To begin, I confess I prefer to develop a background for my characters and start play at 1st level and work up. Starting at higher level has always felt like cheating to me, though that is a personal beef. And I readily conceed that it isoften it is easier to come up with a cool background when the character has some levels to back that story up (my favorite part about starting above level one).
From reading the threads clearly there are a lot of folks out there that create characters at mid, high, & epic levels.
I was curious as to what the whys? I was also wondering how many people preferred startign their games at higher levels and what level worked best for them as a start point and why?
I was also wondering how much of character creation (in general) was a collaboration with the GM and how much players cooked up on thier own?
How often folks created their own classes, PrCs, custom skills, feats, etc. for their characters?
I usually only allow higher starting levels if I am running a short campaign or one tailored to a specific period that requires higher levels. I agree that it often feels like cheating to let anyone start off higher. It makes the characters look really munchkin-y by skipping some of the weird feats and skills people pick along the way.
As for creating PrCs, Feats, etc., I only do so when I can't find it in the books and my PCs really want it. There are so many options that there is usually no reason to play something new if its already out there.
We're always rolling up level 1 characters to start new games. That's one of the most fun things about gaming. Actually, it's what starts it! I brainstorm with my players to see what they'd like to play, then we do it. If it doesn't work out, we do something else. Most of the time, you end up doing something you started a year ago. You need to have that kind communication with your players. If you don't, either they or you will be doing a game you're not interested in. And no one wants that. If we start at a higher level, it's because I really want to do that adventure or we already played them from level 1.
I've found in my last two campaigns that starting characters at level 2 works really well for my group. Most of my group loves leveling and getting as powerful as they can, and hate the weakness of level 1. I don't subscribe to this philosophy myself, but starting them out one level higher gives them something without impinging on the game too much.
Also, those who don't mind the weak "doing" power of level one typically despise the weak "taking" ability- it's so easy to kill them, and my group often plans a character out to at least 10th level when they make them, so it's really hard when one of them dies right out of the gate. Level 2 is, actually, much more survivable.
I also have trouble coming up with adventure ideas and ways to get the party together at level 1, but I'm a relatively new DM, so I'll probably get over that in time. It is hard for me to find motivation, however, for the party, considering they're too weak for anyone to really seek them out or assign them a quest. I got rid of the warrior class IMC (made no sense to me), so a standard human infantryman is a 2nd level fighter. I have trouble reasoning why anyone would seek out someone weaker than a standard soldier in the local army for a special mission, unless it's really mundane (like in video games, "go take this book to the guy across the street.") or the local forces are stretched too thin. The first I despise and will not use, the second can only be used so often before it becomes a cliche and obviously a mechanic to get the party to do something.
I prefer it when the characters/party has some plot hook to lead with, something in their story that I can immediately pick up and run with, and that can tie the whole party together, but some (generally just one guy) of the players never get their characters done until they show up at my house for the first session (which is extremely annoying), and while they may have a good personality to roleplay, they really don't have much of a story to work with, leaving me on my own to get them into the adventure.
As previously mentioned before, it also gives the characters more room to have some good stories already under their belt. Our group also has trouble getting together on a regular basis, which can make it difficult to run with a consistant plot, so sometimes they just want to skip ahead so they can actually reach mid or high levels (I also can develop campaign ADD, it seems, but let's not go into that here....)
As to how hands on of a DM I am in character creation, not very. This is because of the aforementioned people who don't get their chaacter done before a session; often, they haven't decided what to be before the session, either, making it "Surprsie!" Which I don't like, so I've enforced deadlines on at least deciding on a concept before a game.
Even then, they change their minds at least a dozen times before choosing a character concept to role with, and the story changes completely each time. My group consists largely of innovative powergamers, who try to find bizarre rule loopholes and such and still be powerful at it. It borders on, but is not quite, munchkinism, since they aren't possessed completely of the shallow-minded drive to win. They just really love innovative, if extremely unusual, concepts.
They sometimes think about party balance, but if so, this is typically an afterthought. They don't like to "step on each other's toes," meaning no two members of the same class unless each is going to try pronouncing a fairly different aspect of that class, often by going into different PrCs. Otherwise, it's what each person wants to do, and the extremist nature of each character can lead to some wild diversity in what is and isn't a challenge to the party, even in the same CR bracket.
My players, being powergamers, are also master character builders, and thus need little to no help drafting up a PC's stats.
That makes it near impossible for me to get involved in character creation without just laying out a bunch of rules and guidelines to inforce a more "normal" party, which would destroy 75% of the fun that most of my players get from the game.
In the rare chance I do get to be involved in character creation, which I love for the sense of attachment to the party I get, I try to ask a lot of questions to help spur minor detail and roleplaying development: "What does he look like?" "Where did he come from?" "Any family?" "How did he get that?" "What is his overall motivation?" And, the most important one, "Why?" But, that's really just planting seeds for them to develop away.
The only time I really get involved in generating something for them on my own is when they come to me and say, "I've got it all done, but I want it to fit in the world, so that part's up to you." I don't mind this, and it's become a silent acknowledgement amongst us that after everything else is said and done, I'll assign some background info to the character to help him mesh (although it's only a suggestion, really; the players are free to overturn it, but they never do).
As for making up new supplemental things, I've never seen anyone in the group make a new skill (although they've gotten creative with ways to use the existing ones), there have been several attempts at PrCs (all failed or never utilized so far), and creation of new feats when an option exists for one character concept, but not for something just slightly different (like the aesthetic feats in the Complete Adventurer; I don't remember the specifics, but there was an instance not long ago where we bascially made a new one to cover another multi-class option that book didn't touch on). These feats are typically modeled closely off other feats, or fix just a tiny, minor setback to anotherwise decent character, and thus don't really strike me as questionable, although sometimes I wonder if the game designers intentionally left out some combo options because they didn't think they should be done.
I would prefer to remain as close to their vision of the game as possible, since my group has tried to rebel against that before and universally found that the core book writers new better. However, it's not a big thing, and greatly enhances my player's fun, so it's ok.
I like to start at first level and work my way up. I always dream up some kinda of back ground for my characters. But I find a lot of the characters personality will come out during game play. Some times a character developes a personality I did not for see in the initial character creation.
As a DM I like to let the players develop new towns, places and religions adding to the campaign as a whole. The Monk PC needs a master let the player develp the NPC. As a DM you can always throw unknown facts abilities and background into these NPCs. Think of the Drama when a NPC a player had designed is not what he thought. Both the PC and the player are struck with surprise and feelings of betrayal. It's so fun. Like any gimick don't over do it.
To begin, I confess I prefer to develop a background for my characters and start play at 1st level and work up. Starting at higher level has always felt like cheating to me, though that is a personal beef. And I readily conceed that it isoften it is easier to come up with a cool background when the character has some levels to back that story up (my favorite part about starting above level one).
From reading the threads clearly there are a lot of folks out there that create characters at mid, high, & epic levels.
I was curious as to what the whys? I was also wondering how many people preferred startign their games at higher levels and what level worked best for them as a start point and why?
I was also wondering how much of character creation (in general) was a collaboration with the GM and how much players cooked up on thier own?
How often folks created their own classes, PrCs, custom skills, feats, etc. for their characters?
As a player I don't really care what level I start at; even starting at 20th doesn't feel like cheating for me. I think it's because I don't consider my PC's background and mechanics to be very interwoven. When I create a character I come up with an explaination for their class, but not for particular feats, spells, etc....
As a DM I like to start at 1st but that's because I've only ever played with newbie players. I always demand at least a cursory character background from my players. In terms of mechanics, I always proofread beginning PCs for errors but I never ask for explainations about why they chose this or that option because I don't consider mechanical details to be relevant to PC roleplaying/backround.
As both DM and Player, I rarely use character options outside of the PHB as I believe that these are the only really neeful ones and others just tend to complicate the game for everyone. When I DM, my rule is that 'anything non-core is allowed only with my OK'. I've only ever created a handful of custom feats/spells when I believed that the basic game NEEDED them; for example my Superior Weapon Focus and Superior Weapon Spec for high-level fighters.
I never ask for explainations about why they chose this or that option because I don't consider mechanical details to be relevant to PC roleplaying/backround.
...
Man I like to come up with explanations of where or why my character has this feat or that spell. I think that incorparating game mechanics into the back ground of a character and explaining them in roleplaying terms instead of leaving them in the realm of game mechanics only enriches the game as a whole and helps flesh out the character in particular.
One or two extra hit dice go a LONG way toward not having to roll up a new character after the first encounter (and doesn't hinder the "start from scratch" feeling).
Logically speaking, unless you have your character having zero adventuring background whatsoever, starting at second level isn't unreasonable. It assumes that they're still very new to the job, but that they have a reason to be walking around with swords and armor. 1st level to me feels more like you have some guy who bought his gear yesterday; having a party of 4-6 people who all have absolutely no job experience get together to guard a caravan or explore a cave seems unrealistic at best.
Imagine the scenario:
"Hey, want to go explore those ruins?"
"Sure. Any good with that sword?"
"I know how to use it, but I've actually never fought and defeated anything."
"Oh good! We're in luck, because I've never bypassed a trap before. I know *how*, in theory, to disable them, but have no first hand experience at the task."
"Yay! Let's hold hands and skip to our mutual demise!"
"Yay!"
Man I like to come up with explanations of where or why my character has this feat or that spell. I think that incorparating game mechanics into the back ground of a character and explaining them in roleplaying terms instead of leaving them in the realm of game mechanics only enriches the game as a whole and helps flesh out the character in particular.
I don't mind if others do this, but I myself 'optimize' (as they say on WotC boards) my characters after specific themes so that they are able to excel at their chosen fields. I've found that attaching the mechanical details to background tends to get in the way of this. For me, being a 'tank' is enough explaination to take Power Attack, and nobody at all needs a reason to take a feat like Improved Init.
One or two extra hit dice go a LONG way toward not having to roll up a new character after the first encounter (and doesn't hinder the "start from scratch" feeling).
Logically speaking, unless you have your character having zero adventuring background whatsoever, starting at second level isn't unreasonable. It assumes that they're still very new to the job, but that they have a reason to be walking around with swords and armor. 1st level to me feels more like you have some guy who bought his gear yesterday; having a party of 4-6 people who all have absolutely no job experience get together to guard a caravan or explore a cave seems unrealistic at best.
Imagine the scenario:
"Hey, want to go explore those ruins?"
"Sure. Any good with that sword?"
"I know how to use it, but I've actually never fought and defeated anything."
"Oh good! We're in luck, because I've never bypassed a trap before. I know *how*, in theory, to disable them, but have no first hand experience at the task."
"Yay! Let's hold hands and skip to our mutual demise!"
"Yay!"
Clearly this is toungue in cheek - it made me smile. But it does call to attention a couple different mind sets.
The mind set I operate from (I'm not saying this is correct by the way - just that it is what I most commonly use) is that 1st level characters are already pretty exceptional individuals. To use the analogy in the old days the level title for a 1st level fighter was veteran. It assumed a certain level of life experience (not xp), to achieve 1st level. As an example I hold a black belt in TKD (even worked professionally as an instructor) and was an Armored Cavalry Officer in the US Army Reserve. Thats quite a lot of training - I would not consider myself equal to first level fighter (combat wise) in game terms.
The other mind set is that any kid who picks up a sword and says, "I am an Adventurer" now has the stuff to be 1st level.
Which school of thought you fall into regarding what constitutes 1st level is going to impact your view on character creation.
As to the hit points - I think Azhrei is right - the first 3 or 4 levels can be about achieving a certain mechanical balance - though that really distance the characters from the commoners. But once you hit 7th plus - individuals of that level start being pretty rare at least in the campaigns I have played in.
|
I'm kind of stuck in a routine with games. we start at 1st , get to between 5th and 8th when the DM loses interest in running and the game folds. I currently have 12 played characters ranging below 8th level and 9 of them are below 4th!
Survivability is a major issue regarding these games though. our DMs put alot of effort into building a strong connection with the PCs and the world and when some start dieing things fall apart, literally.
Back when DARKSUN was first released I ran a game and starting at 3rd level seemed strange but it helped out immensely. Its not been until rescently when I came across the 3.5 DARKSUN website that I've considered running future games from 3rd level.
Regarding backgrounds for characters I've created a document for our local gaming group which unifies a linked campaign system. every character is created using a set of rules which includes a detailed background. Using an online forum and emails its been possible to record a timeline for characters in this linked campaign and enable characters to switch from one DM to another. The intent was to get more characters playing higher level characters and enable players to create characters on their own time removing the need for character creation sessions. Characters that filled in a detailed background got rewards that would aid them on many levels, from bonus starting equipment to regional benefits and affiliations.
To me a background IS the most important part of a character. not just from the Players point of view but also the DM's. with a well planned and detailed background a DM can really make your character feel like he or she really belongs in the world.
I don't mind if others do this, but I myself 'optimize' (as they say on WotC boards) my characters after specific themes so that they are able to excel at their chosen fields. I've found that attaching the mechanical details to background tends to get in the way of this. For me, being a 'tank' is enough explaination to take Power Attack, and nobody at all needs a reason to take a feat like Improved Init.
Man I like to come up with explanations of where or why my character has this feat or that spell. I think that incorparating game mechanics into the back ground of a character and explaining them in roleplaying terms instead of leaving them in the realm of game mechanics only enriches the game as a whole and helps flesh out the character in particular.
I am not sure if i am attaching mechanical details to background. I feel it is more about using background to explain mechanical details of my character. Where or why did I pick up a technic that increases my power in a melee attack? WHy does my character dodge so well? Why is my character so tough? Who taught my character to move so fast and strike first? Where did he learn to increase the duration of a spell? How or where did I meet my animal companion or my familiar?
I am not sure how coming up with these details keeps a character from excelling in his chosen field. Can you explain? I am interested in understanding this train of thought.
I apologize if this seems like a thread-jacking but I felt compelled to chime in on this tangent discussion between Tequila Sunrise & Sir Kaikillah...
First, in response to the original poster I'll say that I only play sporatically and DM the vast majority of the time. I always have players start their characters at 1st level and work up. I agree with those posters that say party connection and 1st level motivation is weak and even borders at ridiculous at the lowest levels, but still I believe the best place to start is at the very beginning. As a DM I would say that I'm about 25% involved in character design/creation. I steer players toward characters that fit well with campaign design and discourage characters that don't fit well. I'm always eager and willing to give hints toward campaign appropriate skills/feats and my players take advantage of my advice regularly. New abilities, prestige classes, spells, whatever are always welcome if accompanied by logical reasoning and workable game mechanics but my players rarely stray too far outside the box.
This brings me to the side discussion between Tequila and Sir K. I require a logical character background and more importantly a logical appropriate reason for virtually every aspect of a character. Even as PCs level (perhaps especially so) I want the player to be able to explain why/how he learned that new skill/spell, where he gained that new knowledge or ability, etc. Any player in my games can tell you exactly why their character left behind the plow and took up the sword, where he acquired that first sword and who showed him how to use it. Why are you a ranger? Why is said creature your favored enemy? When/why/how did you become a fledgling magic-user? What does your family think of all this? What is your motivation for leaving the average drudgery of life and setting out with meager skills & supplies to face the uncertainties of adventure?
Is all that background and motivation necessary for good game play? I believe it's essential. If a person just wants to be "ugh, I am fighter. I have sword. I kill nasty monsters" then let him play a video game. Dungeons & Dragons is a *role-playing game*. It's all about *becoming* a character, which, though merely represented by a piece of paper, is in fact a "real" person in the fantasy world with hopes, fears, motivations, and a history of life experiences. I'm not trying to get all Zen or something and I recognize that it IS just a game but I think a bunch of statistics without reason (other than the most effective powerplay tools) steals real depth from the gameplaying experience. Still, I'm not meaning to judge you Tequila, or anyone else. Like Sir Kaikillah, I'm really interested to hear and understand this opposing viewpoint.
1st level to me feels more like you have some guy who bought his gear yesterday; having a party of 4-6 people who all have absolutely no job experience get together to guard a caravan or explore a cave seems unrealistic at best...
To me a first level fighter would be a navy seal, a lot of training but little experience at first. Usually my fighters have been in a battle or two. regardless a fighter is proficient in all simple and martial weapons and light, medium and heavy armor. Truly how many people outside the military of such extensive weapons training. How many people in the military actually have an equivelent weapon training of a first level fighter.
A first level rogue in my opinion is a "made man" He has shown promise and has gained skills above the common street hustler. The first level rogue is the exceptional hustler with a future.
I see 1 level wizards as graduating PHDs, who can literral fire arcane bolts of energy.. Clerics as well, in fact clerics are exceptionally blessed (or cursed) and granted spells from greater beings. Heck a first level cleric could perform a small miracle and save a life with faith alone.
I was reminded buy a former gaming buddy about a fight we had years ago with a kobold sorcerer and her white dragon hatchling pet. ! level can be exciting.
I'm kind of stuck in a routine with games. we start at 1st , get to between 5th and 8th when the DM loses interest in running and the game folds. I currently have 12 played characters ranging below 8th level and 9 of them are below 4th!
These seems to be my experience.
Damn it is frustrating when real life interferes with gaming.
For me, being a 'tank' is enough explaination to take Power Attack, and nobody at all needs a reason to take a feat like Improved Init.
1/2 orc barbarian with great axe and power attack. Makes sence to me. For me, I would never require more than that from a player in PCs a description.
I have a second level wizard with improve intiative but have yet to describe why? I guess from my statements in earlier posts I will have to. Besides it would be fun. And I can bust it out when speaking in character from time to time.
I have a hard enough time trying to get players to mark off arrows shot and complete the character sheet completly much less come up with background. then some characters write me three page backgrounds (badly written) and expect me to remember every detail and incorporate it in the game.
I like background and reward it with xp, but I am only human not a programable computer.
I am not sure if i am attaching mechanical details to background. I feel it is more about using background to explain mechanical details of my character. Where or why did I pick up a technic that increases my power in a melee attack? WHy does my character dodge so well? Why is my character so tough? Who taught my character to move so fast and strike first? Where did he learn to increase the duration of a spell? How or where did I meet my animal companion or my familiar?I am not sure how coming up with these details keeps a character from excelling in his chosen field. Can you explain? I am interested in understanding this train of thought.
Let me put this differently; if a fighter wants to take a slightly atypical feat like weapon expertise, I find it flavorful but definately not requisite to know why he learned to fight defensively rather than offensively. Maybe the fighter is a she and has found defense easier than offense as a result; maybe she is just naturally quick and defensive; maybe the fighter is a strapping man-tank but was trained to defend rather than smash; maybe defensive fighting wasn't part of his training at all but something he developed on his own; I welcome any of these explainations but do not find them essential to character creation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that worrying too much about how every mechanical detail of a PC interacts with background can bog down his/her survivability and/or rp capacity. For example, I once had a player write up an incredible background story for his character. From reading it, I guessed that his character was a rogue/sorcerer (I started them after level 1), because of his extraordinary tendencies toward larceny and the criminal underworld. But looking at the character sheet, I found a pure sorcerer! I remember that Bluff and Invisibility were his only larcenous talents; other than that he was a true blaster mage. I gave the player a bewildered look along with an 'uh...ok, great dude!' but didn't even request that he change either his character's mechanics or background to account for eachother. I know that to him, his character's background made perfect sense with his mechanics. I'm sure that had I forced him to change background or mechanics, he would have felt railroaded into a character that he didn't want to play.
...I welcome any of these explainations but do not find them essential to character creation.I guess what I'm trying to say is that worrying too much about how every mechanical detail of a PC interacts with background can bog down his/her survivability and/or rp capacity...
I like the explanation of such mechanics to add flavor and I find it fun to imagine, but I do not think it is essential. I pride myself on being able to create a first level character from the PHB in ten minutes. But when you do this to get in a game, you do not have the time to make up such detail as to why this feat or that skil etc. But I can always add such detail later.
But because I do not see it as essential, I like to award xp for such detail in character background.
Thanks Tequila Sunrise for the explanation.
We ususally do up new characters at about 4th level and the "why" is very simple... first level characters die too easily. We make it 4th for the hit points, pure and simple. It's a good starting level... low enough to still give you room to work and grow with your character and high enough not to die from a stubbed toe.
The exception has been the APs, where in both cases we started at first level.
There have been some occassions where characters were created at higher levels, but that was with new players coming into established groups (namley me coming into the group I'm with now), and the other players' characters were so advanced that the DM felt I needed to start some of my characters at 10th or higher so they wouldn't be a liability on the games. As I was already an experienced role player, it wasn't much of a big deal, but I wouldn't do that with someone new to RPGs.
In terms of collaboration, it usually starts with what the player wants to play, then becomes a back and forth with the DM as species / background ideas are bounced around. Most of the new characters we've developed recently have been out of the Forgotten Realms novels, so class, race, and background have already been set, negating the need for a lot of discussion.
As for your final question, we don't play 3rd ed so I can't answer that, though we have developed some new classes .
I was curious as to what the whys?
We've done low-level games. Many times.
Most often, I start my campaigns at 1st level, and work from there. However, this is not always the case. If I wanted to run a group through "Red Hand of Doom", for example, I would just start the group at 5th level and get on with it. Doing the 1st - 5th level thing is okay, and all, but doing it for the sake of doing it seems rather pointless to me.
Edit: the other advantage of starting above 1st level is it makes races with an LA viable choices. This may or may not be a good thing...