In the past several years, I have noted more and more games starting at higher levels rather than 1st. In fact, I had several players look at me shocked when I told them my DL campaign was starting at 1st level.
I have always enjoyed running and playing at 1st level, but I was wondering what other people think. I started wondering this after noting over and over again the dislike for the fact that spellcasters, namely wizards, are far too powerful at higher levels, and I'm not sure if those PC wizards were forced to survive the opening levels as they should.
Let me know you take on starting levels.
I think it takes more creativity to design survivable low level adventures, when almost any successful attack can be fatal. One way is to emphasize roleplaying and problem solving--but if your players want to kick in doors, I can see why starting at 3rd level might be the way to go...
Our campaigns have had a habit of not lasting long (for a variety of reasons, but sometimes just a straightforward TPK). I think the longest we've ever run one was from 1st to 9th, and another went from 5th to 12th, if I remember correctly. This has led me to institute a rule that, in the case of TPKs, the next party we create (whether in the same campaign or a new one) start a level higher than the party that just got obliterated. That way the players still get to advance and have their fun experiencing higher levels. Of course, there hasn't been a TPK since instituting that rule!
There's been a big push historically to start at 3rd level, at least, if not 5th (or even 6th so non-casters get the 6th level feat). I dislike that, though. It always feels like "cheating" to me. I prefer to go through the low levels, if only to rush by them and say "there, we did it, now let's move on." It just feels more organic.
I agree: low-level adventure design is some of the hardest, and requires the most creativity. At high levels, an adventure can throw an obstacle in the party's way and the designer doesn't even have to have a clue how they'll get past. There are numerous modes and methods the PCs can pull out of their collective rears on a moment's notice. But at low levels? Not a chance. Creating an interesting and original adventure is difficult.
I think one mentality that might help, particularly at first level, is to not get attached to the NPCs. I know this is general and good advice at any level, but typically the DM wants to pit the PCs against at least CR-appropriate foes in encounters that are likely to present some level of challenge. But I think that at the very low levels, the DM should forget about trying to challenge the PCs too much. Throw goblins and the like at the party straight through to 4th level. Okay, not really; you'll need to break it up to keep their interest (and your own), and making a challenging fight here or there is almost required. But by and large, just allow the monsters and NPCs to be PC-fodder, there for convenient XP gain. This lets the party feel all badass and start off a campaign with a sensation that they're on top of the world. Once the PCs are actually strong enough to have some "room" (in terms of hp, spells, and the like) to take some serious beatings from the baddies, go ahead and hand them out. But before that, don't throw such hard punches. I'm not necessarily saying keep the kiddie gloves on for your adventures, but a DM has to keep in mind that the very low levels are still a fragile "training" stage of an adventurer's career.
Anyway, as to the actual question posited, I like starting characters at 1st level, from both sides of the DM's screen.
I am a huge fan of level 1. Sure, I am happy to progress beyond it, but I would (and have) really missed that play with a character if I don't have it.
I really enjoy to move from characters who are just starting there careers... their potential is just a little better or even less than those around them and you follow these rising stars in their careers.
In those campaigns I have started at a higher level (only as a player since I have universally started my campaigns at 1st) I have felt a bit cheated out of what I see as the formative levels for a character.
Sean Mahoney
|
In the past several years, I have noted more and more games starting at higher levels rather than 1st. In fact, I had several players look at me shocked when I told them my DL campaign was starting at 1st level.
I have always enjoyed running and playing at 1st level, but I was wondering what other people think. I started wondering this after noting over and over again the dislike for the fact that spellcasters, namely wizards, are far too powerful at higher levels, and I'm not sure if those PC wizards were forced to survive the opening levels as they should.
Let me know you take on starting levels.
I used to hate level 1 and trying to start a game with level 1 characters (even as a DM).
The new Pathfinder rules (at least the Alpha version) changed that. My group had a blast chugging through level 1, and for once they didn't feel afraid of every last critter around every last corner.
I'd much rather start at level 3.
My local group invariably starts at Level 1, not only for the reasons QXL99 described, but also for the sense of achievement. Anyone can roll-up a 20th level character, but getting a character to actually earn that power takes skill, luck, and dedication. I think we all have at least one character that has gone from 1 to epic, and many of us have several such characters.
Well the campaigns I've ran and played in have a tendency to start at higher levels than 1st (usually 5th-7th) since most of the guys in my group like having more powers and abilities.
However, in our latest campaign, my DM pretty much told us to suck it up and that we were starting at 1st level which wound up being a good thing since it's been the first campaign we've played in a long while that's actually gone somewhere. We're now around 7th-8th level as a group now and are not intending to give up on the game any time soon. It's been cool to see our characters actually progress from 1st level for once in a long time.
So yeah, I had a lot more fun starting at 1st and watching my character progress into higher levels. It's been really cool and has sparked my interest in this game more than any other we've played in a very long time.
|
I always try to start at 1st level, if only to get to know the characters and create a long, rewarding story with them.
Failing that, I generally do not like exceeding 4th level for starting - the tendency to munchkin increases practically exponentially with high level character creation. Generally, the higher the starting level, the less options for creation.
Always first level. Characters that start higher just don't seem "real" to me.
A 12th level character that's been in game since first level just seems more impressive than a 12th level character that just got rolled 5 minutes ago.
When we played 2nd edition we always started at 3rd level just to make sure that the wizard had more than one spell to cast. In 3.5 we start at 1st level.
As a DM, I let my players start at level 2. They're a little more durable, and also someone who wants to play a multi-classed character can do so right off the bat, without having to deal with "suddenly I become a wizard" syndrome.
With Pathfinder rules, I'd probably stick with level 1, though (since they already have greater durability).
|
Likewise, ...in the second edition days, we usually started at 3rd level. Back in the 1st edition days, the DM would ask for characters between 1-3. Nowadays, that wouldn't even make sense to most players (why would a player make up an L1 when she could make an L3? - cause everyone's so power-mad.)
Over the past 8 years, 3rd edition games (run by someone else) have also invariably started at 3rd level. Something about the stigma that fighting skeletons and rats might not be much fun.
I initiated a DM round-table over the past year, and invariably everyone ran first level games. Just imagine, we played 5 different 1st level story arcs over the course of a year! ... and it was fun. We renewed our appreciation for "when times were rough." For example, in one story arc, we began as derelicts who had been assigned community service (vis a vis adventure) and struggled to have enough to eat each day and tracked our rations and money.
As for me, when I start a campaign - I always start at first, as mentioned before, for the gratifying feeling of looking back at 15th level and recognizing from whence the characters came. Also, I take personal pride in making incredible 1st level games that aren't cliche.
Historically, I'm hard pressed to remember many campaigns that lasted past 15th level, though.
|
|
Historically, I'm hard pressed to remember many campaigns that lasted past 15th level, though.
Yeah, it takes a lot of planning. I ran a 1st-25th level game over 1-1/2 years, I had to plot out all the epic level antagonists before the game even started and conduct the game as if they were acting throughout the story arc.