What's with the love for level 1?

[druid91]

I will be honest, I've never much seen the appeal in starting at level 1. I could understand it as necessary for certain tales. But I feel like a lot of the time it's forcing you to play a mostly defenseless schmuck for the sake of playing a mostly defenseless schmuck and 'earning' your levels.

Speaking mostly of D&D here. Because most other games I've played don't seem to have that feeling of 'you're level 1. You're SUPPOSED to suck.' going with them.

Most games I've seen have only ever really gotten started at level 5-6. Before that was just a mad scramble to not die.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because it's where you start. Every video game starts you at 1, with only a couple exceptions like Dark Souls (where each level is one stat increase and you start at 1-6). Starting at a level that's not 1 feels like modifying or outright cheating the intended experience.

[Geddy2112]

For some people(myself included) there is just as much fun of starting off being a humble joe blow and becoming a BAMF, as there is to starting with some backstory. I like both, and nothing wrong if you don't like level 1. I also totally understand not liking the squishy nature of being a fresh off the boat X, one bad roll away from death.

Luke Skywalker is cool because he started off as a level 1 fighter, with a useless rank in profession:moisture farmer. Following the rise to high level jedi knight is part of the awesome factor. For me at least.

[DigoDragon]

I will be honest, I've never much seen the appeal in starting at level 1.

And that's okay! It's not an uncommon feeling to have, even with some GMs. In the D&D games I have played in, I'd estimate about 40-50% of them started at level 2-3. Low, but not completely squishy. I personally like level 1, but I'm fine with bumping the starting mark a little.

I do agree that around level 5-6 is where your character is really into their "Groove". Well, not personally as I never had a D&D character that high, but as a GM I can see that around then is where character builds really start to get specific and players have found their zone for their character's abilities to shine best.

[Anxe]

Let's start at the very beginning
A very good place to start
When you read you begin with A-B-C
In D&D you begin with a level 1 PC

[YossarianLives]

I Anxe just won this thread...

[snacksmoto]

Origin stories. That is the time when the protagonists are always at their most vulnerable, when they have to use their meagre abilities to their fullest and with the most ingenuity. In my opinion, it is in the early levels that a player gets to understand their characters the best, their decisions, their motivations, in the character's rise in power and ability.
Now, as another person has mentioned, there's nothing wrong with bumping the characters up a bit to be less squishy but still vulnerable if that's your preference.

[Beowulf DW]

The level 1 start works for the classic hero's tale, where an inexperienced kid grows into a hero. However, for other kinds of tales, it doesn't quite fit. Who would ever believe that Drizz't was level 1 when he came to the surface? Who would think that Kenshin Himura was level 1 when he first went to Kyoto? Martin the Warrior certainly wasn't level 1 when he made his debut.

Hero's tales work mostly because there's usually one or two more competent people hanging around to make sure things get done, but if you have a group of farm boys out to slay the evil wizard, what often happens is half/most of them die, and then the sequel picks up with the survivors hardened by the loss and vastly more competent. Nobody wants to be the backstory to another player, that's what we spend two hours before the first session trying to do!

Making a story about experienced and skilled characters (which seems to come a bit easier to me as I get older) tends to entail starting after level 1 just to make it feel like you're competent at what you do.

[BootStrapTommy]

Personally I hate level 1. Played and run so many campaigns, the tropes that plague of the game's early levels have started to get on my nerves. As a DM, I have so much more flexibility at higher levels, which let's me feel a whole lot more creative with what challenges I can throw at my players. The early game just don't have that. It's all oversized animals and brainless mooks with swords...

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't really like starting at level 1 though it doesn't bother me much since I stick to 5e and you're not going to stay level one for more than one or two sessions at most. What I really dislike is when someone new joins a campaign and they're forced to start at level 1 while everyone else is 4-5. It just seems really crappy towards the new player, and annoying for the group to have to basically carry around a sack of flour for the next couple of games.

[Âmesang]

I'm a big fan of starting at 1st-level…or at least "low-level," seeing a lowly character slowly grow in strength over time; it also doesn't help that I was really obsessed with high/epic-level some years back to the point of suffering severe burn out, so the act of starting out low in my last major game and slowly reaching high level felt more comforting and refreshing.

Yeah, I still can't wait to reach each level and experience the new spells and abilities, but I'm fine with the progression being nice 'n easy at the moment.

(In that line of thought I still enjoy coming up with new, "reasonable" epic spells — not really a big fan of "mitigating down to zero." )

[snacksmoto]

I don't really like starting at level 1 though it doesn't bother me much since I stick to 5e and you're not going to stay level one for more than one or two sessions at most. What I really dislike is when someone new joins a campaign and they're forced to start at level 1 while everyone else is 4-5. It just seems really crappy towards the new player, and annoying for the group to have to basically carry around a sack of flour for the next couple of games.

In my opinion, that amount of difference in level is a hindrance to the game especially with low level characters. It might be worth it for the table if new characters come in at the group's level, or a level behind, with a more developed backstory.

[LibraryOgre]

In most versions of D&D, 1st level also tends to be the point where classes are most balanced, so everyone contributes. As levels climb, spellcasters in a lot of D&D-likes start to dominate, and that tends to sideline a lot of character concepts... "I'm a powerful warrior" doesn't mean much when the other guy can say "And I just turned to you into a flounder. Sure, it only lasts for 10 minutes, but you'll have suffocated by then."

[TheIronGolem]

I like starting at level 1^*, but at the same time I reject the notion that being 1st level is supposed to mean you're some dope who's still figuring out which end of the sword you hold. A 1st-level D&D fighter has mastered the use of 95% of all weapons that exist in his world. A 1st-level cleric can literally perform miracles. Even a monk - the weakest class in 3.x - is perfectly capable of killing an average person with his bare hands in the space of five seconds.

I look at level as a pure game construct, one that doesn't necessarily suggest anything about one's actual amount of expertise in-universe. That's why it's perfectly fine for the grizzled veteran fighter and the fresh-faced young rogue to be in the same party at the same level.

Also, low-level games tend to be easier to manage. Fewer spells and abilities to keep track of, for players and monsters alike.

^*In class-based d20 systems I actually prefer starting at level 2, so that multiclass concepts can start off fully formed.

[Raphite1]

I like starting at level 1^*, but at the same time I reject the notion that being 1st level is supposed to mean you're some dope who's still figuring out which end of the sword you hold. ...

It's this. Your character isn't weak at level 1, he/she is already more powerful than almost everyone on the planet. A level 1 fighter isn't a rank-and-file soldier, they're a talented expert with some mileage already under their belt.

The old trope of level 1s going off to kill some rats in the cellar is painfully dated. In modern D&D, at level 1 you're fighting against monsters and experienced NPCs that are already out of the league of everyday life.

[Red Fel]

I'm going to go with learning curve. This doesn't apply in all situations, but when playing a new system, or using a new class or new mechanics, starting at level 1 means you have more time to grow into your abilities.

Look, if you start off, say, a D&D 3.5 Wizard at level 6, he has access to third-level spells and is expected to be proficient in their use. If he's still learning to calculate DCs, determine saves, and figure out what he likes using in a given situation, it's going to be a slog. Starting low lets him get a feel for his spells and how they're used. A Fighter starting mid-level has to pick a slew of feats right out of the gate; if he has no experience with them, he hasn't learned what a trap looks like. A level 1 Fighter who takes a crap feat can appeal to his DM to retrain it; a level 6 Fighter is going to have to retrain a bunch.

And on it goes. Some class features expand and evolve, growing increasingly complex. Starting at the ground level and working your way up means you get a feel for the mechanics before they become too elaborate, and too daunting.

Tell a level 1 Wizard to pick her spells known, and spells per day. It's a quick exercise. A level 1 Wizard gets all of the 0-level spells, plus three 1st-level spells. She prepares four of them per day - three 0-levels and one 1st-level. Super easy.

At level 6, that number has skyrocketed. Spells per day, you're looking at 4 0-level, 3 1st-level, 3 2nd-level, and 2 3rd-level. That's twelve spells, three times as many as at level one. And that's before we take into account just how many have been stuffed into her spellbook.

Not everyone has this issue. Some people can become quickly proficient in new characters or mechanics. Others read them in advance. Still others have such a breadth of experience that nothing is truly new to them. But for many people, the learning curve will inevitably come up. Starting at level 1 eases the pain.

[cobaltstarfire]

In my opinion, that amount of difference in level is a hindrance to the game especially with low level characters. It might be worth it for the table if new characters come in at the group's level, or a level behind, with a more developed backstory.

Yeah, if I were dming I wouldn't make someone start at level 1 when the rest of the group was well on their way to level 6.

The DM that did that was for the most part an amazing GM, I don't really know what his deal was in this case, he also tried to get the player to generate stats old school, as in roll 3d6 per stat in order. (The rest of us had done 4d6 drop the lowest, assign as we please).

But yeah I'll agree that if at level 1 we get to play as characters that are competent I'm pretty fine with that, even if we do start out lost in the desert and squishing giant mosquitoes. Games that start at lv 1 can be satisfying, but I'm not sure very many GM's have the right touch/experience to do it.

[snacksmoto]

It's this. Your character isn't weak at level 1, he/she is already more powerful than almost everyone on the planet. A level 1 fighter isn't a rank-and-file soldier, they're a talented expert with some mileage already under their belt.

The old trope of level 1s going off to kill some rats in the cellar is painfully dated. In modern D&D, at level 1 you're fighting against monsters and experienced NPCs that are already out of the league of everyday life.

It's dated because the difference in ability between a level 1 PC and a basic NPC has changed. A long time ago it used to be that there was no difference. A rank-and-file soldier actually used to be level 1 fighter, a veteran would be level 2 or 3, a city's captain-of-the-guard would be level 5-7 (higher if the city is larger), and a general would be a minimum of a level 10 fighter.

[BootStrapTommy]

It's dated because the difference in ability between a level 1 PC and a basic NPC has changed. A long time ago it used to be that there was no difference. A rank-and-file soldier actually used to be level 1 fighter, a veteran would be level 2 or 3, a city's captain-of-the-guard would be level 5-7 (higher if the city is larger), and a general would be a minimum of a level 10 fighter.

It's certainly a new trend. Personally I liked it the old school way, back when the only thing that made PCs special was the fact that they might live long enough to surpass 6th level...

[Mr.Moron]

I will be honest, I've never much seen the appeal in starting at level 1. I could understand it as necessary for certain tales. But I feel like a lot of the time it's forcing you to play a mostly defenseless schmuck for the sake of playing a mostly defenseless schmuck and 'earning' your levels.

Speaking mostly of D&D here. Because most other games I've played don't seem to have that feeling of 'you're level 1. You're SUPPOSED to suck.' going with them.

Most games I've seen have only ever really gotten started at level 5-6. Before that was just a mad scramble to not die.

Level 1 D&D characters are heavily armed and have supernatural powers. A 1st level wizard can wave his hands and incinerate an entire room full of people. Hardly a "Defenseless Schmuck". You don't suck, you're very powerful. Granted you're still vulnerable largely to the extent that any mortal is but that's hardly "Sucking". It's just that D&D Heroes ramp up in so power so fast it can easy to lose track of the scale.

A 3rd level fighter can take more punishment than a bear, by 6th level he can make a fool of a gorilla in a wrestling match. It only gets crazier from there.



Anyway starting at first is the default because that's where the game designers put it, it's the first entry on the chart and and where entries begin. It also lets you experience the most possible content. If you start at 6th level by definition you can't experience levels 1-5. If you start at level 1 nothing is preventing you from experiencing level 6 but getting there.

[Chronos]

Yes, level 1 sucks. But reaching level 2 (and 3, and 4...) is awesome enough to make up for it. That moment when you realize, you don't have to run from goblins any more. Start already at mid-levels, and you miss out on that, since you've never had to run from goblins.

[Steampunkette]

I generally like starting at levels 3-5 in a D&D game, whether playing in it or running it. But I'm always perfectly content to run at level 1 if the players or DM I'm hanging with prefer it. And, lately, with work being crazy, I've spent more times popping modules and adventure paths since I don't have a lot of time to devote to campaign content creation, which almost always start at 1-2.

Some people like it. Some people hate it. Some people don't mind either way.

It's all about the taste, I suppose. I like Brussel Sprouts in butter sauce. Even as a kid I did. That doesn't make it bad that other people don't like them. In fact it usually just means more Brussel Sprouts for me!

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I think the obsession with level 1 comes from D&D being vaguely similar to a board game or video game, where adherence to the rules is needed because of either physical constraints or for balance reasons. In D&D neither of these things is true, but it looks like something else and people raised to play a certain way become comfortable with doing things that way.

[Chijinda]

It's rather fun to see where you started at, in my opinion. To work your way up, experimenting with ideas or builds along the way.

Yes, I can see how, for some veteran players it may seem a slog, when they've already figured out what they like, but I've only played about one full campaign and am only currently playing my second campaign (granted those both VERY LONG campaigns, both spanning multiple years), in which I only played all of two characters. So for me, first level is great because it lets me experiment and build characters from the ground up, and work through the experiences that MADE them into badasses.


Being able to claim your Fighter slew a dragon, or killed Killgutz the Defiler in single combat with a broken arm, is much more awesome when your character has actually done these things, instead of simply putting them in their backstory-- especially if the character you generate can't actually live up to their reputation, due to shoddy building on your part. Then it's just a bit embarassing.

Point being, it's satisfying to EARN your badassery, imho, so that you can look back on all your character's accolades and go: "Yeah, I actually did all that stuff."

[Anxe]

I Anxe just won this thread...

Thank you very much!

In a more serious tone, I start most of my campaigns at level 1, but I certainly don't avoid other level starts. If I want to run an epic campaign, the PCs start at epic levels! I'm not gonna wade through the first few levels to get to where I want to be.

Level 1 is nice because then you know the whole story of the PCs as a group instead of them having individual adventures prior to grouping up, but having individual stories is also a good thing. It just depends on what you want.

For balance, I've heard some people say that starting at level 2 is often better in 3.5. You're less likely to die from a random Orc's critical hit and you're still pretty much a powerless dweeb for all other purposes.

[bulbaquil]

I prefer starting at level 2-3 both as a player and GM. High enough that random criticals against you aren't (usually) insta-kills but low enough that you can still grow into your character before they become ultra-powerful.

[Broken Twin]

Assuming we're mostly talking about D&D/PF here, I prefer to start at lower levels because I find the characters grow a lot more organically when they take time to reach higher level, as opposed to the custom tailored builds you tend to see when you start at a higher level. Plus, I find once you get past the first few levels the mundane stops mattering, and I don't enjoy that. Granted, my preferred play zone is somewhere around 3-12, so my gaming style is necessarily going to be different than someone who likes late game play.

As to the love for level one specifically, I think a lot of it is just due to the perception that you're SUPPOSED to start at level one. Most games start you at the beginning, so that's what people expect.

[Amphetryon]

Is it truly peoples' experience that PCs are less squishy at higher levels? I'm assuming "against appropriate enemies" here, as I recognize that 1st level Characters have more things in the world that are above their pay grade than, for example, 7th level Characters. That said, it's my experience that most D&D-like games have roughly equal mortality expectations at most levels. Level 5 shows more of a spike in lethality than 1st, IME.

[BWR]

I like starting out with little. The effort and luck it takes to survive from level 1 and on is part of what makes the character. New character, new personality, new opportunities for death, glory or infamy. The major problem I have with starting at higher levels (apart from feeling like it's cheating my way there) is that I have no idea who this character is. It's a blank slate with no history or deeds to its name and only the vaguest of personality traits which will likely change a few sessions in. High level characters are established. They have Done Things and they have History. If you start out by skipping those levels the player isn't part of that history. They may tell or be told the history, not but are not part of it.

Tied to this is the sense of accomplishment. Seeing a character rise from level one to, say, twenty, you can point to it and (hopefully) say "It was a tough slog but Zordar the Reaper here made it through fire and ice, and earned those levels through my brains and a bit of luck". You can't do that with characters starting at 20.

I've done a bit of starting at higher levels and the characters never seems as vibrant or well-loved as those that have started at 1.

[Joe the Rat]

I have no problems starting higher up - and may be necessary for particular stories. I'm quite happy with 3 as a start point for most versions of D&D (A few hit dice for survivability, multiclassers will have some legs (2/1 or 1/1/1 for 3e/5e, at least one class should be at 2 for older), casters have a little more in the pocket without getting too crazy, etc.).

One part of the love of 1 is the idea of an "all the way" game: A campaign from 1 to 20/30/36/Immortals. Starting in higher is "cheating" the run.

I don't really like starting at level 1 though it doesn't bother me much since I stick to 5e and you're not going to stay level one for more than one or two sessions at most. What I really dislike is when someone new joins a campaign and they're forced to start at level 1 while everyone else is 4-5. It just seems really crappy towards the new player, and annoying for the group to have to basically carry around a sack of flour for the next couple of games.

5e Has some natural breaks in Tiers (not those Tiers). New players/characters should come in at the same play level as the majority of the party: 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20. In theory bottom level should be able to contribute meaningfully, and from the XP scaling should catch up fairly quickly. But there is a BIG survivability gap from bottom to top; Coming in the same tier no more than 1-2 levels behind should suffice.