| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Raith |
Posted - 22 Feb 2009 : 23:37:15
So yesterday was a real treat for me:
Over at Zuc's house I DM'd for his two little brothers, as well as our friends Ric and Taylor. Ric and Taylor are relative newbies compared to Rabies and Zucorus, so putting the four of them together and running the Sunless Citadel was an unusual experience!
They're just now knocking at the door of the actual dungeon, and will be proceeding in the next time we start. I've got minis gathered for all of the baddies they'll encounter and they almost all match up to what they're meant to be in the book.
I'd been nervous about running anything for level 1 characters because of all the work and storyline that people tend to put into their characters...characters who would be too fragile for comfort to begin with. I'm very glad that we took the plunge though!
Anybody else ever afraid to start at level 1? |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 10 May 2009 : 02:34:25
DMing (and PCing for that matter) level 1 is tough. But it's waaaay more rewarding, and the PCs have a much better understanding of their characters' powers.
For instance, I once brought in somebody without much gaming experience into a level 7 party...as a barbarian. She had some trouble knowing what her abilities could accomplish, and so I ended up having to run a 'Danger Room' session (via a dream sequence) to get her going, where she could bash at stuff and take hits and experiment without fear of dying. If she'd been allowed to start at level 1, there woulda been no problem. |
| Fisk |
Posted - 09 May 2009 : 23:09:39
I find that the most rewarding part of playing Dungeons and Dragons is watching your characters grow. Even creating them is fun. You start to think about what this character will be like, thinking if he'll be successful, etc...
I've never started a campaign with anything other than a level one. As of so far, none have died at that level, but some have met their end in the back of my folder.
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 17:21:09
My 8 year-and-still-running-altho-on-hiatus-for-now campaign started at 1st level, still using 2nd edition rules, but since a bunch of original players/characters left, and others stepped in, I was bound to have people start at higher level. From the original lvl 1 core-group only 2 PCs are still around... and all of them are on the verge of making lvl 13 now, since we play only once a month if things go well... and we chose to alter XP/level as per UA, retaining the original XP values for CRs tho. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 10:05:46
I am quite a fan of a loose background framework at 1st level and then making final decisions at 3rd level.
I also try to get through the first couple of levels fairly quickly. We generally play all day sessions 12-12 and so the players are 2nd level after the first session and 3rd by the second session.
This way the players get to settle into the characters before making major decisions about their history. The loose background is enough to get through a couple of sessions and it is them firmed up with facts that come out during inter character conversation.
This also solves many problems with characters with concrete backgrounds from different areas and with different morals and beliefs. If it is left loose then individuals can find things in common with each other much more easily.
Rather than having two loyalist nobles, one from sembia and one from cormyr (a recipe for pc disaster) they ended up as a minor noble from highmoon who balances the influences of sembia, cormyr and the dales, and a once powerful open minded merchants son who lost much in tilverton and is rebuilding in arabel and puts profit before politics. The players and characters remained basically the same but the backgrounds changed alot and now two potential enemies are budding business partners. 
It doesn't solve all issues but then again some friction is a good thing between characters. It also makes a dm's job more fun.  |
| Baldwin Stonewood |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 21:48:08
I enjoy both Dm'ing and playing from level one and sometimes level zero. Morality is fresh on everyone's mind. Of course, as a DM I will take it easy behind the screen if I have too. Especially, if the players have put a lot of time in creating their characters.
I'm currently playing a rogue in friend's campaign and he began us at Zero level, with only a few skill points and next to nothing to battle with. I recall having a knife, a dagger and my lock smith tools when I began two years ago with this character. It was fun, and this has become my favorite character of all time. |
| Zucrous |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 20:49:14
I enjoy starting at level one myself. Many CR 1 monsters do like 1d3-3 damage so the survivability thing is not that scary. It really forces your group to act as a team. The fighter really has to protect the mage, and the cleric actually has to heal the entire fight, the rogue actually has to check for traps. It really grounds experienced players who are used to just bashing down the door and slaughtering the inhabitants. Humility is something greatly lacking for most high level pcs. Level one is scary, adventurers know this, they dont become adventurers thinking its a cakewalk, they know they might die.
I know I do most of my character development in game. I write up a very brief backstory, not many specifics, and have a general demeanor about them. The more the game progresses the more I learn about my character. So starting at level one is great for that.
For newbie players I think its imperative that they start at level 1. The game mechanics are as people have said above far too large for you to take all at once at level 15. Plus you learn all the little quirks of having low levels spells and you learn to appreciate them. |
| Raith |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 19:20:51
I sort of like that rule, Julian. I think next time I start anything off it'll be from level 1 |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 06:11:26
I have a table rule that outside of name and birthplace backstories shouldn't be written until about level 3 or so. Basically to save the player from having worked hard on a PC to have it killed. It is kinda rough but I tell new players that as adventurers their PCs have to understand that being spun, folded, mutilated, dismembered and worse is a job risk. Most have understood this and enjoy the challenge of their first few adventures. |
| maglaurus |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 04:43:41
I have a standard scenario for a 1st-level opening adventure. It's kind-of cliche, but it helps to establish a background without need for lengthy character bios.
Item #1: Party is thrown together by happenstance and need for mutual support against a common threat (so most everyone knows somebody, but not everyone, and they all need each other). Versions of this have included a pair of PCs encountering another being hunting by local thugs or lawmen and a group of travelers encounter a lone adventurer pinned atop his broken wagon surrounded by hungry wolves.
--I also like to base a first-level adventure around stopping local livestock rustling (in-which local authorities are somehow complicit). I find that food & defenseless farmers are things that can bond PCs, and as a result of stopping the rustlers the PCs are bound together by becoming the "Heroes of [name of small village]". |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 00:53:58
quote:
Originally posted by Raith
Anybody else ever afraid to start at level 1?
As a player, no. I like creating a character from the ground up.
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
The most richly faceted characters are always the ones who are looking for something. That's the advantage of level 1 - you're rough, you don't know what you want, and every new power or discovery seems like magic.
Agreed. And heck, I like the challenge, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Equally, there's nothing 'unfun' or 'deprotagonizing' about the PCs having aid or working together with an NPC or two.
I agree, and it does make you feel as if you aren't totally isolated from the rest of the world. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 22:40:54
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
A few more points:
-- Callow youths shouldn't already have novella-length backstories. Let most of those details come out in play, which makes them a shared experience of the group rather than a largely personal fiction, don't decide your character's whole career (and feat progression, etc.) in advance, and you can have the genuine risk of character death without it messing up a Grand Plan.
-- Violent encounter after violent encounter is prone to wipe out a first-level party, so don't put the players in a position where they feel expected to delve a full-size dungeon. Most play should consist of exploration, intrigue, and such less-immediately-lethal activity.
-- If they do want to go down the dungeon or fight pitched battles at once, don't neglect the use of hirelings and henchmen, which used to be a taken-for-granted norm of D&D play. Equally, there's nothing 'unfun' or 'deprotagonizing' about the PCs having aid or working together with an NPC or two.
-- The players really must understand that they should run rather than fight overmatching foes to the death. The alternative, having the setting entirely scale itself up/down to the players, detracts from the sense of being in a real world.
Mid-level characters played by people with novice-level experience are a farce. 'Unearned Levels Are the PC's Worst Enemy', as Gary Gygax or Chris Thomasson wrote.
Some good points here:
I like players to have some back story created but first level characters are not great heroes and shouldn't have sagas written about them, that's what 1st to 5th helps develop, a real sense of the character and his place in the world. Then you can start being a hero and recount your epic tales over numerous tankards of ale. 
Also teaching a player to run away is a very important lesson. I used to have players that assumed that if it was standing in front of them then they would kill it and survive. When they started a new campaign at 1st level and met a single ogre in a gladitorial pit I little expected them to jump in and attack it. 
Long story short, a lesson was learned that day, very quickly in
fact. Almost as quickly as the die where rolled for new characters. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 20:45:26
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbobx
Sucks to play in your campaign you might say.
Not I; quite the reverse.
A few more points:
-- Callow youths shouldn't already have novella-length backstories. Let most of those details come out in play, which makes them a shared experience of the group rather than a largely personal fiction, don't decide your character's whole career (and feat progression, etc.) in advance, and you can have the genuine risk of character death without it messing up a Grand Plan.
-- Violent encounter after violent encounter is prone to wipe out a first-level party, so don't put the players in a position where they feel expected to delve a full-size dungeon. Most play should consist of exploration, intrigue, and such less-immediately-lethal activity.
-- If they do want to go down the dungeon or fight pitched battles at once, don't neglect the use of hirelings and henchmen, which used to be a taken-for-granted norm of D&D play. Equally, there's nothing 'unfun' or 'deprotagonizing' about the PCs having aid or working together with an NPC or two.
-- The players really must understand that they should run rather than fight overmatching foes to the death. The alternative, having the setting entirely scale itself up/down to the players, detracts from the sense of being in a real world.quote:
Originally posted by Wrigs13
I would always suggest starting at 1st level for newbies, the rules just get exponentially more complicated as you go up levels and asking newbies to create a 5th level character is just asking for trouble. 
Mid-level characters played by people with novice-level experience are a farce. 'Unearned Levels Are the PC's Worst Enemy', as Gary Gygax or Chris Thomasson wrote. |
| Jimbobx |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 20:11:21
I love DMing for first level. I remember as a player that the early levels used to flash past so quickly that I didn't really get any sense of achievement - A few goblin encounters and BAM! 3rd level. A supposed veteran.
As a DM I try and stretch these levels out as long as possible and make sure that leaving level 1 behind is a big deal.
Sucks to play in your campaign you might say. You might be right, but I do try and balance things out by throwing in a few more minor magical items than you might expect at those levels. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 19:11:35
I would always suggest starting at 1st level for newbies, the rules just get exponentially more complicated as you go up levels and asking newbies to create a 5th level character is just asking for trouble.
Once you have experienced players then 3rd is a good starting point, maybe that is just a left over from 2nd Ed AD&D, but it means the characters still have little or nothing in equipment, money or glory and it all still needs to be earned, but at least they don't die in the first goblin encounter. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 18:29:50
I totally feel you, raith.
I Actually have way less fun DMing for 1st levels, both due to their fragility, and because they seem to spend 1/3 of every game session resting.
In my current game, I had the PCs design 3rd level chars., then took them to 10th via narrative (i.e., they were recruited by a high-level group of adventurers as cohorts- the NPC's trained them and took them along into Vaasa on a few expeditions.) By the time the PC's actually picked up dice to play, they were 10th level (which they had to be to play CotSQ).
I've always felt that running low-level games is a different skill-set than running high-level games. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 09:41:17
Except for a couple of occasions when specific adventures where planned instead of campaigns i always start on 1st level. It is important for players to learn when to run like mad. And I would not be without gleefully threatening them with four goblins. The overly long and complicated backgrounds some give their characters should not get in the way of them being met by real threats of an early death in my opinion. The same goes for NPC's no matter how much I have put into their background and personality they die by the dice. Especially at 1st and 2nd level.
To me 1st to 10th level are the really fun levels. We are talking 2ed. here of course. After that the game becomes a bit boring and I have a tendency to convert the characters to a levelless system. Three orcs with bows should be a threat to any single characters. The Players Options book introduced critical hits that made the threats ( both to and for characters ) a bit less dependant on level, but unless there is only one or two players it becomes a bore.
|
| Sian |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 09:28:19
the groups i'm in usually starts somewhere between level 2 and level 3 ... simply due to 5 minute mages :P but i know several persons thinking that level 1 is the best level to start, though for people to do that i'd say that the characters should have a fairly intervening backgroundstory together (such as childhoodfriends in the local backwater hamlet or so) |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 03:07:45
Level 1 can work. I would suggest you remind the players that the characters are just starting their adventuring careers, so their backstories and motivations must be well-fleshed out, but not long-winded or, dare I say it - finished.
The most richly faceted characters are always the ones who are looking for something. That's the advantage of level 1 - you're rough, you don't know what you want, and every new power or discovery seems like magic. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 02:24:58
I just finished running SC for my two kids. They were already at 2nd level going into it, though, because I had done some other things with them first. They're so inexperienced, I felt like they needed the boost to survive, even though the creatures aren't particularly tough at first. I also made it a little easier by not giving the skeletons and twig blights their two attacks. Although I live in Florida, it still gets pretty cold outside at night, and that's where I'll be sleeping if I kill their characters. 
|
| Raith |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 00:18:16
Well to be clear, I've started out at level 3 or 2 before. I mean, even being level 2 gives somebody so very much more survivability than level 1. |
| scererar |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 00:17:51
I have always enjoyed starting 1st level parties. The weak are culled and those who make it are the characters that my players truly treasure. Additionally, we have a hall of heroes that characters who go out exceptionally well, get placed into to be remembered for ever after
Have not gotten into a higher level 4E campaign yet, but previous editions phased out at higher levels IMO. My groups usually would start over after level 10 or so. |
| Patapon |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 00:00:22
Basically, no, not at all, but I understand the meaning.
I generally like to build, with my players, their background WHEN they start their adventuring life, so level 1 is very natural for us.
I guess it depends on your DMing style; I like them to build their character from scratch, so they can actually really remember how it was before they got rich and famous (or despised and miserable :p)
As to start a long/dangerous campaign for 1st level (rather than letting them do whatever they feel and then design/choose a campaign), I prefer to smooth down the encounters a tiny little bit at start... and then take full interest of this generous "gift", when they're tougher and more optimistic.
Have fun with your next game ! ;) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 22 Feb 2009 : 23:59:08
Not me.... I've always, when I DM, started campaigns as 1st level. It's really rare for me as a DM to allow campaigns to start at higher levels. |
|
|
