Would 1st-level Discourage You From Playing?

[Dice4Hire]

For me it would depend on the system I were playing, but overall, it would be a little discouraging, especially in 3.5. I played 3.5 a lot at 1st level, and it is not all that fun, really. I like a few more options, and mages shooting crossbows is not fun for me.

4E, on the other hand, is fine at 1st level.

 

[Umbran]

As a player and a GM, I prefer to start a new campaign at 1st level (or as starting characters, for games without levels). So, no problem there at all.

If I'm joining a campaign already in progress, I don't mind coming in as slightly less powerful than the rest of the PCs. But if it is far enough behind that my character can't pull his own weight, or is just very likely to die because he can't handle what the GM is throwing at the party, then there is a problem.

So, if the rest of the party is 12th level, and you say I have to start as 1st, I'm likely to decline, as the first area-effect spell damage tossed at the rest of the party is apt to just kill my character outright, so why bother.

 

[Diamond Cross]

If it was a new campaign, no, I wouldn't mind starting at first level.

If it was an old campaign, the it all depends on the average party level. If the party's level is fifteenth, then I'd be very discouraged to run a first level character if the average party was say 15th. Mostly because the survival factor is extremely low for a first level character in such a high level campaign.

Starting at a lower level, such as say four levels lower, would be better, but I'd much prefer to have a new character at an equal level.

But to tell you the truth, I prefer to start my characters at first level. I find I'm more attached to a character if I've developed him from first level than if I've just started out at any other assigned level.

 

[airwalkrr]

I didn't want to tarnish the poll with my own opinion, but now that there are some replies between my original post and it I will say that I love starting at 1st-level and believe it is an almost necessary part of the RPG experience. I require new players to my campaigns begin at 1st-level because of that. I find ways to make sure they are contributing and enjoying their time, and I wouldn't allow it with gross inequities in character level between new and existing players, but I find ways to work around that so a new player to an established campaign can have a good time leveling up without feeling outclassed by the other players. One of those ways is by having the other players play new characters as well. I love cohorts and followers for this purpose. It gives existing players a chance to try out new types of characters and it gives new players a way to enter the game at an even pace.

 

[Stormonu]

I have no problem with entering or starting a game at 1st level, though generally for gorups I've already played a campaign with, I usually skip 1st level.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

Would making a 1st-level character discourage you from playing in a new campaign? And how likely would it be to discourage you?

The scenario: You are joining a new group for the first time. Maybe the game is ongoing, maybe it isn't. If it's a new campaign the GM is starting everyone at 1st-level. If it is an ongoing campaign, existing players will be playing alternate characters (also at 1st-level) until you and any other new players have attained enough power, points, or levels to work with existing characters. Would the fact that you have to start at 1st-level play a part in your decision to continue playing with that group?

If everyone else was starting at first level I'd have no problem with it. If I'm being made to play at first level when everyone else is higher level (it doesn't matter if it's level 2 or 22) then I would have an issue with that.

 

[Umbran]

I will say that I love starting at 1st-level and believe it is an almost necessary part of the RPG experience.

I think that's a bit overstated.

Most games out there don't have "levels" as a game concept. Several of them have a variety of different power levels at which a party can reasonably start. Superhero games are especially know for this.

And, even in D&D, "1st level" doesn't mean a huge amount, as you can see if you look at what it means to be such a character over several editions. The play experience at 1st level in 4e is more like that of 3rd level in 1e.

So, not, it isn't necessary. It is, however, convenient for many things.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I didn't want to tarnish the poll with my own opinion, but now that there are some replies between my original post and it I will say that I love starting at 1st-level and believe it is an almost necessary part of the RPG experience.

... To which I might respond:

It's a necessary part of the RPG experience, which I've already experienced an awful lot. I've played campaigns and adventures starting from 1st-level multiple dozens of times, and we usually change things up once we get to around 6th- to 7th-level. I've never played a 20th-level character, under any version of D&D. (I'd like to, someday, but chances are this isn't the one, especially if we're starting over fresh ... again). Do we really need to kobold stomp through the Caves of Mediocre Locks again?

I mean, sure, start at first level if you want to, but I don't see it as some sort of commandment.

 

[TerraDave]

If everyone else was starting at first level I'd have no problem with it. If I'm being made to play at first level when everyone else is higher level (it doesn't matter if it's level 2 or 22) then I would have an issue with that.

I have brought in a good number of new players into existing campaings over the years, whose level is greater then one but less then the existing players. I have gotten a little grumbling, but do it so that they can play a less complicated charecter and get use to it.

Any one else see this as a problem?

 

[the Jester]

To be honest, not starting a new campaign at 1st level is a huge turn-off to me.

There have only ever been a couple of campaigns that I've played in that have started above level 1, such as a 3e epic game that started at 21st, but those were all run by dms that I knew and liked the style of (and were all exceptions to the norm).