PDA

View Full Version : So what's the deal with starting at level 1?



Silus
2016-08-30, 12:00 PM
Or the equivalent of level 1?

I ask because I realize now that like....99% of the games over multiple systems over the last 5-6 years have started the players at level 1 or the equivalent thereof. So what's the draw of starting games at level 1 instead of, say, 5?

Edit: Suppose I should clarify what my gripe about all this is: I've started so many games and campaigns at level 1 and gotten MAYBE to level 5 and then whoops it's time to switch out, or players start dropping off, or the DM gets bored, or something like that. So it's onto the next game and yup, level 1 again. New system? Level 1. Going back to a previous DM running the same system and setting? Level 1. It's to the point where I don't even make any plans any more beyond the next level and am hesitant to work in any plot hooks that can't be wrapped up in a lvl 1-2 (or equivalent) campaign. It's just...kinda disheartening where characters can get access to all these neat powers and abilities and magic items and stuff later down the road but that later never comes 'cause "new campaign, roll up another lvl 1 scrub".

Thrudd
2016-08-30, 12:54 PM
Because "1" is the beginning of the counting system, so games usually label the place you start as "1".

If you were meant to start at level 5, then level 5 would have been called level 1.

Pex
2016-08-30, 12:56 PM
Some people just like to start at the beginning of something.

Some people are sticklers for players earning levels.

Some people just don't like the power of stuff that comes with high level play.

Some people really like the epic story feel of starting from a humble beginning and eventually becoming multiplanar uberpowerful juggernauts.

hymer
2016-08-30, 01:08 PM
Part of the draw of roleplaying games is the longevity. You can play the same campaign, the same characters, for years. The earlier you start, the greater the potential, and the greater the accomplishment.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-30, 01:10 PM
Or the equivalent of level 1?

I ask because I realize now that like....99% of the games over multiple systems over the last 5-6 years have started the players at level 1 or the equivalent thereof. So what's the draw of starting games at level 1 instead of, say, 5?

Because that's how it's been done since RPGs were "at level 1" (and they ignore all the games that have done otherwise).

Because some people take Campbell's Hero's Journey as prescriptive rather than descriptive, or are looking to emulate stories from writers who did so.

LibraryOgre
2016-08-30, 01:21 PM
Depending on the game, it can also lead to more organic improvement of characters. When you start at level 6, you've already got a couple extra WPs and NWPs under your belt, and might have a nice magic weapon to go along with those WPs and NWPs. If you start at level 1 and reach level 6, even at an accelerated pace, you might wind up taking different WPs and NWPs than "optimum" to respond to the game.

SethoMarkus
2016-08-30, 02:16 PM
Because there should always be the option for starting gameplay at different levels of power, and some people enjoy starting the game at lower levels of power. Heck, sometimes my group starts with NPC classes or drastically undercut versions of PC classes until they have the "aha!" moment and become full-fledged adventurers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting play at level 5, but there is also nothing wrong with starting play lower or higher. Personally, I don't like the feel of starting off as a badass who can descimate armies single-handedly. When I want that style, I typically play a video game. Likewise, when I want s low-power, "everyman" style game I play World of Darkness or a low powered FATE game rather than D&D, for example, because even at level 1 in D&D (3.5 is our usual system) you are a clear cut above the rest (assuming a world populated with NPCs that lack PC levels and are 1-5th level total).

Mordar
2016-08-30, 02:26 PM
Or the equivalent of level 1?

I ask because I realize now that like....99% of the games over multiple systems over the last 5-6 years have started the players at level 1 or the equivalent thereof. So what's the draw of starting games at level 1 instead of, say, 5?

I think a big one is the advantage of learning the system/setting/etc from a basic starting point rather than at a point where you are more bombarded with options. Somewhat akin to having a tricycle or bike with training wheels when you start out instead of hoping right on the 21-speed customized tour bike with cleat clips, adjustable suspension, wheel choices and brake sensitivity...or something like that anyway :smallwink:

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-30, 02:46 PM
I think there's an assumption built into many games (certainly in D&D) that the system will be used to tell the stories of characters' whole "careers", for want of a better term, from humble beginnings to the status of legend. That in itself is appealing to many players (just as the shape of Campbell's Hero's Journey is appealing in itself to many people).

cobaltstarfire
2016-08-30, 03:06 PM
Because it's traditional.

That's the reason it's been done in games I've played in anyway.


I don't have any particular preferences, though I suspect with broader experience I'd have a preference for starting around 3: everything is still fairly fresh and new, but everyone has some toys to play with. The only game in which I played from low level to high level was a Rollmaster game, and there aren't very many easy parallels between the two (it and D&D) for it to shape my preferences.


My last long running 5e game started at level 1, and took about 6 months playing once a week for 3-4 hours to progress to just under level 6? Doesn't seem like starting at a higher level will "shorten" the amount of time to play, not in 5e anyway, the first couple of levels are fairly accelerated, but then they slow down quite a lot after that.

Slipperychicken
2016-08-30, 03:26 PM
Because the hero's journey is so great and people love hearing that same basic story-structure over and over again.

Jay R
2016-08-30, 03:39 PM
Play the way you and your group want to play.

I prefer to start at level 1. I could give you the reasons (and have, more than once), but the reasons are merely an explanation; what matters is the observed fact. The essential fact is this: I like starting at level 1.

As long as there are enough people who agree with me, there will be games that start at level one. And we don't have to bother justifying it.

Meanwhile, your group can start any way you choose, and you don't have to justify it either.

Anderlith
2016-08-30, 03:40 PM
Firstly, because development and growth are mechanics to encourage continued gameplay.

Secondly, because of the nature of Integers, there has to be an origin. But most games have rules for playing "veteran" or "seasoned" adventurers, so NBD.

I personally love low level. Closer to reality. I prefer games where you grow out more than up.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-30, 04:25 PM
Three big reasons:

1.Mechanics. A lot of players, like 75%, don't know how the mechanics work in real game play. But until you play the game, you won't really ''get it''. And not just once, you need to do it dozes of times, with dozes of different ways. This gives a play real, real world game experience that can not be gained any other way, other then the slow, hard way. You can immediately tell a player that has been playing a character mechanical for years and one who has been playing days.

A player has to mechanicaly use everything about a character to get this experience. Gaining abilities slowly, over time gives a player time to use them. At each level more things are gained, and the player can slowly learn how to use each of them. You don't get that kind of experience when you start a character at a level higher then one.

And this needs to be done per character, you can't just use something once and declare your a super expert.

2.Role Playing. Again, real role playing experiences are better then fake ones. Any player that has role played through an event is much better then the player that just sits there and says ''my character did way cool stuff and was awesome''. A player needs to play a character for a long time to get to know the character...assuming the player role plays at all.

History. A player that has played through lots of levels has history, a player that has a fake history is useless. A player that starts at first level and slowly builds up over time to become and assassin gets lots of history: things the character has done and not done and tons of known NPC. A first level character that say frees a slave held by some goblins has a npc pal for life and it's real history. A 5th level character that just ''falls from the sky'' and just says ''um, that npc is my best pal as I say so and, um, save his life from slavers or, um, whatever.''


And for one bonus minor one...starting at 1st level give a DM time to correct any silly house rules from other DMs the player might think are official rules, allows the Dm to correct silly personal house rules the player attempts to exploit, and correct a player when they are outright just wrong or mistaken.

jindra34
2016-08-30, 04:38 PM
On a basic level, if a system has levels, level 1 will be the lowest point playable. What this means is different from system to system but the basic truth is still there. And just to make it clearer, What exactly is wrong/bad with starting at level 1?

Silus
2016-08-30, 04:40 PM
I think a big one is the advantage of learning the system/setting/etc from a basic starting point rather than at a point where you are more bombarded with options. Somewhat akin to having a tricycle or bike with training wheels when you start out instead of hoping right on the 21-speed customized tour bike with cleat clips, adjustable suspension, wheel choices and brake sensitivity...or something like that anyway :smallwink:

With newer players I totally agree. But with people that know the system (whichever it may be) this isn't really applicable. :smallfrown:


I think there's an assumption built into many games (certainly in D&D) that the system will be used to tell the stories of characters' whole "careers", for want of a better term, from humble beginnings to the status of legend. That in itself is appealing to many players (just as the shape of Campbell's Hero's Journey is appealing in itself to many people).

Speaking only from experience, but those careers only tend to last up until at least lvl 3-5 at best.


On a basic level, if a system has levels, level 1 will be the lowest point playable. What this means is different from system to system but the basic truth is still there. And just to make it clearer, What exactly is wrong/bad with starting at level 1?

It's just that all the games I've played save for like a handful when I started playing have been at lvl 1 or the equivalent thereof. And I look at all the neat things that players can get--powers, magic items, spells, etc.--and they might as well not exist because the campaign will never get there. At least in my experience, campaigns tend to end around lvl 3-5 either due to boredom by the DM, players getting flaky, or real life getting in the way.

SethoMarkus
2016-08-30, 05:25 PM
Speaking only from experience, but those careers only tend to last up until at least lvl 3-5 at best.


It's just that all the games I've played save for like a handful when I started playing have been at lvl 1 or the equivalent thereof. And I look at all the neat things that players can get--powers, magic items, spells, etc.--and they might as well not exist because the campaign will never get there. At least in my experience, campaigns tend to end around lvl 3-5 either due to boredom by the DM, players getting flaky, or real life getting in the way.

The very first major campaign (not a 1-2 session module but full campaign) lasted from level 1 to level 14 over the span of just under two years. We played every other Friday except for over the summer.

VoxRationis
2016-08-30, 05:30 PM
I personally feel like a character feels more "authentic" when they have levels and weapons that they accrued bit by bit over a career, rather than written all at once in order to optimize a build. Starting at higher ends up feeling a little like reading the summary of a book, or starting at the ending, rather than just reading it.

Max_Killjoy
2016-08-30, 05:39 PM
I personally feel like a character feels more "authentic" when they have levels and weapons that they accrued bit by bit over a career, rather than written all at once in order to optimize a build. Starting at higher ends up feeling a little like reading the summary of a book, or starting at the ending, rather than just reading it.


Whereas to me, that sounds like presuming "progression" and "story" are synonymous -- which gets back to the way the "hero's journey" has been used as a write-by-numbers formula in the genres most associated with RPGs... much to the detriment of that fiction and RPGs.

Milo v3
2016-08-30, 06:06 PM
I'll never understand it unless one of the player's are new to the game. I'll never really understand the authentic/organic argument, since you aren't starting at birth stuff is going to have happened in your character's backstory (unless you're playing a game where you don't make up backstories, but in that case the argument doesn't apply either). Also starting past level one means you can have meet the other PC's before the current level rather than trying to shoehorn everyone's backstory so that you all meet when you were all pathetic and useless.

cobaltstarfire
2016-08-30, 06:14 PM
I personally feel like a character feels more "authentic" when they have levels and weapons that they accrued bit by bit over a career, rather than written all at once in order to optimize a build. Starting at higher ends up feeling a little like reading the summary of a book, or starting at the ending, rather than just reading it.

Why does a high level character necessarily come with fancy equipment?


Maybe it got stolen/destroyed, maybe they never found anything cool to begin with, maybe they're washed up and trying to make something of their life this time. Maybe they just spent all their time doing nothing significant in the military up until now, maybe they lived with their nose in a book till they had a mid-life crisis and decided to do something with all that magic they know but have never put to practical use.

SethoMarkus
2016-08-30, 06:33 PM
Also starting past level one means you can have meet the other PC's before the current level rather than trying to shoehorn everyone's backstory so that you all meet when you were all pathetic and useless.

Not trying to ignore your core argument, because if you don't like/can't understand the appeal of low levels, I'm not here to change your mind. I just don't see how starting at higher levels changes anything as far as how thr party know each other. It just changes the dynamic. Starting at level 1, "we're all friends who are inexperienced in adventuring"; start at level 10, "we are all friends who are experienced at adventuring". I understand where you are coming from, but where you see low level and think "useless" and "pathetic", I see them and think "potential" and "blank slate for growth". Neither way is better or worse. Although, I do admit I don't much care for all the negative language that gets thrown around regarding low levels. High level play is certainly a valid form of play, and so is low level play.

Jay R
2016-08-30, 06:36 PM
... Fifthly, if you don't start at the beginning, there's a feeling that you missed a lot of interesting stuff, and didn't see it build.

Those are my five reasons for wanting to start at first level.

Rogue 7
2016-08-30, 06:52 PM
I think a lot of it depends on what the players and GM want to get out of a game. I think it's been about even for me the games where I started at level 1, and the games where I started a few levels higher. I've had a couple of times where I ran a one-shot for people new to D&D, and I actually ran it at 5th level.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, obviously-

With 1st level characters, you don't need much in the way of backstory and you're able to start at the very beginning of your character's story. That can be a powerful character hook for a lot of people. At higher levels, I feel a real need to justify *why* my character has the abilities that they do, where at first level, I can be the JRPG protagonist whose mom wakes him up and hands him a sword- bam, 1st level fighter. Conversely, having players start at higher level can leave room for more complex backstories and story hooks in the campaign.

5th level gives you more options of what to do with your character in combat and other situations, where 1st level characters tend to be one trick ponies. In addition, 5th level characters won't die to the first thing that looks at them funny, which can be helpful if new players make suboptimal choices- it gives them an HP cushion to help insulate mistakes. Plus, it means the GM can throw different opponents at them- I don't consider a Dungeons & Dragons oneshot to be a successful introduction to D&D if, by the end of the session, the players haven't fought a dragon. Conversely (again), some players enjoy the challenge presented to them with the limited options available at 1st level, and creating new and different tactics.

Pex
2016-08-30, 06:53 PM
Or the equivalent of level 1?

I ask because I realize now that like....99% of the games over multiple systems over the last 5-6 years have started the players at level 1 or the equivalent thereof. So what's the draw of starting games at level 1 instead of, say, 5?

Edit: Suppose I should clarify what my gripe about all this is: I've started so many games and campaigns at level 1 and gotten MAYBE to level 5 and then whoops it's time to switch out, or players start dropping off, or the DM gets bored, or something like that. So it's onto the next game and yup, level 1 again. New system? Level 1. Going back to a previous DM running the same system and setting? Level 1. It's to the point where I don't even make any plans any more beyond the next level and am hesitant to work in any plot hooks that can't be wrapped up in a lvl 1-2 (or equivalent) campaign. It's just...kinda disheartening where characters can get access to all these neat powers and abilities and magic items and stuff later down the road but that later never comes 'cause "new campaign, roll up another lvl 1 scrub".

Some people see a roleplaying game as just a fancy type of boardgame. Story is filler as you move your piece/character around the board, literally with the battlemat and figuratively with the gameworld. Caring about characters is anathema at worst indifferent at best and they just don't.

Milo v3
2016-08-30, 06:55 PM
Not trying to ignore your core argument, because if you don't like/can't understand the appeal of low levels, I'm not here to change your mind. I just don't see how starting at higher levels changes anything as far as how thr party know each other. It just changes the dynamic. Starting at level 1, "we're all friends who are inexperienced in adventuring"; start at level 10, "we are all friends who are experienced at adventuring". I understand where you are coming from, but where you see low level and think "useless" and "pathetic", I see them and think "potential" and "blank slate for growth". Neither way is better or worse. Although, I do admit I don't much care for all the negative language that gets thrown around regarding low levels. High level play is certainly a valid form of play, and so is low level play.
Note: Low-Level =! Level One. At level one, there really isn't much reason for the players to be sent to solve any issues, since they aren't actually really much better than a level one NPC class. Low level is fine, level one.... ugh. It looks like it'd make more sense if level one was for Solo Origin stories that happen before you meet the rest of the party since... you aren't really an adventurer at level one.

As for party members knowing each other, there simply is much more time to meet each other. Everyone meeting at level one, before any of them have done anything is a lot more limiting than "meeting specific party member at level one" + "meeting specific party member during whatever I was doing at level two" + "meeting specific party member during whatever I was doing at level three" + etc.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-30, 07:53 PM
Edit: Suppose I should clarify what my gripe about all this is: I've started so many games and campaigns at level 1 and gotten MAYBE to level 5 and then whoops it's time to switch out, or players start dropping off, or the DM gets bored, or something like that.

So your question is more ''why don't games last'' then ''why start at level one'' ?

I do know your pain.

Bad improving DMs that make no plot or story or adventure. You and the other players just aimlessly don't do anything game session after game session. You get five or ten minutes of fun, and countless hours of wasting time.

Then a player quits or gets ''busy''. The DM gives up. Or suddenly people want to switch to some other game for some reason.

And sure, starting at 1st level in this bad environment does mean your not likely to even get close to 5th level before the game stops. Of course, the same thing will happen no matter what level the characters are. So the answer is to simply play with better gamers.

There are games that run for years and years. Gamers, that amazing, simply want to play the game. They made up 1st level characters back in 2011, and have gamed with those characters every couple of weeks and now have near 20th level characters. And they will meet and continue the game this coming Thursday.

You might want to find a group like that....

SethoMarkus
2016-08-30, 08:48 PM
Note: Low-Level =! Level One. At level one, there really isn't much reason for the players to be sent to solve any issues, since they aren't actually really much better than a level one NPC class. Low level is fine, level one.... ugh. It looks like it'd make more sense if level one was for Solo Origin stories that happen before you meet the rest of the party since... you aren't really an adventurer at level one.

As for party members knowing each other, there simply is much more time to meet each other. Everyone meeting at level one, before any of them have done anything is a lot more limiting than "meeting specific party member at level one" + "meeting specific party member during whatever I was doing at level two" + "meeting specific party member during whatever I was doing at level three" + etc.

I disagree. Level 1 absolutely can have plenty of time to meet people or to hone your craft. I don't subscribe to the idea that a level 1 character has no experience with their role or are no better than an NPC. A Fighter is an accomplished warrior - pergaps with no adventuring experience, but training with fighting with a weapon, certainly; a Wizard has spent 2d6 years learning how to cast spells since the time they were 15; a Cleric is not an initiate of the faith, a recently baptized acolyte, they are a dedicated servant of their deity or ideal.

A level 1 character can certainly be a greenhorn youngin', but they can also be an untested hero.

In fact, one of my ideas for a character I'd like to play (starting at level one), is a middle aged human Fighter who has spent the better part of the past decade as a footsoldier for the local militia/army. His survival into middle age is what granted him the necessary knowledge and experience (not EXP) to be able to call himself a Fighter as opposed to an NPC Warrior. He takes up adventuring as a means of mercenary work to support his family as fighting is all he knows at this point.

It is all a matter of differing tastes and expectations. You may not see the worth of 1ast level play, but there are many of us that enjoy it.

Dragonexx
2016-08-30, 09:41 PM
Why does a high level character necessarily come with fancy equipment?


Maybe it got stolen/destroyed, maybe they never found anything cool to begin with, maybe they're washed up and trying to make something of their life this time. Maybe they just spent all their time doing nothing significant in the military up until now, maybe they lived with their nose in a book till they had a mid-life crisis and decided to do something with all that magic they know but have never put to practical use.

D&D's higher level challenges are written under the assumption that you have a certain amount of treasure and magic gear for your level. Hence wealth-by-level.

Also, as to the first level thing. Even first level in D&D doesn't represent picking up a sword for the first time. The assumption with D&D adventurers is that they're the best of their peers from the start, with the fighter already having combat experience and the wizard already having magical training and so forth.

Also, gameplay wise, first level is really limited, and combat is incredibly swingy, with it being possible for a goblins or orcs lucky crit to OHKO anyone. Thus, I'd recommend starting at level 3 at the earliest.

Heck I'm designing a campaign where the characters start at level 6.

Milo v3
2016-08-30, 10:16 PM
I disagree. Level 1 absolutely can have plenty of time to meet people or to hone your craft. I don't subscribe to the idea that a level 1 character has no experience with their role or are no better than an NPC. A Fighter is an accomplished warrior - pergaps with no adventuring experience, but training with fighting with a weapon, certainly; a Wizard has spent 2d6 years learning how to cast spells since the time they were 15; a Cleric is not an initiate of the faith, a recently baptized acolyte, they are a dedicated servant of their deity or ideal.
Except that it'd be just as good sending a level one warrior/expert/adept/magewright party (or a commoner party really). They aren't accomplished. The difference between characters and NPC's in power basically doesn't really exist until level 2 at least. The numbers just aren't there yet to make level one characters actually PC material IMO.

Mechalich
2016-08-30, 10:19 PM
D&D and its equivalents such as Pathfinder are most balanced at lower levels, with the game starting to break down mechanically at around level 10 and rapidly descending into un-playability by level 12-14 (Pathfinder tacitly acknowledges this by how they structure their published adventures and setting). As such there's a strong incentive to start at lower levels because it at least hypothetically allows the campaign to go on longer.

SethoMarkus
2016-08-30, 11:05 PM
Except that it'd be just as good sending a level one warrior/expert/adept/magewright party (or a commoner party really). They aren't accomplished. The difference between characters and NPC's in power basically doesn't really exist until level 2 at least. The numbers just aren't there yet to make level one characters actually PC material IMO.

And that is fine for you, but does not cut it for me. I'm not trying to convince you to adopt my viewpoint, I am simply explaining my viewpoint.

Thrudd
2016-08-31, 12:51 AM
Except that it'd be just as good sending a level one warrior/expert/adept/magewright party (or a commoner party really). They aren't accomplished. The difference between characters and NPC's in power basically doesn't really exist until level 2 at least. The numbers just aren't there yet to make level one characters actually PC material IMO.

A. That really depends on the DM and the setting. Maybe nobody is "sending" the characters anywhere, and they are going out on their own looking for ways to get stronger or richer or looking for something they want. Maybe they're competing with some of those NPCs that are just as good as they are, and need to prove they're more worthy. Your complaint is only valid for a specific sort of scenario which might not make sense for level 1 characters. There are many scenarios which do.

B. There is nothing that says the PCs need to be better or more powerful than NPCs. They are "PC material" because the players are controlling them. They become accomplished when the players succeed at completing adventures where the characters gain experience and loot.

LudicSavant
2016-08-31, 12:56 AM
The Steven Universe RPG had an interesting case where Steven started at level 1, and all of the gems started at level 9001.

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-31, 01:47 AM
For a non-D&D centric take on this issue:

The reason you start at lvl 1 in Apocalypse World is because that's a legitimately great place to start. Levels don't really mean as much in AW. Sure, you can get some fancy goodies but in truth none of that makes you particularly more powerful than other PCs, and certainly you're more powerful than any NPCs.
(As an example, a PC can take somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 Harm before they die. Most NPCs are guaranteed to be dead at 3 harm, and tougher ones dead at around 5. Boss battles are basically just other PCs if such a thing even happens in that campaign.)
Another reason is that campaigns of Apocalypse World tend to be comparatively short. Anywhere from 6-15 sessions is enough to finish a campaign. (Part of why my group likes it so much. We get a full campaign in without a giant commitment, complete with satisfactory ending and awesome stuff happening.)

The same things apply to pretty much all PbtA systems.

LudicSavant
2016-08-31, 02:30 AM
Another reason is that campaigns of Apocalypse World tend to be comparatively short. Anywhere from 6-15 sessions is enough to finish a campaign. (Part of why my group likes it so much. We get a full campaign in without a giant commitment, complete with satisfactory ending and awesome stuff happening.)

What is it about AW that lends itself to shorter campaigns?

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-31, 04:01 AM
What is it about AW that lends itself to shorter campaigns?

They are extremely high-octane and designed to fall apart quickly. The PCs start in a precarious situation and it gets less and less stable over time. So it's naturally going to end relatively fast compared to a D&D campaign. There's no definitive guide for how long it should take, but it does say that "It ends when the general consensus is that the campaign is ending." Sometimes that's 6 sessions in. Sometimes it's 12. Sometimes it's 50. Depends on the group and campaign, but shorter seems to be the norm.

Telonius
2016-08-31, 05:15 AM
Personally I've only ever been in long-term campaigns (usually 1-20), D&D 3.0 or 3.5, except for a couple of 1- or 2-shot adventures. We've always had at least one person totally new to the game. Getting everybody used to the mechanics of leveling up is an important thing, at least in 3rd Edition.

Jay R
2016-08-31, 07:13 AM
Edit: Suppose I should clarify what my gripe about all this is: I've started so many games and campaigns at level 1 and gotten MAYBE to level 5 and then whoops it's time to switch out, or players start dropping off, or the DM gets bored, or something like that. So it's onto the next game and yup, level 1 again. New system? Level 1. Going back to a previous DM running the same system and setting? Level 1. It's to the point where I don't even make any plans any more beyond the next level and am hesitant to work in any plot hooks that can't be wrapped up in a lvl 1-2 (or equivalent) campaign. It's just...kinda disheartening where characters can get access to all these neat powers and abilities and magic items and stuff later down the road but that later never comes 'cause "new campaign, roll up another lvl 1 scrub".

The best course of action for fixing this is for you to run a game.

KEEP RUNNING it all the way up to high levels.

Show your friends how fun that can be.

Then, after you have done the work so they can have that fun, ask one of them to do the work so you can have the same fun.

But you need to do it first. If you won't, then the answer to your question is that your games don't last into higher levels because nobody in your group, including you, is willing to do the work to make them last.

LudicSavant
2016-08-31, 07:29 AM
They are extremely high-octane and designed to fall apart quickly. The PCs start in a precarious situation and it gets less and less stable over time. So it's naturally going to end relatively fast compared to a D&D campaign. There's no definitive guide for how long it should take, but it does say that "It ends when the general consensus is that the campaign is ending." Sometimes that's 6 sessions in. Sometimes it's 12. Sometimes it's 50. Depends on the group and campaign, but shorter seems to be the norm.

But what is it about them that makes them designed to fall apart quickly / get less stable / etc?

Freelance GM
2016-08-31, 09:46 AM
So what's the deal with starting at level 1? Or the equivalent of level 1?

I ask because I realize now that like....99% of the games over multiple systems over the last 5-6 years have started the players at level 1 or the equivalent thereof. So what's the draw of starting games at level 1 instead of, say, 5?


For most systems, my answer is if you start at level 1, you have the most room to improve. Personally, I like running low-level games because they're low-power games. My games usually end around levels 9-12 because that's the cutoff point where characters start to outgrow the themes of my campaign setting. At the 9-12 range, you're undeniably powerful, but things like an Ancient Red Dragon or a deity are still a threat to run away from. You're big, but the world is still bigger.

However, I'd like to point out that my sacred cow, D&D 5E, was built on this model:

Level 1 is stupid simple so that character creation can be fast for new players.
Level 2 is an introduction to your class's more complex mechanics.
Level 3 is when you're actually done with character creation, and the intended starting point for experienced players.

PotA and CoS both assume the party is starting at level 3, but include some "introductory filler" for starting at level 1, like the Alarums and Excursions chapter of PotA and Death House in CoS. Prisoners of the Drow in OotA is a mild exception, because in addition to getting you to level 3 before the real adventure starts, it's also a solid introduction to the adventure's plot, and the factions and races of the Underdark.

cobaltstarfire
2016-08-31, 09:52 AM
D&D's higher level challenges are written under the assumption that you have a certain amount of treasure and magic gear for your level. Hence wealth-by-level.



So what? Doesn't mean you have to write campaigns like that, or make characters like that. It doesn't even apply in 5e, which did away with the assumption that everyone is a christmas tree at higher levels, and restricts how many magical toys you can use at a time at all.

And who exactly said lv 1 represented picking up and doing (class thing) the first time, I certainly did not. (maybe someone else did and I forgot, but I usually think of level 1 as skilled enough to use your (class thing) with some amount of confidence, which would imply atleast several years of training to start).


The rest I don't think is addressed to me I mean I myself said I'd probably have a preference for starting at lv 3 if I had a wider level range of experience (I've never played a game of D&D that went past level 5, only ttrpg I've played from low to high was rolemaster, where we got into the 20's or something like that). As it is I personally have no preference, I'm more interested in the games background, and what kind of play is expected (ex I avoid games that come with the expectation that you minmax and play super competently, because I have trouble remembering rules, and am not a very good minmaxer)

2D8HP
2016-08-31, 10:17 AM
The only RPG's that I've played that used "levels" have been '70's rules D&D (sometimes supplemented with "Arduin"), and 5e D&D, the other RPG's used "skills" (Runequest, Traveller etc.) or "power points" (Champions, GURPS), so I really can only speak on those two games.
In retrospect '70's rules D&D was so very lethal for first level PC's that it may have been better to start at higher levels, but we were having so much fun that it just didn't occur to us.
With 5e on the other hand a First level PC is so much harder to kill that it's hard for me to think that their "under-powered" (although goblins and kobolds are a bit harder to kill as well). A 5e first level PC feels like a 1e third level PC, and a 5e second level PC feels like a 1e fifth level PC to me.
As a DM the aversion to running high levels in 5e is simply because all those extra PC abilities and powers add to the need for more bookeeping and memorization, increasing the hassle.
I can still do a fair job of DM'ing under 5e rules at low levels, but much past fourth levels all the PC super-powers just make it too much of a chore. If I was to do it again I would tell the players that it will take their PC's twice as long to "level up" for each additional level past second, and only then would I agree to DM, simply to better acclimate to all their additional powers.


I posted the following in a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21148908), but since it seems to fit:

Quite true, high level and low level D&D play are not the same.
Recently this Forum has had threads by those who don't like high levels:
Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495989-Why-do-almost-all-editions-of-D-amp-D-fall-apart-around-10th-level)
Those who like high level "Naruto/Wuxia"" style adventures, and prefer 3.5 because of that:
Sell me on 5th edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495557-Sell-me-on-5th-edition&highlight=2D8HP)
And those that simply hate low levels
Roleplaying level one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?494879-Roleplaying-level-one&highlight=2D8HP)
I think it's a strength that D&D can accommodate different power levels, but if players & DM's enjoy those different levels is another matter.
While going "Dragonslaying" has appeal, I (for example) usually retire PC''s at around 5th level, others may start at even higher levels. To each their own, but it may be a more noticible problem now because (at least with 5e) PC's level up much faster than they used to! This makes the transition from low to high levels harder to acclimate to. IIRC it used to take at least three times as much "table-time" to "level up", as it used to. But don't just take my word for it, let's see what a co-creator of D&D wrote about level progression:



D&D IS ONLY AS

GOOD AS THE DM

by Gary Gygax

Successful play of D & D is a blend of desire, skill and luck. Desire is often
initiated by actually participating in a game. It is absolutely a reflection of the
referee’s ability to maintain an interesting and challenging game. Skill is a blend
of knowledge of the rules and game background as applied to the particular game
circumstances favored by the referee. Memory or recall is often a skill function.
Luck is the least important of the three, but it is a factor in successful play
nonetheless. Using the above criteria it would seem that players who have attained
a score or more of levels in their respective campaigns are successful indeed. This
is generally quite untrue. Usually such meteoric rise simply reflects an in-
competent Dungeonmaster.
While adventurers in a D & D campaign must grade their play to their
referee, it is also incumbent upon the Dungeonmaster to suit his campaign to the
participants. This interaction is absolutely necessary if the campaign is to con-
tinue to be of interest to all parties. It is often a temptation to the referee to turn
his dungeons into a veritable gift shoppe of magical goodies, ripe for plucking by
his players. Similarly, by a bit of fudging, outdoor expeditions become trips to the
welfare department for heaps of loot. Monsters exist for the slaying of the ad-
venturers — whether of the sort who “guard” treasure, or of the wandering
variety. Experience points are heaped upon the undeserving heads of players,
levels accumulate like dead leaves in autumn, and if players with standings in the
20’s, 30’s and 40’s of levels do not become bored, they typically become filled with
an entirely false sense of accomplishment, they are puffed up with hubris. As they
have not really earned their standings, and their actual ability has no reflection on
their campaign level, they are easily deflated (killed) in a game which demands
competence in proportionate measure to players’ levels.
It is, therefore, time that referees reconsider their judging. First, is magic ac-
tually quite scarce in your dungeons? It should be! Likewise, treasures should be
proportionate both to the levels of the dungeon and the monsters guarding them.
Second, absolute disinterest must be exercised by the Dungeonmaster, and if a
favorite player stupidly puts himself into a situation where he is about to be killed,
let the dice tell the story and KILL him. This is not to say that you should never
temper chance with a bit of “Divine Intervention,” but helping players should be a
rare act on the referee’s part, and the action should only be taken when fate seems
to have unjustly condemned an otherwise good player, and then not in every cir-
cumstance should the referee intervene. Third, create personas for the inhabitants
of your dungeon — if they are intelligent they would act cleverly to preserve them-
selves and slay intruding expeditions out to do them in and steal their treasures.
The same is true for wandering monsters. Fourth, there should be some high-level,
very tricky and clever chaps in the nearest inhabitation to the dungeon, folks who
skin adventures out of their wealth just as prospectors were generally fleeced for
their gold in the Old West. When the campaign turkies flock to town trying to buy
magical weapons, potions, scrolls, various other items of magical nature, get a
chum turned back to flesh, have a corpse resurrected, or whatever, make them pay
through their proverbial noses. For example, what would a player charge for like
items or services? Find out, add a good bit, and that is the cost you as referee will
make your personas charge. This will certainly be entertaining to you, and laying
little traps in addition will keep the players on their collective toes. After all,Dungeonmasters are entitled to a little fun too! Another point to remember is that
you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months
writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he
cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere
reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neigh-
borhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of
foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be
stipulated (we will treat this in an upcoming issue of SR or in a D & D supplement
as it should be dealt with at length) so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or
duplicate potions.
When players no longer have reams of goodies at their fingertips they must
use their abilities instead, and as you will have made your dungeons and wilder-
nesses far more difficult and demanding, it will require considerable skill,
imagination, and intellectual exercise to actually gain from the course of an ad-
venture. Furthermore, when magic is rare it is valuable, and only if it is scarce
will there be real interest in seeking it. When it is difficult to survive, a long
process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek
for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it
is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but
unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to ex-
perience and treasure in the D & D campaign.
It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression
which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge
the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of
the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to
reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay.
Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty
flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing
something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,”
tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75
games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to
make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that
play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced
power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another
year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of
perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to
see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and
GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most
able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named
campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or
GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.
By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that
the opportunity to retain interest will remain. It will also mean that the rules will
fit the existing situation, a dragon, balrog, or whatever will be a fearsome
challenge rather than a pushover. It is still up to the Dungeonmaster to make the
campaign really interesting to his players by adding imaginative touches, through
exertion to develop background and detailed data regarding the campaign, and to
make certain that there is always something new and exciting to learn about or
acquire. It will, however, be an easier task. So if a 33rd level wizard reflects a
poorly managed campaign, a continuing mortality rate of 50% per expedition
generally reflects over-reaction and likewise a poorly managed campaign. It is
unreasonable to place three blue dragons on the first dungeon level, just as
unreasonable as it is to allow a 10th level fighter to rampage through the upper
levels of a dungeon rousting kobolds and giant rats to gain easy loot and ex-
perience. When you tighten up your refereeing be careful not to go too far the other way.

Knaight
2016-08-31, 10:33 AM
The biggest thing about starting at level 1 is that the game says you should, and most people will do what the game says. Various rationalizations then appear about why it is the right way to do things, most of which are pretty incoherent.

GungHo
2016-08-31, 01:38 PM
Why does a high level character necessarily come with fancy equipment?
If you're talking about D&D, then the encounter level/CR system assumes that you have accrued a certain level of "fancy equipment". If you're under-geared, you need to adjust the levels downward to not kill the party.

I like level 1, but a lot of folks don't because of past history with D&D. At one time, an alley cat could kill a level 1 wizard, particularly if his one spell didn't stop the cat.


But don't just take my word for it, let's see what a co-creator of D&D wrote about level progression:
This is what I am talking about. DM as Adversary is not something we just assumed. It's baked in.

IntelectPaladin
2016-08-31, 09:30 PM
I've, once again, only read the thread title.
A bad habit, to be sure, but at least it's not worse. I might not have read ANYTHING.
I think the answer is a phrase I once read:
"The journey is the destination."
Whats the point of going through all that if you've already accomplished quite a bit,
and have already saved quite a few people?
Besides loot. Loot is almost always a good reason.
Thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a better day!

Jay R
2016-08-31, 10:02 PM
The biggest thing about starting at level 1 is that the game says you should, and most people will do what the game says. Various rationalizations then appear about why it is the right way to do things, most of which are pretty incoherent.

Here's my incoherent reason:

"I enjoy it."

2D8HP
2016-08-31, 11:34 PM
I liked the first 1977 Star Wars movie and "Empire Strikes Back", more than "Return of the Jedi", and the first Spiderman movie much, much more than whatever film had the "Avengers" battle Loki (just so boring!), starting play with all the super-powers that 5e D&D grants at higher levels just doesn't entice me yet (well maybe second.....), and while I can write the backstory of a desperate drifter who becomes an adventurer, writing the backstory of an established hero is just harder for me, but I can see why the O.P. is frustrated that the campaigns he plays never last long enough to find out what higher levels are like (most of my PC's campaigns end because so many in the party do not survive).

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-31, 11:56 PM
But what is it about them that makes them designed to fall apart quickly / get less stable / etc?

Firstly, it's post-apocalyptic, and hence is naturally dangerous.
The MC is encouraged to make the situations precarious in many ways, which requires going rather deeply into the GM side of mechanics.
The biggest two contributing factors are The Moves Snowball and Fronts.
The Moves Snowball is basically a back and forth of moves, countermoves, complications, and hard decisions that causes virtually every scene in Apocalypse World to escalate. Sometimes slowly, sometimes explosively.

Fronts represent the various threats that exist in the world of the game, and how those threats grow, expand, and get worse over time. They utilize countdown clocks without much of a guide on how fast they count down or if they need input from players to do so. (That's up to the MC) but having the fronts tick down once per session is generally an easy and convenient way to do it. Since there are always more fronts to deal with than could possibly be dealt with (if you're doing it right) the situation will always get crazy and often do so quickly.

For more info, read the system itself. Vincent Baker is better at explaining his system than I am.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-01, 12:34 PM
This thread is a good illustration of the way in which level-based systems really are suited for a particular sort of game, with a very specific set of assumptions, and not at all universal in the way that they've too often been marketed as being.

wumpus
2016-09-01, 02:41 PM
Mostly it depends with what you want in the game.

Do you want "the origin story" as part of the game, if so then start at level 1.
If you want actual heroes (at least heroic powers, level 1 characters typically have even more than heroic courage), then start near the end of the powers the rules allow (note that in D&D, this can be a problem as back when it was created "play balance" meant party vs. monsters, not "each party member has exactly equal combat value").

Note that in older D&D editions (including 3.x and pathfinder), high level wizard powers were believed to be balanced by the uselessness of low level wizards (note that they were typically playtested as blaster wizards, and things quickly got out of hand with player experience with the new rules). If you let players start with double-digit levels, expect all players to only take pure caster classes.

flond
2016-09-01, 03:18 PM
Firstly, it's post-apocalyptic, and hence is naturally dangerous.
The MC is encouraged to make the situations precarious in many ways, which requires going rather deeply into the GM side of mechanics.
The biggest two contributing factors are The Moves Snowball and Fronts.
The Moves Snowball is basically a back and forth of moves, countermoves, complications, and hard decisions that causes virtually every scene in Apocalypse World to escalate. Sometimes slowly, sometimes explosively.

Fronts represent the various threats that exist in the world of the game, and how those threats grow, expand, and get worse over time. They utilize countdown clocks without much of a guide on how fast they count down or if they need input from players to do so. (That's up to the MC) but having the fronts tick down once per session is generally an easy and convenient way to do it. Since there are always more fronts to deal with than could possibly be dealt with (if you're doing it right) the situation will always get crazy and often do so quickly.

For more info, read the system itself. Vincent Baker is better at explaining his system than I am.

I feel like this is missing the OTHER side of the coin. Which...feels important to mention just for completeness sake. That is that as the game goes on the PCs become better. Not in the "can take on bigger challenges" kind of way but "Are better at dealing with ANY challange, and is (through things like advanced moves) better able to fix/defeat/destroy their problems. This leads to an arc where if you're not regularly changing characters, you start with a charged situation, have it go crazy, and then are able to start tying up the things that aren't utterly wrecked.

Mordar
2016-09-01, 04:50 PM
This thread is a good illustration of the way in which level-based systems really are suited for a particular sort of game, with a very specific set of assumptions, and not at all universal in the way that they've too often been marketed as being.

I'm not quite sure I get this...if there is a "level" based system that has methodology for starting at any level on one hand and a non-level system that still allows for advancement (in skills, powers, or whatever) on the other hand...what makes one universal and the other not? Starting at first level...starting with 100 "character points"...starting at 23rd level...starting at fortyjillion "character points...achieves the same idea from the standpoint of relative power. Can play static or advancing games either way. What am I missing that is influenced by levels vs. non-levels? Is there a third hand I need?

Or is this more a statement that games that use "levels" aren't universal because some people don't like games with levels?

- M

Koo Rehtorb
2016-09-01, 06:47 PM
But what is it about them that makes them designed to fall apart quickly / get less stable / etc?

The biggest answer is that the PCs grow too powerful for the setting by around session 8-12 and gain the tools to rapidly end the central conflicts. One of the bigger causes is that the basic bread and butter moves that everyone has access to can get upgraded around that point. For reference, there's two particular moves that everyone starts with, "Seduce/Manipulate" and "Seize by Force".

Everything you roll in the game is 2d6+modifier(usually -1 to +3). 1-6 is a failure, 7-9 is a partial success, 10+ is a full success. The advanced moves you get in the late game add a 12+ option to these, and by that point you're usually rolling +3 or even +4 at everything you're good at.

Seduce/Manipulate is normally "Offer someone something they want. On a 7-9 they want it up front. On a 10+ they'll take your word they'll get it later. They do the thing you want from them".

Seize by Force's options are:
You take definite hold of it.
You suffer little harm
You inflict terrible harm
You impress, dismay or frighten your enemy.
On a 7-9 pick 2, on a 10+ pick 3.

When you have the ADVANCED versions of those, however, the 12+ options come in. If you roll a 12+ on seduce/manipulate that person instantly becomes your permanent ally. On Seize by Force you get ALL FOUR options and one of them is at double strength. The power of moves like these, by intention, rapidly ends the game.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-01, 07:07 PM
The biggest answer is that the PCs grow too powerful for the setting by around session 8-12 and gain the tools to rapidly end the central conflicts. One of the bigger causes is that the basic bread and butter moves that everyone has access to can get upgraded around that point. For reference, there's two particular moves that everyone starts with, "Seduce/Manipulate" and "Seize by Force".

Everything you roll in the game is 2d6+modifier(usually -1 to +3). 1-6 is a failure, 7-9 is a partial success, 10+ is a full success. The advanced moves you get in the late game add a 12+ option to these, and by that point you're usually rolling +3 or even +4 at everything you're good at.

Seduce/Manipulate is normally "Offer someone something they want. On a 7-9 they want it up front. On a 10+ they'll take your word they'll get it later. They do the thing you want from them".

Seize by Force's options are:
You take definite hold of it.
You suffer little harm
You inflict terrible harm
You impress, dismay or frighten your enemy.
On a 7-9 pick 2, on a 10+ pick 3.

When you have the ADVANCED versions of those, however, the 12+ options come in. If you roll a 12+ on seduce/manipulate that person instantly becomes your permanent ally. On Seize by Force you get ALL FOUR options and one of them is at double strength. The power of moves like these, by intention, rapidly ends the game.


So... the very nature of the powers and mechanics put a ticking timebomb on playability for any particular campaign?

The more I pick up the details of that system... the less I'm impressed.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-01, 07:30 PM
I'm not quite sure I get this...if there is a "level" based system that has methodology for starting at any level on one hand and a non-level system that still allows for advancement (in skills, powers, or whatever) on the other hand...what makes one universal and the other not? Starting at first level...starting with 100 "character points"...starting at 23rd level...starting at fortyjillion "character points...achieves the same idea from the standpoint of relative power. Can play static or advancing games either way. What am I missing that is influenced by levels vs. non-levels? Is there a third hand I need?

Or is this more a statement that games that use "levels" aren't universal because some people don't like games with levels?



It's a statement that level-based systems, particularly variants of d20, are very often misrepresented as being adaptable to any genre, any setting, any sort of game. Look at all the different things that d20 has been grossly misapplied to. The actual "space" of settings, tones, characters, and stories that a system like the variants of d20 actually fit is much smaller than the "space" of same for which it has been used.

Everything becomes about levels -- and NPCs use different rules than PCs (bad design, BTW), or all have levels because it's the only way to represent competence, or all kinda suck.

Certain sorts of competence become harder to model.

Progression is very constrained to a certain path and pattern. Progression and story are tied together in a very specific way.

bulbaquil
2016-09-01, 07:39 PM
Because I like the lack of character options level 1 provides. I have to think less when creating the character, which is a good thing in my book. My character's story develops in the course of play, rather than me having to come up with one of significant length beforehand (especially when I don't fully understand the world lore, and want to inadvertently contradict it as little as possible).

flond
2016-09-01, 09:48 PM
So... the very nature of the powers and mechanics put a ticking timebomb on playability for any particular campaign?

The more I pick up the details of that system... the less I'm impressed.

I do feel the need to note this can be a good thing. It helps ensure a semi-natural conclusion. Eventually the PCs (or some of the PCs) will gain Praxis and start to force a conclusion. Or...there'll be some sort of epic conflict. It helps ensure a story arc. (If you don't want that, then it won't be for you but well, that's the advantage of it.)

ImNotTrevor
2016-09-01, 10:01 PM
So... the very nature of the powers and mechanics put a ticking timebomb on playability for any particular campaign?

The more I pick up the details of that system... the less I'm impressed.

I'm thinking you missed the part where campaigns are supposed to be pretty short. That's part of the point. You don't play one Apocalypse World campaign for a long time. You play lots of campaigns of Apocalypse World.

If that's not what you like, that's not the system's problem. You'd not be the target audience. It does what it's designed to do really well.
And it doesn't bother trying to be/do anything else.
*shrug*

Airk
2016-09-02, 11:42 AM
... Fifthly, if you don't start at the beginning, there's a feeling that you missed a lot of interesting stuff, and didn't see it build.


This is why I always start my campaigns when the characters are born, so that you don't miss out on all that interesting stuff you get at the beginning, or seeing it build. :P

This and the "you get better roleplaying" thing are both nonsense. Because both assume that level 1 is somehow the "beginning of the story". It's not. The "beginning of the story" is when you start the story. It's not at level 1. It's not at age 5. It's not when the character cast their first cantrip. It's not when the evil warlord killed your character's parents. The beginning of the story is when play starts, and it has nothing to do with level.

Additionally, games can often benefit from the idea that some interesting things happened BEFORE the start of play as well (something that is strangely frequently missing from games where characters start at level 1 as if newly spawned from the womb) so that you can explore and develop it later.

The whole "you're missing stuff" or "you get a better chance to more fully develop your character" arguments are based on a logical fallacy.

Mordar
2016-09-02, 03:26 PM
It's a statement that level-based systems, particularly variants of d20, are very often misrepresented as being adaptable to any genre, any setting, any sort of game. Look at all the different things that d20 has been grossly misapplied to. The actual "space" of settings, tones, characters, and stories that a system like the variants of d20 actually fit is much smaller than the "space" of same for which it has been used.

Everything becomes about levels -- and NPCs use different rules than PCs (bad design, BTW), or all have levels because it's the only way to represent competence, or all kinda suck.

Certain sorts of competence become harder to model.

Progression is very constrained to a certain path and pattern. Progression and story are tied together in a very specific way.

I think that bad application of level-based games to settings/genres is an issue, and I think that d20 methodology has some real issues for my preferences...the "blockyness" and "steps" (not sure of the best terms to reflect the use of the d20 skill resolution roll as lacking fine detail/distinction). The lack of granularity in both skills and skill resolution really limits the engine and I don't think it makes for good games where you want a lot of specific skills with a full spectrum of competence/ability and where the characters' ability to fight stuff isn't the primary consideration. I think I understand your first couple points, and if you started with "Variants of d20..." I think I would be in pretty full agreement.

But I think that level-based vs. non-level-based isn't the big problem. I think that it depends more on the application of levels and what they mean to progress or competence as you've indicated. I like games that use levels but wherein the level is really just an indicator of experience and total (for lack of a better word) skill/development points...games like RoleMaster where two 10th level (insert profession here) characters could be radically different because the profession dictates how easy or difficult it is to advance broad swaths of skills and the level indicates how many total development points a character has. Not like D&D where there is to me much more similarity/overlap between two characters of the same class and level (or "build" as appropriate).

Perhaps that is much more the exception though...and I'm picking nits because I really like(d) the exception?

- M

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-02, 03:48 PM
This is why I always start my campaigns when the characters are born, so that you don't miss out on all that interesting stuff you get at the beginning, or seeing it build. :P

This and the "you get better roleplaying" thing are both nonsense. Because both assume that level 1 is somehow the "beginning of the story". It's not. The "beginning of the story" is when you start the story. It's not at level 1. It's not at age 5. It's not when the character cast their first cantrip. It's not when the evil warlord killed your character's parents. The beginning of the story is when play starts, and it has nothing to do with level.

Additionally, games can often benefit from the idea that some interesting things happened BEFORE the start of play as well (something that is strangely frequently missing from games where characters start at level 1 as if newly spawned from the womb) so that you can explore and develop it later.

The whole "you're missing stuff" or "you get a better chance to more fully develop your character" arguments are based on a logical fallacy.


I think this also ties into my earlier comments about the Campbellian "hero's journey" being taken as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Campbell seems to have been making an observation about a common pattern repeated across many stories from many cultures and times. However, people like George Lucas and many other writers, particularly in the "speculative fiction" genres, have since latched onto the "hero's journey" as a set of boxes that must be checked in order to "tell a good story".

So there's now this idea that a "good story" starts with The Hero as this sort of naive, raw, inexperienced person who undergoes a sort of set sequence of events along a path, and that a character who doesn't follow that path of initial struggle and maybe even incompetence is "not a good character" (see also, all the damn bloody nonsense about "mary sues" and the gross misuse of that term).

Whether it was originally intentional or not, level-based progression, particularly of the D&D-tree-of-systems sort, has become conceptually intertwined with this notion that character should start out raw and greatly increase in capability, gaining special gear, undergoing profound moments of progress and learning, along the way to becoming a True Legendary Hero.

For campaigns, characters, and settings that don't fit that sort of story, there's always going to be a bit of square-peg round-hole problem where shoving the game into a D&D-style level-progression system is going to distort things.

bulbaquil
2016-09-02, 04:24 PM
The whole "you're missing stuff" or "you get a better chance to more fully develop your character" arguments are based on a logical fallacy.

Personal preferences don't have to be logically justifiable. Mine aren't.

Mordar
2016-09-02, 05:18 PM
I think this also ties into my earlier comments about the Campbellian "hero's journey" being taken as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Campbell seems to have been making an observation about a common pattern repeated across many stories from many cultures and times. However, people like George Lucas and many other writers, particularly in the "speculative fiction" genres, have since latched onto the "hero's journey" as a set of boxes that must be checked in order to "tell a good story".

Well, there is a huge difference (at least to me) between RPGs and books/movies...one of the prime joys in Star Wars and The Belgariad and so many other books was the ability to project myself as Luke or Belgarion or one of the Ohmsfords or...well, anyone who wasn't already the potent and mighty.

But RPGs...I wanna be the potent and mighty, and maybe I want to start as Luke and get to Jedi Master...but sometimes I wanna just start as Boba Fett and go from there.

I hold that starting at Level 1 was a convention to (a) learn the game(s) and (b) in an era of very high lethality provide a sense of benchmarking, 'cause to make it to "name" level means you accomplished something. For most people (b) is now utterly irrelevant and (a) is the case in only a small number of instances.

- M

Jader7777
2016-09-02, 05:36 PM
Level 1 PCs are far far more easier to manage.

Personally I think the best range of levels is somewhere between 5 and 10. Large groups of CR1 creatures are still a threat and a lot of cool thematic monsters sit around the CR7-10 range.

Arbane
2016-09-02, 06:26 PM
I think the simplest answer is 'because Gygax'. There's this notion ingrained in RPG (and MMORPG) culture that players have to 'do time' playing weaklings to EARN their fun before they can be allowed to do anything actually impressive/interesting/fun.

Of course, there's games this doesn't apply to very much. Legends of the Wulin has the player characters start at 'level' 2 (of 5), since they're supposed to be actually good at this kung-fu thing. In Call of Cthulhu, your character starts at 1... and goes down from there. In Exalted, your character is supposed to start at 100 and go UP. (Too bad your enemies are all OVER NINE THOUSAND...)

Cluedrew
2016-09-02, 07:00 PM
For me it is the simple mechanical reason that I just assume that most games (as in the systems themselves) are supposed to start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.

Now what "the beginning" is actually supposed to represent is a different matter, that varies from system to system. But "the beginning" is still there.

Thrudd
2016-09-02, 09:42 PM
Every game has a "level 1", wherever the rules recommend the characters begin. The power and ability of beginning characters relative to the world they inhabit will vary according to the genre and the setting implied by the game. Whether characters basically begin in "finished" form or are meant to progress and develop over a long period of play is also a matter of genre. There is no correct answer regarding that power level or genre. Whatever you want for your game is correct.

The Fury
2016-09-02, 10:11 PM
I'm surprised this thread hasn't spawned a This is Spinal Tap reference yet.

"In my homebrew system the characters start at level 11."

"Is that better?"

"Well, it's 10 more isn't it? See, most RPGs start you off at level 1, but mine you start off at level 11 so you're cool and heroic from the get go."

"So, why don't you make level 1 cool and heroic and start them off at level 1?"

"But... The characters start off at level 11."

For my own part, I chalk it up to personal preference. I've gotten more attached to characters that I played starting at level 1 than otherwise. Not to say that some campaign ideas wouldn't be served better by making the PCs higher level to begin with.

Slipperychicken
2016-09-03, 12:35 AM
I think the simplest answer is 'because Gygax'. There's this notion ingrained in RPG (and MMORPG) culture that players have to 'do time' playing weaklings to EARN their fun before they can be allowed to do anything actually impressive/interesting/fun.

You say this as if level 1 isn't fun.

Some of the best fun I've had was at low level D&D, having some actual fear because traps and monsters stood a chance of killing my character, and I had to use my brain to navigate challenges instead of facerolling everything. That's probably the reason why I like OSR so much. And now that I mention it, you're also discounting the joys of a low-level meatgrinder.

Arbane
2016-09-03, 01:48 AM
You say this as if level 1 isn't fun.

Some of the best fun I've had was at low level D&D, having some actual fear because traps and monsters stood a chance of killing my character, and I had to use my brain to navigate challenges instead of facerolling everything. That's probably the reason why I like OSR so much. And now that I mention it, you're also discounting the joys of a low-level meatgrinder.

You say that like high-level characters can't get stomped if they play dumb, too, too.
(Personally, I got a bit tired to the low-level meatgrinder back around 1982.)

oxybe
2016-09-03, 02:59 AM
You say this as if level 1 isn't fun.

Some of the best fun I've had was at low level D&D, having some actual fear because traps and monsters stood a chance of killing my character, and I had to use my brain to navigate challenges instead of facerolling everything. That's probably the reason why I like OSR so much. And now that I mention it, you're also discounting the joys of a low-level meatgrinder.

Honestly those are all generally reasons I dislike low level D&D: the generally arbitrary nature of many traps and their illogical placements (especially since they often seem to be in places where an inhabitant or maintenance crew could accidentally activate it and get themselves killed) and the swingyness of the d20+damage to HP ratio meant that regardless of how well you played, dumb luck will always be your better.

If you're facerolling or not using your brain at high levels part of the problem is the GM being unable to create challenges... the other being the system itself, where the tools lack granularity and are either 100% or 0% effective in a situation.

Finally I hate the meatgrinder. Actual hate. Not dislike. If the low-level meatgrinder was a person, I would casually deck them in the jaw and spew profanities in it's face. The low-level meatgrinder during 2nd ed is what nearly killed roleplaying for me... I had no reason to care about or get invested in any of my characters or their accomplishments.

Bugger the low-level meatgrinder I say. May it die an ignoble death and be remembered for the jerk it was.

BWR
2016-09-03, 04:25 AM
I like starting at beginning levels. I like seeing characters develop into something more powerful and possibly into different personalities. You might say the end result - a high-level character - is the same but in all media the actual goal, be it riches, glory, power, defeating evil, winning your heart's desire, or what have you, isn't the important bit. What's important is the journey and starting at more powerful, even if you add a detailed backstory for how they got to the starting point of the game, feels almost like cheating. It's a matter of "show, don't tell" in many ways. Saying "came close to death in his first encounter with a goblin" is nowhere near as fun as playing through it and being able to tell the story later.

At some point you often have to make more powerful characters. Say a PC dies at some higher-than-beginner level of power in whatever system, in order to be on mostly equal footing with the other PCs the new one will have to start more powerful. I think this is a shame but a necessary evil of any system that sees significant increase in PC's personal power. I never feel the same attachment to a character who starts off powerful that I do to someone who I have played to that level.

GloatingSwine
2016-09-03, 05:14 AM
D&D and its equivalents such as Pathfinder are most balanced at lower levels, with the game starting to break down mechanically at around level 10 and rapidly descending into un-playability by level 12-14 (Pathfinder tacitly acknowledges this by how they structure their published adventures and setting). As such there's a strong incentive to start at lower levels because it at least hypothetically allows the campaign to go on longer.

This is very true, but I think there might be better ways around it than starting at low levels.

Figure out a level where people get to play the fantasy of their character, which is probably going to be somewhere in the 5-7 range, and simply have people play at that level. Then instead of giving them XP give them other types of advancement, money, connections, resources, etc. Their personal physical power might remain flat but their characters are able to achieve more and more over time because they have vast reserves of wealth, the ears of powerful lords or guilds who can commit to large scale projects, etc.

A party of level 5 characters might not normally be expected to deal with an ancient dragon, but a party of level 5 characters with functionally unlimited money and manpower, six months to prepare, and a DM willing to let them try wild plans will probably have fun trying.

Tanarii
2016-09-07, 08:34 AM
You say this as if level 1 isn't fun.

Some of the best fun I've had was at low level D&D, having some actual fear because traps and monsters stood a chance of killing my character, and I had to use my brain to navigate challenges instead of facerolling everything. That's probably the reason why I like OSR so much. And now that I mention it, you're also discounting the joys of a low-level meatgrinder.The main point here was D&D through AD&D was generally more of a challenge than modern D&D. That was true at higher levels, but especially at lower levels. 'Facerolling' is what the last 3 editions of D&D has provided within their default encounter balance rules, especially at higher levels where their encounter balance rules tend to break down. The default assumption is now that the players will win, and continue to survive. To provide an old-school challenge, where must play your top game or you lose and you die (or more accurately vice versa), you have re-introduce the meat-grinder by breaking the assumption the players will survive. Or introduce, and convince your players to accept, a whole new different definition of 'win' other than surviving.

The latter is a very difficult transition for anyone that's played old-school and loved the challenge. And sadly simple for anyone that hated a challenge and couldn't hack the meatgrinder, or grew up on modern easy-mode gaming (table-top or video).

Edit: on a different note 'why don't I get to play with cool toys if they're in the book' isn't a new question. That was the root of the west-coast rebellion again the east-coast gygaxian mentality even during the very birth of the hobby. Dieties and Demi-gods was in part Gygax's way of saying "this is what a god looks like", effectively telling the west coast players they were doing it wrong for pushing their characters so high in level and not retiring them around name level, and starting over with a new level 1 character.

Which fits if you're a war-gamer. Because name level is where your 'retired' D&D characters switched from delving dungeons to using the loot to build a castle, raise an army, and conquer. Cue the miniature war rules instead of D&D rules ...

Jay R
2016-09-08, 02:07 PM
I think the simplest answer is 'because Gygax'. There's this notion ingrained in RPG (and MMORPG) culture that players have to 'do time' playing weaklings to EARN their fun before they can be allowed to do anything actually impressive/interesting/fun.

Your idea of "impressive/interesting/fun" is very different from mine.

First of all, blasting enemies with a blasting power on your character sheet is neither impressive nor interesting for me. Running away from the trolls and leading them into the cul-de-sac where your friends are ready to start a fire seems much more impressive - because I had to come up with something clever myself.

My low-level character once bluffed his way past the guards by threatening them with a wand of frost. Ten minutes later, the DM remembered that my character didn't have any wand at all. He questioned me about it, and I pointed to the inventory on my character sheet, where it clearly said, "14-inch polished stick of wood". I think that's more impressive than really having one

In a game without magic (Flashing Blades) six of us managed to stop a 1,000-person army. That was far more interesting for me than meeting them with an equal-sized army.

In a tourney dungeon of original D&D, in 1976, six 6th level characters destroyed a 134HD monster. No, that is not a typo - the hydra had one hundred thirty four heads.

I find these adventures to be far more impressive than just overpowering your enemies. Coming up with them is more interesting for me. And yes, for many of us, it is far more fun.

But your mileage may vary, and that's fine. Note that I started this post not by saying that you are wrong, but that our ideas are different. I won't say that your way of playing isn't interesting, impressive or fun. Please stop saying it about the games we like.

Silus
2016-09-08, 03:08 PM
You say this as if level 1 isn't fun.

Some of the best fun I've had was at low level D&D, having some actual fear because traps and monsters stood a chance of killing my character, and I had to use my brain to navigate challenges instead of facerolling everything. That's probably the reason why I like OSR so much. And now that I mention it, you're also discounting the joys of a low-level meatgrinder.

But there's the draw of the high level stuff that is always just out of reach. High end spells, magic items, class abilities, scenarios that only work for high level characters. I wanna raise and army and lay siege to the Nine Layers of Hell! I want to sack Dis! I want to bring Asmodaeus to his KNEES and take over for myself, raising myself to godhood and lay waste to all that stand opposed to me! But nope, gotta go clear the 1d6 goblins out of that cave and maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll get me a Masterwork weapon out of it. :smallmad:

Tiktakkat
2016-09-08, 03:11 PM
Let's just go back to this:


Because "1" is the beginning of the counting system, so games usually label the place you start as "1".

If you were meant to start at level 5, then level 5 would have been called level 1.

Right there you have the absolute definition of why games start at level 1.
Even if you are using a point based system, there is still going to be a starting number of points available.

And that is that.

What happens if you start off at level 10? (Or, for point based games, with "X additional" points.)

Do you still fight level 1 opponents?
No.
You fight level 10 opponents.

Do you get more treasure?
No.
You just get the higher level treasure sooner.

Do you have more levels to gain?
Probably not.
The system may only be able to handle so many levels before it breaks down.

Do you have more powerful magic to gain?
Again, probably not.
The system has what it has and that's all there is to it.

What do you gain?
At most, you cut down on some of the luck element in survival.
A critical hit may not kill you with average damage.
A regular hit may not kill you with maximum damage.
Of course, save or die and even save or suck are more likely, so you may not even gain anything there.
And with optimization, even mundane effects may cut you down with below average results, and you could wind up worse off overall.

Which means, going back to the revised version of the OP:

Edit: Suppose I should clarify what my gripe about all this is: I've started so many games and campaigns at level 1 and gotten MAYBE to level 5 and then whoops it's time to switch out, or players start dropping off, or the DM gets bored, or something like that. So it's onto the next game and yup, level 1 again. New system? Level 1. Going back to a previous DM running the same system and setting? Level 1. It's to the point where I don't even make any plans any more beyond the next level and am hesitant to work in any plot hooks that can't be wrapped up in a lvl 1-2 (or equivalent) campaign. It's just...kinda disheartening where characters can get access to all these neat powers and abilities and magic items and stuff later down the road but that later never comes 'cause "new campaign, roll up another lvl 1 scrub".

The question isn't about the philosophy of the heroes' journey, or about the technical details of the math.

It is:
"If games aren't going to last more than 2-3 levels out of the 30 that a system is built for, why not play some different set of levels each time?"

Which is certainly a valid complaint.

The answer to that is:
There is no reason you can't. In fact many people like such things.
The problem is planning for it.
Many, perhaps most, people prefer to plan for vast campaigns. Few like to plan and execute one-offs, or even half-a-dozen-offs.
They want 2-3 year epics, not 1-3 shorts, and so they don't plan for them.

You need to find a way to overcome that, or just find a group that can manage to be stable for a full campaign. Mind you, I've found two such groups in 35 years of play, one went 10 years, the other has gone 17 years and counting.

Everything else is just play style preference, which is purely subjective, and has no right answer.

Flickerdart
2016-09-08, 03:35 PM
People aren't very good at changing defaults. People are also great at rationalizing a decision after the fact. So you will get a ton of "reasons" for why going with the default was a choice, and actually the best choice. That doesn't change the fact that, when faced with a different default, they will still go with that default.

RPGs are no different. Groups start at level 1 because level 1 is the default, and there's a big ol' chapter that goes "here is how to build a level 1 character." Most people never invest enough into the game to become more than routine experts, with level 1 being entrenched in that routine in a fundamental way.

Part of why this happens is because defaults are self-reinforcing. You get used to them. In the case of RPGs, as you say yourself, few games that start at level 1 will get to the high levels. Whether or not the high levels are more fun, few GMs and players are qualified to make that decision, because they've clocked much more time in the early levels.

Sneak Dog
2016-09-08, 03:56 PM
What do you gain?
At most, you cut down on some of the luck element in survival.
A critical hit may not kill you with average damage.
A regular hit may not kill you with maximum damage.
Of course, save or die and even save or suck are more likely, so you may not even gain anything there.
And with optimization, even mundane effects may cut you down with below average results, and you could wind up worse off overall.


Usually starting at level 1 means you've a mechanically generic character. You're defined mostly by your class in a class-based system, or you don't really stand out in a point-buy system. Starting at a higher level gives you more options to make your character unique and to make the mechanics fit the concept.

bulbaquil
2016-09-08, 04:55 PM
Let's just go back to this:
It is:
"If games aren't going to last more than 2-3 levels out of the 30 that a system is built for, why not play some different set of levels each time?"

Which is certainly a valid complaint.

The answer to that is:
There is no reason you can't. In fact many people like such things.
The problem is planning for it.
Many, perhaps most, people prefer to plan for vast campaigns. Few like to plan and execute one-offs, or even half-a-dozen-offs.
They want 2-3 year epics, not 1-3 shorts, and so they don't plan for them.

You need to find a way to overcome that, or just find a group that can manage to be stable for a full campaign. Mind you, I've found two such groups in 35 years of play, one went 10 years, the other has gone 17 years and counting.

Exactly. People don't generally intend for their campaigns to fall apart at level, say, 5. They intend for it to go from level 1 to 12, or 15, or 20+, and then for whatever reason(s) it just... doesn't. The campaign peters out ahead of schedule; real life intervenes; a disagreement breaks up the group; etc.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-08, 06:55 PM
Let's just go back to this:

Right there you have the absolute definition of why games start at level 1.
Even if you are using a point based system, there is still going to be a starting number of points available.

And that is that.


On the other hand, point-buy games tend to have a different set of assumptions about what a starting character is in relationship to the overall campaign world, and much more granularity and variation in character advancement.

Tiktakkat
2016-09-08, 09:56 PM
Usually starting at level 1 means you've a mechanically generic character. You're defined mostly by your class in a class-based system, or you don't really stand out in a point-buy system. Starting at a higher level gives you more options to make your character unique and to make the mechanics fit the concept.

And starting at a higher level than that gives you even more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And starting at a still higher level than that gives you still more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And . . .
Eventually you wind up chasing your tail, going in endless circles of still greater potential and perfection, until you talk yourself having to start at maximum level, then wonder why the game has no potential for growth.


On the other hand, point-buy games tend to have a different set of assumptions about what a starting character is in relationship to the overall campaign world, and much more granularity and variation in character advancement.

"Tend" and "assumptions" invariably means "equal in function":
You still need a starting point.
That starting point still needs potential for growth.
The game system is built to a particular amount of potential for growth.

The one that is "better" is the one any individual has more fun playing.

Max_Killjoy
2016-09-08, 11:09 PM
"Tend" and "assumptions" invariably means "equal in function":
You still need a starting point.
That starting point still needs potential for growth.
The game system is built to a particular amount of potential for growth.

The one that is "better" is the one any individual has more fun playing.


I haven't come across a level-based system that didn't bake in a very specific set of assumptions about what a starting character should be compared to the setting around them, and about how they would progress from there.

Milo v3
2016-09-08, 11:41 PM
And starting at a higher level than that gives you even more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And starting at a still higher level than that gives you still more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And . . .
Eventually you wind up chasing your tail, going in endless circles of still greater potential and perfection, until you talk yourself having to start at maximum level, then wonder why the game has no potential for growth.

Or you could just start in the low or mid levels, after character options start unlocking..... so, anything between 4th level and 14th level really....

Sneak Dog
2016-09-09, 05:46 AM
And starting at a higher level than that gives you even more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And starting at a still higher level than that gives you still more options to make your character unique and make the mechanics fit the concept.
And . . .
Eventually you wind up chasing your tail, going in endless circles of still greater potential and perfection, until you talk yourself having to start at maximum level, then wonder why the game has no potential for growth.


Usually level 3~5 works for our group as starting level for a new campaign. Then one has sufficient resources to create that character concept, and classes have access to their class-defining features and usually a branch of it as well at that point.

You don't need as many options as possible. You need a certain minimum amount. Level 1 often doesn't give this as it's supposed to be used to introduce new players to the system.