend starting at lower levels, telling an introductory story that gets the PCs where you want them to be, and then start the story you want to tell, it will make for much more interesting characters. I personally run something along those lines, with a generally open world game, where the players persue arcs of stories that get progressively more and more powerful in nature as the characters grow and are able to take on more powerful enemies.

Even using adventure modules this can be achieved, for example a DM of mine wanted to run red hand of doom (still playing through it right now actually), but didn't want us to just start at level 5, so instead ran the sunless citadel adventure, getting us to level 4ish (it was a 2 man party so we overleveled a tad), then did a few years time skip and bumped us up to 5. My character died during the final battle in sunless citadel though, so I ended up bringing in a new character (a ghaele using the savage species progression, plus we were gestalted, so i picked up duskblade 3/fighter 2/abjurant champion), which was much less developed than the other player's character, with the town actually remembering the player's feats and adventures, and the player going back and meeting people she knew from the town (the DM set the sunless citadel in the same location as red hand, so whatever the town was in sunless citadel, the DM changed it to drellen's ferry). Even my old character was remembered, and commemorated for his noble sacrifice in the defence of the town. None of that would have been the case if we had just started at level 5 and gotten right into it. Sure, we'd be further into red hand right now if we had, maybe even finished with it, but the story wouldn't have been as personal and memorable.

Edit: wow, i was gonna make that a short reply, but i guess not :smalltongue:

[Dr TPK]

I don't quite understand how starting at any specific level would prevent anyone from roleplaying to the fullest in a roleplaying game, but that can remain as a mystery to me.

[dascarletm]

I don't quite understand how starting at any specific level would prevent anyone from roleplaying to the fullest in a roleplaying game, but that can remain as a mystery to me.

Here is how I see it.

Presumably, level one is the start of a character's career. If you start there, you probably have a pretty minimal backstory. Where you are from/your childhood, basically how you were raised, what is your primary motivation, and why are you class X?

Characters will grow and develop over their career, generally. If you start midway through their career, sure, you can write in character changing/defining moments, but it probably won't be as organic than if they happened in game.

This isn't a bad thing, but let me make an analogy.

Say you are an actor, and you need to play a character who was a loving single father/mother. However, your child died, and you turned to drugs. You fell hard, but you've got clean. If you've experienced similar loss you probably can portray that character better. It is the same with the character.

If the player experiences character defining moments in game, they will in general play a larger impact.

[Strigon]

You mean the candidates everyone else were watching? The ones with established alliances, who have their own agendas and are therefore not easily controlled? The ones who could be traced back to a faction? Yeah, that makes far more sense. I'm sure the succubus wanted to approach people who could see through her disguise on their first meeting. Same with the lich and the dragon.

Personally, I think it makes far more sense to hire someone who would have a much greater chance of winning through a proxy, than to hire green adventurers face-to-face.
And, are you suggesting that everyone over level 1 has their own agenda that completely rules out jobs on the side? Not even one mid or high-levelled person would simply take on a job for money? Because that seems very strange.

[Deophaun]

But I was comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a tenth level character who started at tenth level.
That's like comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a first level character. Starting at level 1 does not create a temporal rift where your group enjoys months or years of sessions while the world kindly waits for you to finish.


Personally, I think it makes far more sense to hire someone who would have a much greater chance of winning through a proxy, than to hire green adventurers face-to-face.
This is a difference between 3.5's fluff assumptions and 4e's fluff: Level 1s are not green. These would be the equivalent of an army veteran. After all, you had to somehow learn how to calmly cast magic missile while arrows are raining down on you and goblins are screaming for your blood.


And, are you suggesting that everyone over level 1 has their own agenda that completely rules out jobs on the side?
Nope. The PCs fought quite a few mercenary groups. And that's where your assumption goes off the cliff, because you believe getting, say, 5th level characters somehow precludes also hiring 1st levels (who, being much less well off, also work cheaper).

You also have zero understanding of what the constraints or goals of these factions were, or of the campaign setting. (For example: The dragon was a politician. Face-to-face meetings and being seen in public with local heroes is kind of his thing.) So, declaring that it "makes no sense" is no more than an admission of a failure of imagination.

[Strigon]

That's like comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a first level character. Starting at level 1 does not create a temporal rift where your group enjoys months or years of sessions while the world kindly waits for you to finish.


This is a difference between 3.5's fluff assumptions and 4e's fluff: Level 1s are not green. These would be the equivalent of an army veteran. After all, you had to somehow learn how to calmly cast magic missile while arrows are raining down on you and goblins are screaming for your blood.


Nope. The PCs fought quite a few mercenary groups. And that's where your assumption goes off the cliff, because you believe getting, say, 5th level characters somehow precludes also hiring 1st levels (who, being much less well off, also work cheaper).

You also have zero understanding of what the constraints or goals of these factions were, or of the campaign setting. (For example: The dragon was a politician. Face-to-face meetings and being seen in public with local heroes is kind of his thing.) So, declaring that it "makes no sense" is no more than an admission of a failure of imagination.

No, it's an admission that it makes no sense.. First level is the weakest level, and as such where you face your weakest foes. Your weakest foes should be, by all logic, the ones who cause trouble on the smallest scale. Therefore, you should be heroes on the smallest scale, logically. Anything else is quite simply throwing logic out the window for the sake of having a grand game - which is okay, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Also, and I quote:


"I'm sure the succubus wanted to approach people who could see through her disguise on their first meeting. Same with the lich and the dragon."
You can either say that the dragon wanted to be recognized, or that he didn't. There is no middle ground here.

[warmachine]

D&D 3 has design elegance where each class level is very roughly the same power, allowing multiclassing by mixing class levels as desired. It's flawed but that's another thread. However, there are special rules for more skill points and HP at character level 1, overriding normal class rules and even making a Rogue 1/Ranger 1 different from a Ranger 1/Rogue 1.

This suggests the designers are trying to create a default starting power level in violation of their own fundamental design. The extra skill points and HP suggests they think starting PCs are more capable than a level 1 character. Thematically, a higher power level makes sense. The village elders are hiring you because you're more capable than the Fighter 1/Commoner 1s they've got as militia. Someone out of basic training would prefer not going independent whereas a veteran knows he can achieve what most of his competition can't.

I reckon, by default, PCs should start at level 3. Also the extra skill points and HP rules for character level 1 and even the Warrior NPC class should be dumped. This scraps rules that create pointless complexity and explains how the PCs are better than most people. If you want to play a greenhorn, level 1 covers that.

[Deophaun]

No, it's an admission that it makes no sense.. First level is the weakest level, and as such where you face your weakest foes.
These were the weakest foes of the campaign. So, what's your point?


Your weakest foes should be, by all logic, the ones who cause trouble on the smallest scale.
"The smallest scale" is along the lines of "Help! I stubbed my toe." Doesn't make for an exciting game, and would rule out even rats as an enemy. You'd be fighting inanimate furniture at level 1.


logically
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You can either say that the dragon wanted to be recognized, or that he didn't. There is no middle ground here.
???

Remember: Most people in 4e aren't even level 1. Going about in public isn't going to cause him to be recognized as one. As expected, the party figured out what he was by level 6 (missing clues that started at level 2), at which point he had prepared the groundwork so that they weren't in Kill the Dragon mode. And everyone else was going to find out relatively soon what he was anyway, an event for which he had molded the party to help him succeed/survive.

Again, you have no clue about the campaign, and your continued assertion that things don't make sense just indicates you lack imagination.

[Kantolin]

In one circumstance the character is learning and growing with the story (developing his character), in the other, the character is already mostly developed behind the scenes and then the character's current mindset is what drives the story in a particular direction. In the second instance, the character is more rigid, and instead of the story shaping the character, the character shapes the story, maybe with a few changes here and there.

This isn't true unless either character is 'just some guy with no backstory', which could happen to either and makes sense for neither. Most people don't play 'level 0 games' or 'level 0 children games' (Which are a lot closer), and thus in most of these games we're talking about the character showed up with at least moderately functional skills they got from somewhere. Parents, friends, family, teachers, occurences.

They can, at that point, have been like Roy and decided they are going to do their grandfather's style come hell or high water (or Durkon). Or they could be like Belkar, and since someone asked them to multiclass into barbarian (Or Elan). How stubborn or not the character is depends on the character and the story, not what level they start at.

(Given the system, level one characters /can't/ be asked by NPCs to join prestige class organizations until they gain a few more levels, which is probably its own thing.)


It's one thing to write into your backstory that you're friends with the innkeeper over in Peppleton, but it's another to have gone to Peppleton at some point during your game time, talked to Oswald, and gotten to know him, shared an ale, talked about the waning crops and the on-going wars, how he's worried for his family, but he doesn't want to give up his family's inn that's been passed down for generations.

Again, this isn't a level-specific thing.

If the story focuses on 'going to the plane of earth and dealing with a lich who's hiding there', then it is of course much more interesting to play through going to the plane of earth and dealing with a lich than not. And while there, you run into a friendly earth elemental NPC that everyone found hilarious. That's great!

You can do that as both the student in fighter college or as the teacher of fighter college. The teacher in fighter college has the advantage that, through merit of being higher level and having done more, he might have some /reason/ to go to Peppleton due to a prior connection.

The comparison isn't 'Someone who wrote about Oswald and someone who roleplayed through meeting Oswald', as both of those can happen at any level. Your level 10 character can go to Peppleton and meet Oswald.

A better comparison is when the game opens with the locals in your local bar saying, "Hey, I heard Peppleton was destroyed by those orcs". The response from someone who has no connection to the world is, 'oh. How sad'. The response from someone who wrote in their backstory 'Grandma Larson lives in Peppleton' is 'Oh holy crap, is Grandma okay? I want to go make sure she's okay or at least bury/avenge her if she isn't!'

Either /could/ then go to Peppleton and meet with Oswald, but the latter is more invested in the setting as a whole. Higher level characters are more likely to have these connections and thus are more likely to have more interesting tales to tell.


It's the small things like that that flesh out a character, bring them to life, make the believable in a world with magic, dragons and gods, to blend seamlessly into the world rather than make them feel like a cardboard cutout for the first few sessions as you get your toes wet with the character's concept.

Oh, indeed! Not being a cardboard cutout for several sessions is why it's important to have at least /some/ connection to the world, and not just be 'Poof! Elf fighter 1' or 'Zam! Half-Orc Barbarian 3' or 'Zot! Human sorceror 10'. All three of those are bad as they mean you are doing hardly anything for the first few sessions, and possibly forever if the DM isn't carefully giving you more connections.

But that's also not a level thing. Level ten characters can talk to people just like level one characters can. In fact, level ten characters are more likely to be able to do things of that sort.



My character died during the final battle in sunless citadel though, so I ended up bringing in a new character ... which was much less developed than the other player's character

That's a good example of 'why level doesn't matter insofar as plot is concerned', since your new character would not have suddenly become more developed had you brought in a level one character instead of a level five character.

The new character, regardless of if they're level 0, 1, 5, 10, or 20, /missed a bunch of game sessions/! Heck, they missed an entire plot arc! Of /course/ they're going to be less fleshed out than people who didn't. If your new character was level one, they still would have missed a bunch of game sessions and a plot arc.

You could try to help this by making your new character from the town and happy that they were rescued by these adventurers and wanting to help, that works at about any level but generally lower. You could also be someone from the next set of plot who heard about the adventurers and wants to ask them to help neatly tying you into what's yet to come, probably pegging you at whatever the PC's level is. You could also be 'And an elf with a sword wanders in, he was taught swordsmanship by his father', which can be any level. You can also have an intricate backstory and connections with this town and you were just away at the time, and when you return the town blames /you/ for their troubles since you had actual responsibility for them, which is not a concept that really works at level one but would certainly be an engaging one.

When your characters started the adventure, did they have combat skills? Where from? Presuming they didn't, would it have suddenly made them less interesting characters if they had connections to the world as a whole when they started the adventure? If they had started at level 5, would anything have changed besides the difficulty of the module? (As said difficulty can scale, and easily - so I mean anything besides that).

The hobbit started with bilbo not at all being level one (guy could sneak about goblins competently /easy/! Gandalf went to him personally! He was at least moderately competent at start of story), while the lord of the rings started with those four hobbits being probably level one (or heck zero), with most of the other characters who weren't level one driving the plot (It also started closer to a horror game, with 'oh dear don't let the bad guy see me'). Dragonlance starts with none of the MCs being level one (They're all pretty competent!). Most stories don't start with incompetent or barely competent main characters... although some do! But I mean, the knight who slays the dragon and rescues the princess is usually at least moderately competent at this 'slaying dragons' business.

...Bilbo would probably have gotten /less/ interesting if the book had opened with a bunch more chapters of him being level zero.

[Strigon]

These were the weakest foes of the campaign. So, what's your point?


"The smallest scale" is along the lines of "Help! I stubbed my toe." Doesn't make for an exciting game, and would rule out even rats as an enemy. You'd be fighting inanimate furniture at level 1.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


???

Remember: Most people in 4e aren't even level 1. Going about in public isn't going to cause him to be recognized as one. As expected, the party figured out what he was by level 6 (missing clues that started at level 2), at which point he had prepared the groundwork so that they weren't in Kill the Dragon mode. And everyone else was going to find out relatively soon what he was anyway, an event for which he had molded the party to help him succeed/survive.

Again, you have no clue about the campaign, and your continued assertion that things don't make sense just indicates you lack imagination.
First off, if they were the weakest foes in your campaign, that goes right in line with my original point - the smallest scale for the smallest level. Even if you scaled the entire campaign up so that they were fighting demons and dragons from the start, it only went up in scale from there. Which is exactly what I said in my first post.

That second point is just ridiculous; there's a difference between the smallest scale (Ever) and the smallest scale (Of an adventure). My post was clearly about the latter - only a deliberate misreading could possibly give you the idea that I meant the former.

I must also say that I think you're the one who lacks imagination, if you can't see how small-scale activities can be an exciting game.

Also, imagination has nothing to do with making sense; children have wonderful imaginations, so how about you go find one and ask them to explain how something like this might happen. They can come up with an answer, but that doesn't mean it's one that makes sense.
There is simply no reason to hire level 1 adventurers for anything grand or important. Full stop. Having them perform menial tasks leading up to something important? Sure. Preparing them so that they're ready when something grand happens? Maybe.
But it makes no sense for anyone to say "this will be a long, arduous task, but it must succeed. Therefore, I shall find those who are only beginning their adventuring career and hire them - those experts over there don't look remotely trustworthy."
I can come up with many scenarios which could lead to that, but they all involve just as much suspension of disbelief and deus ex machina to put into place as what you seem to be describing.

[ThisIsZen]

Particularly in 4e, but even in 3.5 in some cases, level is an abstraction and not really a quantifiable quality of a given person. I mean, yes, you have specific abilities given out at specific levels, abilities that trigger off of hit die and such, but there's actually no reason to assume that those effects have resulted in an in-universe consciousness about level. In fact, if you're going to assume that everyone's aware of hit dice, level, and so on, that kind of radically changes the nature of society and the world. Those things aren't within the breadth of the fourth wall if you just want to play a normal medieval fantasy adventure.

To that end: Hiring level 1 adventurers for anything is, from the perspective of the person doing it, hiring unknown but prospective talent. Sure, they don't have named, enchanted weapons or kings on speed-dial, but that doesn't mean they're ineffective. It means they're at roughly the start of their career. And if the person hiring has reason to believe they'll get the job done, then why WOULDN'T they hire them? Putting money into adventurers is inherently a gamble, anyway.

[MyrPsychologist]

Well... yes. ^_^

Characters get different once the story starts. One character might end up hating drow and never end up having ever been in charge of another person. The other person might only tangentially know about drow, but the loss of his squad weighs heavily on him. Neither is 'better' per se - it depends on what the player wants.



That assertion, however, I disagree with.

The story does not 'begin' at level 1, nor does it begin at level anything - it begins wherever it begins. Characters begin to grow and change and whatever from that point. It can begin with an obnoxious wizard all but kidnapping you from your home as he invites a pile of dwarves into it, or two months after the drow launched a well coordinated simultaneous attack on the unexpecting surface races, or when The Explorer arrives on a mysterious continent nobody has ever seen before, or as an ex-member of SOLDIER hops off a train at Mako Reactor 7.

It can start when the youth steps out of fighter college as a level 1 fighter and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the youth was about to step into fighter college as a level 1 or 0 commoner and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the teacher of a fighter college yawns, looks out the window, and sees cracks form in the sky. It can start when the legendary swordsmaster who founded the college decides to go give it a visit, looks up, and sees cracks form in the sky.

None of these characters are 'missing' anything. Heck, unless you start every game as very young children, they're all skipping some portion of their development that led them up to this point. Unless, I suppose, they didn't do anything up to the point where the story started, which is also okay if the game doesn't really center around much plot (in which it again doesn't really matter what level you start).

So regardless of whether the youth was trained by his father (an unskilled swordsman but a good farmer), or by his uncle (An extremely skilled swordsman but a lousy farmer), neither character is any less developed.

(If anything, the higher level character is more likely to have connections of any sort to the setting as a whole, reducing 'orphan who doesn't care about any organizations and doesn't really care about anybody' syndrome, but that's neither here nor there).




Yes (well sort of), but that's not... or well again, that's just 'different'. The girl learning the secrets of mounted archery from her parents isn't somehow more deep of a character or more fitting to the campaign than the parent teaching their daughter the secrets of mounted archery, it's just the latter is somewhat higher level.




Oh, indeed! I stated this in my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19888859&postcount=50) as well, heh. I also said:



So I indeed have no problem with people starting off at level 1. But there are a lot of reasons for being in a higher level game as well, and the comments I was responding to had the feel of 'These are specific to level 1', an assertion I don't agree with.

So! I apologize if I implied 'You shouldn't start at level 1'. Horror or Gritty games in particular are probably best served at level 1 where everyone is more fragile. There are advantages to starting at high level as well!



Er... I apologize, then. I wasn't trying to belittle your experiences or say they don't matter, and I apologize if my tone implied as such.:smallredface: That was not at all my intention!



I believe my point was missed as well. It is probable that a character who is played for thirteen game sessions will be more fleshed out than a character who isn't (It'd actually be a hundred and thirtyish, assuming an average of one combat a game if you're going strictly by the book, which most people don't). But that's a story thing anyway - you had to make a character who started at some point, and the guy entering fighter college is not more interesting than the guy who teaches at fighter college. Neither of these characters have 'missed' any plot from their starting level, and if either of them is played for a hundred thirtyish game sessions more they're very likely to be more well developed than the other.

In fact, /both/ of them had stuff happen before that point - most colleges don't take people who are completely unskilled, so the guy entering fighter college probably has some reason he's entering. They both probably have family, loved ones, friends, classmates, friendly rivals, less friendly rivals, that jerk from middle school.

...if anything, a character with at least a few levels under their belt is probably more fleshed out, as level one characters aren't capable of actually doing much, so the level one character probably has less responsibilities and less connections to the world as a whole. And thus are less likely to run into someone who has any connection to them either.

And, due to having more connections as a whole, are more likely to be connected to the plot - both level 1 and level 10 characters care if their homes and families are threatened by orcs, but the level one wizard who is told that the city of brass is being destroyed is more likely to go 'the wha?' (And if he cares, it'll be mostly at an academic level), while the level ten wizard who is told the city of brass is being destroyed has a much larger chance of going, "Wait - but Samuel lives there! We go way back - is he alright? What's destroying it?"

Let alone the fun of playing a character who has - or had - responsibilities. You can play a 'swordsman who was trained by their father in secret sword arts' at any level. At level one, it's far less plausible to be the head of a wizard's academy that was the first target of the drow, or is in grave danger of being their /next/ target. Immediate story connection, no rat killing required.

I wanted to quote this. Because i really really like the imagery and absolutely agree with everything you said. This is absolutely top notch and perfectly describes how levels are an abstraction and there is nothing inferior nor superior to starting at level 1.

[Milo v3]

But I was comparing a tenth level character who started at first level with a tenth level character who started at tenth level.
That's ridiculous. You should be comparing a first level character who started at first level with a tenth level character who started at tenth level, or a fourth level character who started at first level and a fourteenth level character who started at tenth level, etc.

[atemu1234]

I legitimately do not see he reason for this it serves no purpose other than for the dm to have a little fun with the players before the game really gets going.
Unless the reason is story based like, you are a bunch of greenhorns starting out in the military, or some fledglings starting out at your home village.
I see no reason to start at level one at all.

Because one is the loneliest number.

[Crake]

That's a good example of 'why level doesn't matter insofar as plot is concerned', since your new character would not have suddenly become more developed had you brought in a level one character instead of a level five character.

Again, you're relating plot and character where I'm not. My character, a level 5 built character was less developed than his character, a level 5 raised from 1. That's the point. Characters raised from level 1 are more developed than those brought in at higher levels. This is why people like to play from 1st level.

[Milo v3]

Again, you're relating plot and character where I'm not. My character, a level 5 built character was less developed than his character, a level 5 raised from 1. That's the point. Characters raised from level 1 are more developed than those brought in at higher levels. This is why people like to play from 1st level.

Except that's an unfair assessment, yes a character who has been played is going to have more development over a character that hasn't been played yet. :smallsigh:

A more fair assessment would be whether a level 5 raised from level one is more developed than a level 10 raised from level five.

[Troacctid]

Levels 1-2 are, like, tutorial levels, where you learn the ropes of how your character works (and how the game works). I only start games at level 1 when I have players who are new to D&D. And in those cases, I aim to level them up quickly, usually once per session, until they reach level 3.

With experienced players, the lowest I would start is level 3, and I usually prefer starting at level 6 to make more character concepts viable.


Again, you're relating plot and character where I'm not. My character, a level 5 built character was less developed than his character, a level 5 raised from 1. That's the point. Characters raised from level 1 are more developed than those brought in at higher levels. This is why people like to play from 1st level.

Why would your character have been any better-developed if you'd brought them in four levels below the rest of the party?

[Kantolin]

Again, you're relating plot and character where I'm not. My character, a level 5 built character was less developed than his character, a level 5 raised from 1. That's the point. Characters raised from level 1 are more developed than those brought in at higher levels. This is why people like to play from 1st level.

That has nothing to do with either character's level, though.

If you had introduced a level 1 Ghaele//Duskblade, they /also/ would have been less developed than the existent character. This does not mean 'Characters raised from level one are more developed than those raised from level one' or something.

For another example, if your game had started Sunless Citadel with two level 5 characters, you could have then gone through the module, at the end your character may have died. You could then have brought in a new character, and whomever you brought in would have been less developed. They'd be less developed if it was a level 1 Ghaele//Duskblade, they'd be less developed if it was a level 5 Ghaele//Duskblade. They're gonna be less developed, because they weren't played at all, regardless of level.

To go the other way around, if your game jumped into Red Hand of Doom with two level 1 characters, they both wouldn't be as well developed as the level 5 characters who went through Sunless citadel first, and then into RHoD.

(Now then, the difficulty of the modules will be a little wonky, but people on these boards have suggested that a little modification is required either way, and that's a different topic entirely :P)

Starting a campaign at level one just gives you different (and generally 'fewer', but that depends more on the setting and game) background options. It doesn't somehow make your character more developed.



I wanted to quote this. Because i really really like the imagery and absolutely agree with everything you said.

^_^ Reading this made my day - thanks!

[Crake]

Why would your character have been any better-developed if you'd brought them in four levels below the rest of the party?

I'm not saying to bring in a character 4 levels below the party, I'm saying I could have played that character from 1-5 in some other game, and then brought it into that game, resulting in a more developed character.


A more fair assessment would be whether a level 5 raised from level one is more developed than a level 10 raised from level five.

Well, if we assume the same amount of character development happens per level, and we're looking at the character's development across their entire career, then the level 1-5 character is 100% developed by gameplay, wheras the 5-10 character is only 50%, while the other 50% is just a story someone wrote in a vaccuum.

All I'm saying is that advancing beyond level 1 requires you actually perform some extraordinary acts in the process (assuming most of the population is around 1 or 2), as once you advance beyond that level, you are by definition extraordinary. Writing a story in a vaccuum to the campaign setting and any other interactions with players will in it's very nature result in something that isn't as great as it could be. Most campaigns plan to end around the mid to possibly late teens, at least from my understanding, so starting at level 10 gives your character such a small window of existence.

I guess that's my point, skipping to a higher level rather than advancing to that level misses what could have been, and limits your character's room for growth. Look at it not from the starting point, but at the development of the character at the expected retirement level. If we assume that's roughly 15-17, a level 10 character only has 5-7 levels of growth left in him, resulting in a character who less than half his development never even occured around a table or with other people. This is assuming characters will develop at roughly the same ratio of character growth to level growth at all levels, though personally I think low level characters are more impressionable and open to growth than higher level characters, even if it's just due to their mutability.

[Milo v3]

Well, if we assume the same amount of character development happens per level, and we're looking at the character's development across their entire career, then the level 1-5 character is 100% developed by gameplay, wheras the 5-10 character is only 50%, while the other 50% is just a story someone wrote in a vaccuum.
I disagree, there is no reason the "5-10 character" would have more or less story that came from a vacuum than the "1-5 character'. No matter what the character's level, except in very very very very very specific circumstances SOMETHING must have happened before your character got to where he was now. Most characters weren't spawned into existence in the setting the second you sit down to play. Also, not all mid-to high level characters have to have backstories that cover going from pig-farmer to hero, the rate they gained expertise and abilities doesn't have to follow the generic level 1-20 formula at all. They could have simply being trained from a young age, so that's why they started as fifth level character rather than a pig-farmer. Done, same level of vacuum as a generic level one character. One character I've played was previously immensely high level, but got to the level he started at (level 10) without his memories or many of his skills because of the hundreds and hundreds of times he has resurrected himself.

[Kantolin]

then the level 1-5 character is 100% developed by gameplay, wheras the 5-10 character is only 50%, while the other 50% is just a story someone wrote in a vaccuum.

Actually, it's the same again (Or possibly slightly more to the higher level character).

Character A is some guy who fell off a character sheet one morning and has absolutely no backstory to themselves! Then that character snuck past a hobgoblin army, had a talk with a NPC named Oswald, and was killed by a surprisingly tough goblin.

Character B is a character who has a rich backstory from before the game began, and often meets with friends and family from said backstory! Then that character snuck past a hobgoblin army, had a talk with a NPC named Oswald, and was killed by a surprisingly tough goblin.

The net result is that either the two characters are identically developed, or Character B is /more/ developed because he cares more about the setting.

Level doesn't come into it. They both had the same experiences, and then the latter had more of them or at least more connections.



Look at it not from the starting point, but at the development of the character at the expected retirement level. If we assume that's roughly 15-17, a level 10 character only has 5-7 levels of growth left in him, resulting in a character who less than half his development never even occured around a table or with other people

The real trouble is, development doesn't happen 'per level', it happens based on the story. It's based on what happens.

DM A is running a game that starts at level one but you gain a level every session, and ends the game after twenty one sessions.
DM B is running a game that starts at level five but you gain a level every session, and ends the game after twenty one sessions.
DM C is running a game that starts at level five but you gain a level every other session, and ends the game after twenty one sessions.
DM D is running a game that starts at level five and you gain a level every thirteen sessions, and ends the game after twenty one sessions.
DM E is running a game that starts at level twenty and you gain a level every thirteen sessions, and ends the game after twenty one sessions.

In a vaccuum, which characters had more time to develop? The answer is all of them equally!

(Now there could be more or less within there. In order of the stick, Durkon didn't develop very much during Belkar's big redemption arc, for example, and some groups prioritize story more than others. This napkin math is meant more to show that your level never really comes into it)


All I'm saying is that advancing beyond level 1 requires you actually perform some extraordinary acts in the process (assuming most of the population is around 1 or 2) (...) Writing a story in a vaccuum to the campaign setting and any other interactions with players will in it's very nature result in something that isn't as great as it could be.

This isn't generally true.

Everyone /always/ skips over stuff that ends up in their backstory. Or well, almost always - I have totally played a game where the group started out as tremendously unskilled children, heh, which is still skipping /something/ but is a lot closer to not.

If I'm running a game - any game - and someone says "I'm an Halfling Fighter who uses a longsword", my question is then, 'Okay. Who taught you to use a longsword? Who is your immediate family? Do you have an extended family? What was your childhood like?" All of that can be put in backstory and not roleplayed through, but are impactful to the character - a secret swordsmanship style passed down through the ages is different from the stifling father who demands his son use his style as his father did him is different from the guard captain noticed the kid swinging a stick has some serious potential is different from 'How did you pick up Oedenal's stance without a teacher?! You must be some sort of prodigy!'

Even you had a game with a time skip in it - did you all sit on your hands during that time skip, or did you do things? Things you didn't roleplay through, but that doesn't make them suddenly less important.

Being higher level, however, enables you to do more concepts. I find it hard to argue that it's somehow automatically worse to /be/ the guard captain who (in backstory) notices a youth has a lot of potential, and works to train them up into being a fighter and pays their way through fighter college.

That sentence alone comes with so many hooks that I as a DM would be psyched to hear it - for a quick idea, when the aformentioned hobgoblin army attacks, the boss fight could have the boss using /the captain's style exactly/. Presuming the player looks into this, they'd know that the boss was originally scheduled to attack [place] several years ago but the attack went awry, and there are so many places for development now that it's amazing, all because of the backstory given from a character who was slightly higher level.

Vs 'You fight a hobgoblin army! As you fight the boss you notice he has an unusual fighting style!' I mean, a PC /might/ care about that, but they also might not. Certainly wouldn't have the connection to it that the first guy would.


But then... welll:


I guess that's my point, skipping to a higher level rather than advancing to that level misses what could have been, and limits your character's room for growth.

It doesn't! It doesn't /skip/ anything, it doesn't /waste/ anything, it doesn't /remove/ anything. It's just different.

Tanis Half-Elven had a lot of problems growing up that you don't see in the original trilogy. He became a popular character with lots and lots of depth and growth and changes over his first three books, without him starting from level one in the elven forest. His backstory not only defines him, it makes him /more/ interesting than if he was 'just a guy'.

Final Fantasies 6 and 7 would have been /ruined/ had you started with the main characters at what D&D calls level one. On one end you have an ex-soldier who can - almost single-handedly - take out a reactor from the most powerful nation in the world. On the other, you have this magitek riding witch who can end entire batallions with a wave of her hand. Both character's growth in a lot of ways /depends/ on their backstories not being played through - one is hit on by a king and doesn't feel particularly enamoured, the other occasionally has giant holes in his memory displayed before him.

Neither character would have been as well developed had you started much earlier. They especially would not have been as well developed had they had no backstory at all and just been plopped in.

What was the backstory of your level one character for Sunless Citadel? How did he grow? Why would a higher level character /not/ have grown? Why would a weaker character not have grown - did you start as a commoner? A child?


Most campaigns plan to end around the mid to possibly late teens, at least from my understanding, so starting at level 10 gives your character such a small window of existence.

Given how popular E6 is, people are quite willing to sit at one level for a good long time, if that is a concern. Several of my favorite games went from 6 - 20, and then parked at 20 for awhile since we didn't want to go epic. My most recent game went 5(6)-10 over the course of two years (they started at 5 but spent very little time there), and basically was an 'e10 game' with the numbers filed off. Some of my favorite games /did/ go epic.

A lot of games start and die within the same level due to life or disinterest or random goblin TPK removing people's interest.


This is assuming characters will develop at roughly the same ratio of character growth to level growth at all levels, though personally I think low level characters are more impressionable and open to growth than higher level characters, even if it's just due to their mutability.

To turn questions around a bit, then... hobgoblin army. If there is a character who doesn't care (No connections, no family, no backstory, no nothing. One morning, human fighter 1), and they fight a hobgoblin army... why are they /more likely/ to develop than a character who /does/ have connections to the world and is higher level, and also fights that hobgoblin army?

I mean.. you have level one characters who did Sunless Citadel and ended up being level 4. If we compare:

- One of your characters, who started at level one, did Sunless Citadel, ended level five due to time skip
to
- A character who started at level 4 or 5, wrote up a rich backstory which puts them at Oakhurst, also did Sunless Citadel, ended at what would have been level 6 but he was level drained, and thus is level five after the time skip.

Why is B somehow /less/ developed than A? I mean, I can accept 'the same' (Or well, 'different but equal' is probably a better way of wording that), but I'm not seeing how B is automatically /less/.

It's really not 'missing' anything to be the Captain of the Guard rather than a guardsman, or an upcoming guardsman, or a child. It's just different.

[Darth Ultron]

Levels 1-2 are, like, tutorial levels, where you learn the ropes of how your character works (and how the game works). I only start games at level 1 when I have players who are new to D&D. And in those cases, I aim to level them up quickly, usually once per session, until they reach level 3.

With experienced players, the lowest I would start is level 3, and I usually prefer starting at level 6 to make more character concepts viable.

I agree that new players really need to start a low level. People need time to get real world game experience with the rules. It can be hard enough for people to understand ''roll the d20''.

Though I'd also add that starting at first level is also a good idea for players that a DM does not know well. So many players think whatever crazy broken house rules their old DM used are official, that it is much easier to find out about them at the lower levels.