Would 1st-level Discourage You From Playing?

[howandwhy99]

I'm surprised at the results. I don't think "1st level" means anything anyways, if everyone starts off at a higher level. "Everyone starts at 15th", then that is effectively 1st.

We play where all new PCs begin at 1st level. Did your character die? become a thrall? lost to alignment shift?, then start a new one at 1st level, 0 XP. It's important to note though that a lost character of any kind can always be brought back through play, even if that play is under a new PC. Plus, class level is not power level or character level in our game, so 1st level does not fully determine how numerically powerful you are in overcoming challenges. Mechanical influence is always in flux.

 

[SSquirrel]

Count me in the category of "too many low level campaigns, let's do something different". The last time I played 3.5 I was in a year and a half long campaign where one of the players insisted that we "would never really know our characters if we started at a higher level". I questioned his creativity to come up w/a couple paragraphs of backstory, but he convinced our eager actor DM to start at first anyway. Skip to 18 months later when we still aren't even LEVEL THREE after almost weekly play.

If it's a 3.x game (and for some reason I agreed to play) and we will have steady advancement, 1st level is all right. 4E is ok to start at the beginning. I wouldn't want to start that low in any prior editions tho and honestly would rather play higher level content. Too many years of "Well the campaign was fun for awhile, but interest trickled off or the GM got bored, so now we'll play this" and we never even got past 6th or 7th. We typically started 2E games at 5th level Wizard XP so we didn't feel like total schlubs.

I just started 2 different 4E games. One with a group that is playing 1st level and one that is playing 8th level Dark Sun. Now granted, DS is one of my favorite settings so it has bias, but that game is way more interesting. Then again, that group is also a lot more focused and didn't waste the first hour and a half of a 3 1/2 hr session before we actually got started. Yeah, everyone had 3 weeks advance to make characters and 2 guys showed up w/incomplete characters, one of that pair was late on top of it.

 

[Jasperak]

NM, misread the original conditions of the OP. In general as long as my character has some semblance of parity with the rest of the party, I am fine with starting at 1st-level.

 

[Henry]

Given the circumstances described in the original post, it wouldn't influence my decision one way or another. If everyone else was a much higher level, and I was starting as 1st level, I'd find a reason to play in another campaign, or (depending on situation) a different group.

 

[drothgery]

Assuming everyone is first level (or 2nd), it's not a deal-breaker, and 4e or SWSE there's nothing wrong with first level at all (you aren't extremely fragile, and have at least a few cool abilities that are within the major theme of your class). But I'm not a big fan of very low level play (1st-3rd level) in classic d20 system games or AD&D / retro-clones.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I find that 4e adds an additional incentive to start at first level - unless you've played that class before, you're going to need time to get to know your powers.

 

[jonesy]

We play where all new PCs begin at 1st level. Did your character die? become a thrall? lost to alignment shift?, then start a new one at 1st level, 0 XP. It's important to note though that a lost character of any kind can always be brought back through play, even if that play is under a new PC. Plus, class level is not power level or character level in our game, so 1st level does not fully determine how numerically powerful you are in overcoming challenges. Mechanical influence is always in flux.

So why say that they always start at level 1, if that means so little to you? And if it's neither character level nor power level, what is it? In other words, what do you mean when you say 'level 1'?

 

[howandwhy99]

So why say that they always start at level 1, if that means so little to you? And if it's neither character level nor power level, what is it? In other words, what do you mean when you say 'level 1'?

I'm saying starting level is effectively level 1 in a level-based game. But if a game tells the players what the powers are for each level, then it may have further context. And in regards to my own game, starting level refers to class level.

 

[jonesy]

...class level is not power level or character level in our game...

...starting level is effectively level 1 in a level-based game....in regards to my own game, starting level refers to class level.

I think I have a headache.

 

[Camelot]

Unless it is a one-shot, I would definitely prefer starting at 1st level. I like to feel that my character has actually been through the toils to get to a higher level instead of simply being created already having lots of power. It's also good for a completely new group, because you have less to deal with and so you can get used to a new character and new allies.

However, if I'm a DM and I'm already running an ongoing campaign, and we've reached a higher level, and a new player wants to join, I'd have them bring in a character of an equal level to the PCs instead of starting a whole new game.