Everyone starts at 1st level

[Remathilis]

You don't know what you missed.

In those days a campaign was more than a series of adventures. Players would often play 6 or 7 days a week. The main game would be on one night, and on others the dm would run one or more players through side adventures, there were several ongoing plots running at once, and people often ran several characters in the same campaign. A few shorter adventures on off nights and pcs were close to the same level as the veteran pcs. Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.

See, this isn't a edition-based point; I could do this same thing in any edition, but I'll compare experiences.

I played in a group in HS where there were 5 of us, everyone ran a game and everyone played in everyone elses game. We played as often as school/homework/jobs would let us. Our games very very story intensive and role-play intensive; NPCs to meet, plots to foil, places to explore. We also didn't do a lot of pointless combat either and the bulk of our XP was story-reward. Battles were EPIC insofar as if we were going to have a fight, it was a plot-related battle or an occasional goons-come-to-battle you moment. No random encounters here! Oh, and there was the occasional module for gold, magic, and some XP mining.

But I don't think what you described is what I "missed". There are a lot of good things I recall carried from 2nd to 3rd and even into 4th (but someone 4e is mutating them, and I don't know why. That's another thread.) They carried in Star Wars and M&M and even our brief stint in Vampire. I loved my PCs, I can tell you everything about my handle's namesake not because he was the 24th elven thief I rolled up but because he was the first!

Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.

 

[Korgoth]

Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.

I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.

It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed, worked or was fun in the first place. It's like people doubting that the moon landings ever happened... it depresses me because we've actually lost so much capability in space exploration that people now doubt we ever had it in the first place.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.

I imagine that's so to a degree. If it's very different from one's expectations, then an old-style campaign on one hand -- or an "adventure path" on the other -- might be very hard to appreciate. Logistical factors have shaped different approaches to D&D, quite apart from any pre-existing strong preferences. As Mallus observed, by the second half of the '80s, one might never encounter anything but the kind of setup in which wide disparities among character levels are a drag even if one would not otherwise mind rolling up Remathilis IV.

The continuity of characters from campaign to campaign seems another custom that has declined, introducing in the long run more occasions for generating new ones (at whatever level the host campaign rules stipulate). More rapid level advancement might contribute to that. It used to be par for the course (from what I saw) for folks with 2 years plus of experience to have at least one character in the 10th to 14th level range, regardless of the spread in a whole "stable". (Rarely, one might have nothing closer than 8th or 9th, or a multi-class equivalent, but that was usually workable; I don't remember anyone with only 7th or less and 15th+.)

Nowadays, I often hear of people "rebooting" campaigns after two years or less.

Although I agree with the conventional wisdom that starting at first level is an invaluable experience for a player new to D&D, I don't see a lot of point in repeating that many times unless one happens to prefer play at that level (which some people do). One cannot really lose one's virginity more than once, and the tendency to recycle now-familiar elements and situations can lead to the game's becoming very stereotyped. To my mind, the elements of mystery, discovery and unpredictability are key aspects of play thus easily lost. Even without introducing new monsters and magic, the range of "old standards" usable increases along with character level and thereby provides a wider variety of permutations to explore.

 

[Ariosto]

Korgoth: I have thought just those things myself.

(If you missed it in theatrical release, check out the 2007 documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon" on DVD.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters... After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign"

- Gary Gygax, powergamer

 

[Ariosto]

That (from DMG p. 111) is a fine compliment to the DMG quote I posted earlier! http://www.enworld.org/forum/4826702-post49.html
Again, note the emphasis on development of players' experience.

 

[Ariosto]

The suggestion of giving a new (to the campaign) but experienced (at the game) player a character of roughly average level -- perhaps in a four-level spread generated with an averaging die -- does not, I think, necessarily apply to replacing a casualty when one has been in the campaign for some time. More properly (to my thinking), it is the player's responsibility to cultivate henchmen as backups. He who neglects that part of skilled play (perhaps starting by treating charisma as a "dump stat") should reap what he has sown. I would not allow such a slacker to start a replacement at a higher level than that determined by the formula for NPC henchmen at DMG page 175, or that of the lowest-level active non-henchman PC, whichever is lower.

 

[coyote6]

I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.

It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed [snip]

FWIW, I first played AD&D in the late '70s, when I was a kid; I then found friends in 5th and 6th grades to play Basic D&D with, then later a larger rotating group at a library that we played AD&D with -- and I don't think we ever played the way you described. I don't know anyone (aside from via the Internet) who did play that way.

Your play experiences were similar to Ariosto's; mine were more like Mallus's. There isn't, wasn't, and never will be one way to play D&D. So it's not that something's been lost, or changed; it's just different experiences, and the different styles that those experiences engender.

 

[Hereticus]

Here's some tables of starting points for 1st level characters that are joining higher level parties:

Party is 3 levels higher:
1: Wealthy - you start with starting gold multiplied by 200

Party is 4-6 levels higher:
1: Rich Nobility - you are part of the nobility for a major region and part of the highest social caste. You can call in favors from a variety of people and start with a credit up to 20,000 gold.

Party is 7-10 levels higher:
1: Artifact - you start with an artifact, which operates but is not complete (it will either stop working or is not at full power).

As one of the higher level characters, my first thought would be regret at sharing the looted treasure and experience with a lower level fodder who did not pull their own weight in battle.

My second thought would be that since the lower level fodder was wealthy, that I was looking forward to splitting its stuff when it died.

D&D is a game, and all players should be treated equally.

 

[Mallus]

I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.

I have the opposite experience: I keep hearing about a definitive D&D experience that bears no resemblance to anything I've encountered. Also, one man's codswallop is another man's amusing codswallop.

It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed...

You probably shouldn't imply that play styles that differ from your lack 'intellectual challenge'.