Not starting people at level 1.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Not starting people at level 1.
Personally, I don't like the idea of starting most campaigns at level 1. It leaves very little room for 'below' that range (like for commoners and housecats) unless you pad the first level; which of course just pushes up the time limit for your RNG.
Unfortunately, even though the mechanical situation for it is really simple, the problem is that a lot of players have it firmly entrenched in their brains that a game needs to start at level 1. You can gussy it up with stuff like tiers and iconics and adventuring support but they will dig their heels in. So a question abounds--is there any way to stop these dillweeds? Do you think that there's some blurb or mechanic or whatever that can pull these out or do we just accept the fact that the game is going to have to end 2 levels early?
Unfortunately, even though the mechanical situation for it is really simple, the problem is that a lot of players have it firmly entrenched in their brains that a game needs to start at level 1. You can gussy it up with stuff like tiers and iconics and adventuring support but they will dig their heels in. So a question abounds--is there any way to stop these dillweeds? Do you think that there's some blurb or mechanic or whatever that can pull these out or do we just accept the fact that the game is going to have to end 2 levels early?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
The only reason there's a desire to start at 3rd is because the PCs are more capable. Because they've advanced two levels. Therefore they are "better" than some enemies they might face.Psychic Robot wrote:why have a first level if everyone is going to start at third.
If you make level 1 characters have all the bells-n-whistles of a level 3 character (in order to start more capable), then it's a bit odd that the transition to level 4 improves your character by such a small amount, and you have the problem of everything you meet being as powerful as a level 3 character.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
yeah but you could just say "level one means you have a sufficient level of training to go out and adventure"
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
The level 1 is to have some room at the bottom for things like children and housecats and kobold baby snatchers. You (presumably) don't want PCs to start off their D&D career that weak, but if you make 'bottom of PC power' level 1 then you can't have things like commoners graduating from the wizard academy or peasants becoming temporarily legitimate threats because they got into the mithril equipment. This is precisely what creates silliness like 3E aristocrats being forever screwed over or the entire 4E minion debacle.
The problem is that if you do have a level 1 for that then you're going to have a lot of people start their campaigns at housecat level. Not that it's a bad idea in of itself (Wesnoth does this) but a lot of people aren't trying to model the 'Steve the Crap Covered Farmer becomes Angel Knight Steve' story so much as being incapable of starting an adventure off from the designated first level. This problem persists even if you call sub-PC levels things like Level B or Level -3.
The problem is that if you do have a level 1 for that then you're going to have a lot of people start their campaigns at housecat level. Not that it's a bad idea in of itself (Wesnoth does this) but a lot of people aren't trying to model the 'Steve the Crap Covered Farmer becomes Angel Knight Steve' story so much as being incapable of starting an adventure off from the designated first level. This problem persists even if you call sub-PC levels things like Level B or Level -3.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I dislike first level because it's so swingy and brittle. A wizard pretty much just dies if he gets hit, and has only one (realistically two, from bonus spells) action that he even cares about before he is actually as bad as a commoner.
A fighter is better, in that he might (maybe) be able to take two hits, but he is still not better than a commoner in any way that anyone cares about. Worse, the only things you can beat up on are pathetic. Not that they're woefully underpowered (though that's true too), but you actually feel bad about beating up asthmatic goblins.
First level DnD is a ghetto of sadness and suck. second isn't much better. I don't like playing games where the premise is that I can have fun later, especially when I can skip directly to the fun part.
A fighter is better, in that he might (maybe) be able to take two hits, but he is still not better than a commoner in any way that anyone cares about. Worse, the only things you can beat up on are pathetic. Not that they're woefully underpowered (though that's true too), but you actually feel bad about beating up asthmatic goblins.
First level DnD is a ghetto of sadness and suck. second isn't much better. I don't like playing games where the premise is that I can have fun later, especially when I can skip directly to the fun part.
- JigokuBosatsu
- Prince
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:36 pm
- Location: The Portlands, OR
- Contact:
I always thought level 1 was pretty much the domain of scrappy kids with their dad's old sword and helmet, anyway. So if you want to be a dude who's murdered enough jermlaine to warrant a post as a caravan guard, then you can be 3rd level. Makes sense to me.
Omegonthesane wrote:a glass armonica which causes a target city to have horrific nightmares that prevent sleep
JigokuBosatsu wrote:so a regular glass armonica?
Maybe a more fundamental question is why do games even need levels?
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:39 am
ARghraghragagh.Schwarzkopf wrote:Maybe a more fundamental question is why do games even need levels?
No seriously - this is game design 101. It is honestly frustrating to see people "not get it".
Classical "Class and Level" games have these advantages:
-Stronger flavor rails
-Easier to write and balance
-Easier to make characters for
-Easier to make adventures for
-Better role protection
Classical "Point Buy" games have these advantages:
-More Freedom
-More flexibility
Yes, few systems are PURE one or the other, but to not get why levels are a "thing" is crazy.
I didn't say that I don't get why levels are a "thing", chief, I questioned the assumption that a game (any given game, all games, this game, that game) NEEDS levels.
I don't *actually* disagree with all of your pros/cons there. Just the 'easier to make characters for' part is bullshit. I've played/written/written for point-buy games where you can make a character with one tenth of the time and effort it takes to make a leveled D&D character. Overall, though, pretty good summary. But I do think that questioning people's assumptions from time to time is good, even if it causes them to say, and I quote:
"ARghraghragagh."
My favorite game is Shadowrun, which has never had levels (or for that matter, really, classes). And it does indeed suffer from problems with balancing adventures to be an appropriate challenge level (your advantages 2 and 4 for classical "class and level" games.)
I don't *actually* disagree with all of your pros/cons there. Just the 'easier to make characters for' part is bullshit. I've played/written/written for point-buy games where you can make a character with one tenth of the time and effort it takes to make a leveled D&D character. Overall, though, pretty good summary. But I do think that questioning people's assumptions from time to time is good, even if it causes them to say, and I quote:
"ARghraghragagh."
My favorite game is Shadowrun, which has never had levels (or for that matter, really, classes). And it does indeed suffer from problems with balancing adventures to be an appropriate challenge level (your advantages 2 and 4 for classical "class and level" games.)
Last edited by Neurosis on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
Yeah, no one cares. The topic is about starting at level 3, which implies that levels are used. Don't change the topic to a discussion about whether his game, which uses levels, should be re-written to try out something you think is nifty.Schwarzkopf wrote:I didn't say that I don't get why levels are a "thing", chief, I questioned the assumption that a game (any given game, all games, this game, that game) NEEDS levels.
What game? No game is mentioned in the topic title or OP. I mean I guess we're talking about any of a dozen stupidly identical and crappy variants of D&D but it's not like that's actually stated anywhere in the first post.
I guess what I'm challenging is the "everything is always D&D so much so that it doesn't even need to be explicitly stated" mentality. And if 'no one cares' maybe they should.
Or maybe not. Who gives a fuck, I mean this is the Den.
I guess what I'm challenging is the "everything is always D&D so much so that it doesn't even need to be explicitly stated" mentality. And if 'no one cares' maybe they should.
Or maybe not. Who gives a fuck, I mean this is the Den.
Last edited by Neurosis on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
For D&D (AD&D/3.5E/PFRPG), I always like starting at level 2. In AD&D, that greatly increases the party's survivability and in 3.5E/PFRPG, it allows you to start as a multi-classed character (instead of an arcane warrior who isn't arcane or who isn't a warrior, e.g.).
Most games with "levels" are fairly similar to D&D in how they work, in my experience. There are exceptions, though (e.g. V&V, where your level has a more limited affect on how tough your character is).Schwarzkopf wrote:What game? No game is mentioned in the topic title or OP. I mean I guess we're talking about any of a dozen stupidly identical and crappy variants of D&D but it's not like that's actually stated anywhere.
Last edited by hogarth on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2nd Level is still pretty deadly.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
Not in my experience, assuming you let PCs go to -10 or -Con score or whatever before dying. By 2nd level, the odds of getting insta-KOed by a single hit are fairly small. But YMMV.Schwarzkopf wrote:2nd Level is still pretty deadly.
Last edited by hogarth on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Does it really?Lago PARANOIA wrote: This problem persists even if you call sub-PC levels things like Level B or Level -3.
In my experience, games/campaigns where things are set up using terms like:
Background Level,
Apprentice Level,
Starting Adventurer level
Go over pretty well with characters starting at level 3 - even though this is all just legerdemain of hiding the numbers behind adjectives.
So I expect that the "everyone should start at level 1" meme you are railing against here has more to do with level 1 having the number 1 attached to it than with the power level of level 1 in relation to potential threats.
Or maybe my own experience is just abnormal?
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Re: Not starting people at level 1.
In my experience the game ends after the DM has some emotional problem and everyone gets pissed off and blames the game for things not being fun, which is almost always before 12 levels have been gained by any player. Even when things go well, gaining more than 12 levels demands that the setting, DMing, player commitment, and real life problems somehow magically align to become a campaign in the top 1% of the success range. I've never once been bothered by the concept that players only get to advance 17 levels instead of 19. (sorry for the digression.)Lago PARANOIA wrote:Personally, I don't like the idea of starting most campaigns at level 1. [snip]
So a question abounds--is there any way to stop these dillweeds? Do you think that there's some blurb or mechanic or whatever that can pull these out or do we just accept the fact that the game is going to have to end 2 levels early?
Anyway, I think where you start depends entirely on who's playing.
I like starting at level 1
New players, sometimes even players new to the setting or houserules, really benefit from starting at level 1. Because everything is so swingy, and the chances of death are so high, it actually feels like a pretty big accomplishment to get to level 2. You might die and have to make a new character. Because of this, it's a bit of a different game than what you experience at level 5, but it sets up expectations in the players that things are dangerous, and you should value your life and take things seriously.
Also, I like that it allows you to get to know your character slowly, so that you aren't going to advance to level 4 and feel a little lost, without an ability to understand all the options you had at level 3.
These guys are going to be intimidated by level 12. Let it take some time to get there, and keep the level progression rate at roughly 1 level per 3 game sessions until the game ends at whatever level they achieve by then.
This assumes (rightly, I think) that you're talking 3.5 and not 4e, because in 4e at level 1 you're not playing a game that's much different from your level 5 game. You can do epic-seeming things, and assuming you didn't screw up making the character it takes about the same number of attacks to take you down, regardless of level.
I like starting at level 4
For people who have already played the system past level 4, playing at level 1 is almost painful and frustrating. They know the score, and even hinting that keeping track of more than 6 feats/abilities/spells/skill/concepts is a challenge is going to start a heated argument. If they can handle it without a hitch, by all means skip ahead a bit.
The end result is more fun straight out of the gate because they're getting back to the fun they remember from previous games, and they still get the nostalgia of feeling underpowered and simple. It also spreads the possible foes out a bit and gives you the freedom to face them off against an ogre warlord and his merry band of 16 wolf-riding goblin archers - and they can handle it without feeling overwhelmed because they aren't noobs.
These guys are going to be itching for level 12 before they even come up with a name. Get them there, and let the high levels come slowly. The level progression rate is going to be fast at first, and then spread out to around 1 level every 8 game sessions for the last few levels.
Bottom line, you're calling people dillweeds for liking something different than you do, without there being an objectively better option that fits all situations. If you're running the game, make the choice that fits the players. If you're a player and you've been voted down, you're the dillweed for saying that what they like is worse than what you like.
Last edited by Bihlbo on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Level 1 very much has the "this is where you start" vibe to it. Whereas "Level B," particularly if kept on a wholly separate table in an entirely different section of the book (i.e. the section on monsters instead of the one on character advancement), doesn't have that connotation. I'd find it hard to believe that people would insist on starting at the lowest possible level even if the rules for playing at that level are an optional rule in the appendix. Or a splatbook.
I sort of agree. Level 1 has a "This is where a character starts" vibe to it. Implicitly, actually.Chamomile wrote:Level 1 very much has the "this is where you start" vibe to it. Whereas "Level B," particularly if kept on a wholly separate table in an entirely different section of the book (i.e. the section on monsters instead of the one on character advancement), doesn't have that connotation.
It's not a difficult concept at all to grasp that your character started at level 1 and went through a montage of training and rat killing to get to level 3, when the story picks up because now things start to get interesting. If that's how you want to set up a game, that is.
Look guys, the question isn't why this theoretical game should start at level 1, it's why should it even have levels?Schwarzkopf wrote:What game? No game is mentioned in the topic title or OP. I mean I guess we're talking about any of a dozen stupidly identical and crappy variants of D&D but it's not like that's actually stated anywhere in the first post.
I guess what I'm challenging is the "everything is always D&D so much so that it doesn't even need to be explicitly stated" mentality. And if 'no one cares' maybe they should.
Or maybe not. Who gives a fuck, I mean this is the Den.
No guys, the real question is why should the game have a DM?
No guys, the real question is why is it played on a table top not on a computer?
No guys, the real question is why is it a game instead of a political movement?
Long story short, even as a hypothetical game, when someone assumes that the game has levels, you are obligated to accept that the hypothetical game has levels in order to have a conversation. Just like when I assume a game is a PnP RPG with a DM, people are required to accept that the game is not on a computer and not DM less to be an actual participant in the conversation.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Re: Not starting people at level 1.
Let the game go to level 22. Now you have your scrappy levels for weak monsters to fight on the PC's adventure at level 1 3, and they get to play for 20 levels if they really want.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Do you think that there's some blurb or mechanic or whatever that can pull these out or do we just accept the fact that the game is going to have to end 2 levels early?
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Re: Not starting people at level 1.
Bihlbo wrote:
In my experience the game ends after the DM has some emotional problem and everyone gets pissed off and blames the game for things not being fun, which is almost always before 12 levels have been gained by any player. Even when things go well, gaining more than 12 levels demands that the setting, DMing, player commitment, and real life problems somehow magically align to become a campaign in the top 1% of the success range. I've never once been bothered by the concept that players only get to advance 17 levels instead of 19. (sorry for the digression.)
I'll go even further than that: Fewer than 50% of the D&D games I have ever seen or been involved in advanced more than 2 levels from the starting point.
None of the games which have gone more than 5 levels of advancement have involved the exact same player group for all of those levels. A large component of what allows a game to continue long term* is a playgroup that can handle players leaving and joining and players that left rejoining in a way that doesn't ruin the experience for the continuous players.
Where Long Term is generally anything longer than the 10-14 weeks in one college semester.
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Same reasoning applies to age. "Why would you ever start playing a character that wasn't 1 year old?" is ridiculous, and "Why would you ever start playing a character that wasn't 1st level?" is ridiculous for exactly the same reasons.Chamomile wrote:Level 1 very much has the "this is where you start" vibe to it.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
because a baby can't do anything in real life you stupid fuck, levels are an abstract measurement of power and do not correlate to things that actually exist
Last edited by Psychic Robot on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?