The real irony of the 'shopkeep for 20 years' problem.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

You know the biggest shitload of fuck about this supposed 'problem'?

Is that it wouldn't even be a problem if you nudged up everyone's levels, too. It would just end up being a really boring and shitty backstory that wouldn't even be worthy of a montage. But it wouldn't break the game.

I'm dead fucking serious about this. If the players want to do a '20 years later montage', then why not just go 'okay, in the meantime, you gained two levels'? I mean, fuck, sitting around in a room and studying all day is how clerics and wizards and even thieves are supposed to gain their levels, not this powergamey 'kill monsters for XP!' crap. Even Batman gained most of his levels during his training montage.

Of course, I'm not a fan of D&D (or any RPG's) continued insistance that you keep running the game at level 1, as if padding your character's story automatically made it more exciting. So this isn't a problem for me.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

And I think that the 'shopkeep for 20 years' only points to a bigger problem not just in 3E/4E, not just in D&D, but just gaming in general.

Specifically, the issue of advancement.

For fuck's sake, if advancing in power is so boring and tiresome to players that they're looking for ways around it, then just skip to whatever point they want to end up at.

What purpose does making players play a point where they don't give a shit about for several months or even years serve? Who benefits, other than the game designers?

[schpeelah]

It's not like that. Players make that "20 years" delaration in, like, 15 seconds, and that gives them extra money when the actual game starts - pure gain. It shouldn't work because a) players are expected to have a given amount of money at a given level b) the characters must pay the costs of living for 20 years, which would be as much money as they earned.
IMO the only system that works well here is Modern's occupations (and the rest of the wealth system too).

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

It's not like that. Players make that "20 years" delaration in, like, 15 seconds, and that gives them extra money when the actual game starts - pure gain. It shouldn't work because a) players are expected to have a given amount of money at a given level b) the characters must pay the costs of living for 20 years, which would be as much money as they earned.
IMO the only system that works well here is Modern's occupations (and the rest of the wealth system too).

So make them advance in levels, too, to even out the balance.

[virgil]

I've always been confused with the obsession D&D has with starting people out at a level where house pets can give you a good run for your money. Various rules to not make the first three levels such a crap shoot have been proposed, but the official people seem to be completely unwilling to just say "you start at level 5".

The same goes for level caps. I've actually ended a campaign at level 14 because the setting couldn't/shouldn't handle any bigger (the players agreed to such), and I had already been slowing down the XP gain for the last five levels of that. There's nothing wrong with actually not using the upper levels of D&D, especially if it empowers you to maintain your characters in a certain genre/power scale. It 'frustrates' me to see people argue for removing the concept of high levels in the rules rather than just not use it when everyone agrees on a particular range of power in their campaign.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've always been confused with the obsession D&D has with starting people out at a level where house pets can give you a good run for your money. Various rules to not make the first three levels such a crap shoot have been proposed, but the official people seem to be completely unwilling to just say "you start at level 5".

Actually, I can totally understand wanting to make rules for level 1 where five angry sheep will hand you your ass. Some people really do want to do the entire scene where John the crap-covered farmer becomes John who destroys planets with his bare hands and that's A-OK.

What I want to know is what's so bad about players going 'fuck this shit, time for a training montage', and they jump ahead 6 levels.

Games seem completely married to the fact that once you start at a certain level, you absofuckingloutely have to play out every tiny bit of advancement for the rest of the campaign. Making people start out at level one is just icing on the ass-shaped cake and is only a bigger incentive to try the whole 'shopkeep for 20 years' trick.

But if you just let players fast-forward to whatever level they want to, then what's the friggin' problem in the first place? I probably wouldn't settle on a lame 'my character runs a business for the next few years and practices swinging his sword in the backyard' personally--I'd be more of a 'for the next 6 years, I wrestle with the nude nymphs of Clearwater forest, pillow-talking and practicing their sexy magical martial artist style'. But to each their own.

The part where you can't do at all that completely flies over my head. It doesn't even break the game when you do that and probably won't even break the setting. The fact that the DM has to intentionally insert contrived, game-breaking hazards into your life to interrupt the montage makes me wonder why making people slog through 20 or so levels is important in the first place.

[Koumei]

I've always been confused with the obsession D&D has with starting people out at a level where house pets can give you a good run for your money. Various rules to not make the first three levels such a crap shoot have been proposed, but the official people seem to be completely unwilling to just say "you start at level 5".

That's my official stance, actually. I frequently tell people "the game starts at 5/10/whatever". And I tell DMs "the game is starting at 5/10/whatever." Seriously. If they ask me to join, I ask what level it is, then if they give a low number, I correct them. Sometimes they decide I'm so awesome they need me there, sometimes they're resolute and they have a game without me.

But just declaring that seriously can work.

[Amra]

Just saying "we'll start at 6th level" can and does work.

However, I routinely start my lot off at 1st level for a very good reason; they like to get used to their new characters and work out how they're all going to play nice together. A couple of adventures under their belts where they really need to rely on each other helps to cement the relationships later on when one or more of them is powerful enough to seriously consider taking on a city single-handed.

Oh, and it gives the players time to tweak their character concepts if it looks as though they're not going to work out. Rewriting a 1st- or 2nd-level character is a lot less painful than doing the same for a 10th-level character.

The reason it works is because we pretty much do play the early levels as a montage anyway; it has been known for them to go up a level or two in a single session. We have a week or three of really fast-paced stuff where we're sort of creating a whole party backstory at break-neck speed, then the advancement slows down at the point at which the campaign really starts.

It might not work for everyone - there's no reason why it should - but particularly in a mixed-abiliity group in terms of player experience and rules-knowledge I've found this to be a good approach.

I certainly have started campaigns at Level Whatever and it can work out just fine, but there's also a lot to be said for playing through those first few levels very, very quickly so you don't have to wait long for your real character concept whilst at the same time feeling like you've earned it.

[Kaelik]

I've always been confused with the obsession D&D has with starting people out at a level where house pets can give you a good run for your money. Various rules to not make the first three levels such a crap shoot have been proposed, but the official people seem to be completely unwilling to just say "you start at level 5".

That's my official stance, actually. I frequently tell people "the game starts at 5/10/whatever". And I tell DMs "the game is starting at 5/10/whatever." Seriously. If they ask me to join, I ask what level it is, then if they give a low number, I correct them. Sometimes they decide I'm so awesome they need me there, sometimes they're resolute and they have a game without me.

But just declaring that seriously can work.

Exactly. What level is this? Level 1. You mean level 6 because level 1 is boring and stupid. *Jedi hand wave* I mean level 6.

[Judging__Eagle]

I had my players level up when I felt like it.

So, when we hadn't played for a while, and I wanted to see lvl 7 characters, they were level 7. Whether they had 'earned' it or not.

Edit:

I've also come to the conclusion that my idea of "you get your scaling feats in larger amounts" is a good idea.

The feats you pick should help shape your character's tactical options and options that they bring to the story telling part of the game.

So, at level one, everyone gets 2 feats. Every time you get a feat from levels, you get 2 more. The RoW Fighter gets 2 every time he gets 1 normally.

What this means is that feats that you had your eye on, or might have been interesting, like say.... skill focus or w/e, show up more often.

That and I don't want a character to have the same schtick over and over and over in every fight. That shit gets boring for me as a player to see, as a player to use and as a DM to have to deal with.

[Username17]

I've noticed that people don't bother working for downtime in modern settings. Not even modern flavored iron age settings like Champions. And I think this is because the world is big enough and full of enough cool things to do that sitting around moving numbers up and down does not appeal. If your choices are "Fight the Dark Lord" and "XP Dance/Craft Mine/Whatever and THEN fight the Dark Lord" then generations of Final Fantasy players tell us that a lot of people will choose option B.

However, as soon as your available side quest list becomes big enough, then any particular group of players will choose one of them rather than stationarily doing XP Dances. And in any world based on modern Earth, the list of available side quests is titanically large and of sufficient size that people can find things that they want their characters to do other than wait out the next presidential election.

In short: if people XP Dance, I blame railroaded plots and inflexible storylines provided by the DM.

-Username17

[Arcane-surge]

I'd never heard of this issue before, but I think I understand it. Player X says, "My character spent twenty years as a shopkeep, so he ought to get X experience and Y gold, rather than what he's supposed to have..." Supposed to is defined by the guidelines of the GM as much as anyone else, but still...

What these people are forgetting, in 3rd or 4th or any other game, is that it's more of a game than a co-operative storytelling exercise. In Monopoly, it doesn't matter how long the totally cool backstory you wrote for the little Yorkie is, and it doesn't matter that the car "Was totally a racecar for twenty years, so it should be faster than the other pieces." There are going to be parts where mechanics trump thematics, and that's one of them. Bumping up everyone's levels would work just fine, , and I have no complaints about starting past level 1, but I think it could lead to some escalation. "My character should be level 5..." "Fine. You're all level 5." "Well, my character still has more experience than the others, so he should be higher..." This is, of course, pure douchebaggery.

As for starting at level 1, my players enjoy it. Yes, you're weak, yes, it's a total crapshoot, but it gives you a noticeable rise in power (Starting at 5 would do this too, but most of my players aren't min/maxers, so they don't plan that far ahead, and any synergy they had is usually falling apart by then). Also, since their system mastery is less than top notch, it gives them a chance to start with a small set of abilities and learn more, rather than a medium-sized set where they have no clue what half of them do.

[Tydanosaurus]

In short: if people XP Dance, I blame railroaded plots and inflexible storylines provided by the DM.

Lot of truth.

Related, I also blame "ultimate overlord" storylines. In any modern setting, killing the BBEG of any particular adventure rarely ends the reign of evil o'er the land. Levelling up to kill off Hitler only leaves Stalin, and then Mao, and then a host of terrorists and other BBEG's to kill off, so why not just do the adventure?

In fantasy, though, almost every setting ends up with Sauron. Eventually, the PC's kill off Sauron, flowers bloom and ponies fall from the sky, and the players roll up new characters. Why not just level up ahead of time to make killing off Sauron easier?

[Tydanosaurus]

As for starting at level 1, my players enjoy it. .

I hate it. I always feel like I'm in Karate Kid, a little wuss waxing on and waxing off until I can finally beat up the blond-haired bully.

YMMV.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't really like level 1 either, but I mean, if you decided to join the game knowing you're starting level 1, it's a pretty dick thing to do when you don't play the actual campaign and just decide to turn shopkeeper because you don't like the starting level and want to force the DM to toss out his entire adventure.

If you don't like the campaign idea, then don't join the game. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

Joining a game with the idea that you're going to try to disrupt it and make the DM's life a living hell is a real asshole move.

[Tydanosaurus]

It's not the DM's game.

[RandomCasualty2]

It's not the DM's game.

He still started it and recruited for it.

Why are you joining it if you want to play something different from what he's running?

[CatharzGodfoot]

At least being a shopkeeper PC makes things fairly easy on the DM. The DM has about three options:

• Run the adventure with the rest of the PCs who (apparently) want it, and tell the player of the shopkeeper to roll up a non-NPC character.
• Change the venue of the adventure to fit the players' desires: a city-focused campaign that includes the adventures one runs into when trying to keep a shop in a magical world (when you're possibly the only heroes in town).
• Do a training montage in which you handwave everything that's happened over the last 20 years and say, 'OK, now what do you want to do?'
• There's the fourth possibility of 'the world was destroyed because you didn't save it' (AKA "Rocks fall, everybody dies. EVERYBODY DIES!"), new campaign -- but that's a total bitch move.

Anyway, I don't see the above as much of a 'bug', 'exploit', or 'problem'.

[Tydanosaurus]

It's not the DM's game.

He still started it and recruited for it.

Why are you joining it if you want to play something different from what he's running?

Why is he running a game that isn't fun?

It takes two to tango, and at least two to D&D. IMG, the "DM" no more "starts" the game than one poker player "starts" a game of poker. We're all in it.

But, hey, your way sounds . . . fun . . . too, I guess. Everybody loves playing a social game where they get no input.

[MartinHarper]

I've always been confused with the obsession D&D has with starting people out at a level where house pets can give you a good run for your money. Various rules to not make the first three levels such a crap shoot have been proposed, but the official people seem to be completely unwilling to just say "you start at level 5".

Maybe because levelling up is supposed to be a "reward"? IE, level 1 is so painful that players are happy when they leave.

4e DMG pg143 has a section on "starting at higher level", but they have de-emphasised it by not putting it in the PHB. Regardless, you can slaughter pets at level 1.

So make them advance in levels, too, to even out the balance.

Or tell them they already did that for 20 years, and that's how they got their starting gold/wealth by level.

[baduin]

I would suggest a rule from D20 Conan - if you have excess money you have to spend it on whisky and whores (or on useless books for a scholar). Of course such expenses shouldn't be so excessive as in the original - in Conan there is not so much you can spend money on.

So, there should be a table which shows how much you have to spend per month on luxurious living if you have X money. Only money above wealth per level guidelines counts. Money invested in a possessions fitting from the roleplaying point of view (castle, wizard''s tower) does not count.

eg: above wealth guidelines = you spend 1/10 of excess money per month.
1,5 above wealth = you spend 1/5 excess money per month
2 above wealth = you spend 1/2 exess money per month.

Without such a rule there is always a temptation to make your character eat cat food, drink water and sleep under the bridge. This gives a real increase in power, but is usually quite wrong from the roleplaying point of view - extremely rich men who can die every moment generally try to spend their money, so that they have at least some satisfaction before they die.

A good man could spend that money on charity, a bad on whores, and a miser could simply hide it somewhere and refuse ever to spend it.

You can even take a feat which allows you to keep more of your wealth - eg 1,5 of standard. This gives a real increase in power, so it should be quite balanced.

[Bigode]

A large chunk of Saladin's reputation's around "sleeping under bridges and eating cat food". I don't even know what to say about "drinking water".

[RandomCasualty2]

Why is he running a game that isn't fun?

Some people like low level games.

It's very arrogant to think that just because it's not fun to you that it's not going to be fun to anyone.

If the game isn't your cup of tea, then just don't join it.

But, hey, your way sounds . . . fun . . . too, I guess. Everybody loves playing a social game where they get no input.

I'm not saying no input, I'm just saying that you shouldn't join a game that has one theme and expect to totally change it. That's like coming to a game of D&D that says "you're supposed to be heroes" and making a chaotic evil sociopath. You're deliberately being a jerk and ruining the game for everyone else.

If the game was announced as being a low level game, then it's a low level game. If you don't like that, don't join it. It's not an excuse to be a douchebag and join the game just to try to ruin it.

If you don't like it, then don't play.

[Koumei]

Maybe because levelling up is supposed to be a "reward"? IE, level 1 is so painful that players are happy when they leave.

Wait, so by putting up with annoying shit for several sessions (or in the case of 4E, ten years), you get rewarded by a game that is finally enjoyable?

Screw that. D&D is about being rewarded for doing stuff you wanted to do anyway (stab the dragon in the face, earn the king's gratitude, knock up the princess, store all the loot in a tower and make sure you don't mix the previous things up).

There is seriously no reason to make players "earn" an enjoyable game by suffering through a shit one. I know seemingly endless suffering for the reward of "things aren't shit any more" is realistic, but between you and me?

D&D isn't real life, so you can totally remove all the shit aspects.

[JonSetanta]

True. RPGs are to get away from Real Life, not imitate it.

I'll repeat a phrase passed frequently around this forum: characters must be viable at every level.