Death Spiral vs Starting at 1st Level - X-post from 'Death by Infelicitas'

[S'mon]

How does that happen? I mean, the world is geared for survival of 1st level. At first glance, that means that, say, 4th level and up are pretty much a cakewalk. Maybe a slow cakewalk, but a cakewalk, regardless. How does this end in a feeling of achievement?

"Geared for potential survival" =/= "Will survive".

In my Pathfinder Beginner Box game recently, the most experienced PC, Kyra, was 3rd level, nearly 4th, when she bled out to a goblin arrow. The two 3rd level PCs had been ambushed by two regular goblins with shortbows, and got very unlucky - I don't use critical hit confirmation roll, Kyra took a crit between the shoulderblades and her companion Cam had no healing ability or potions. It was the second dead PC that day; the 10d4 damage (save twice for half) gas trap in the Dark Chateau had already done for their 2nd level companion. Motto: Don't bash Zagyg's spellbook chest.

There are areas of greater and lesser danger in the world. There are many areas suitable for 1st level adventuring, and rare areas that will test high level PCs. There are trolls in the marsh, you've probably heard of them, but you probably want to be at least 6th level before you go take them on. There's a dragon up on Serpent Ridge. Maybe you can take Black Fang at 1st level - maybe not.

 

[S'mon]

I've run campaigns like this (1e) and have played in them as well (1e, equivalent 'start over' in other game systems).

I found a few distinct behaviours I didn't like.

1) The more the characters achieve, the less risk the players are comfortable with. This makes sense if you think about it. The greater the achievement, the more is at risk anytime the character is threatened. Under 1e, it is possible to continue advancing infinitely fighting basic orcs -- it gets really slow, but advancement continues. So characters tend to stay at a set risk level until the players gets bored, a change in the game world changes the risk level, or, least frequently, the player decides to try somethng harder.

2) If the level split gets large, say 5+ levels (one game had a 11+ level difference between new characters and the lowest established character with a 15+ level difference from new to top) then new character survival becomes a lottery: does anything try to attack him -- yes; you lose, roll a new character, no; you win, collect xp! And the new character have almost nothing to offer in terms of ability other than as carrying capacity and chaff in combat. The gain in levels is slow enough that a character requires multiple lottery wins with zero losses to catch up to the point where survability stops being random.

I agree with both your points - Upper_Krust's 117th level PC Thrin is the most careful, paranoid guy you'll ever see.
On the second point, yes I agree that 4-5 levels is around the most where PCs can reasonably adventure together. At above a 4 levels' gap, players with high level PCs need to create new low level PCs to adventure alongside the other players' low level PCs - as it says in eg the Rules Cyclopedia. In my Pathfinder Beginner Box-based game there is a level cap at E10, and likewise my Labyrinth Lord game effectively caps ca 10th-14th.
I have not found that "The gain in levels is slow enough that a character requires multiple lottery wins with zero losses to catch up to the point where survability stops being random" though. Depending on what you count as 'random'.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, lose level on death is a different sort of death spiral, but a similar dynamic - the worse you do, the worse you do.

A meta death spiral, if you will.

Even if the math all worked out, I'd be sceptical and I think my players would be sceptical of openly mixing characters of varying level--depending on how far apart they are, of course. And I know that there are rules (at least in 3e and later iterations; I don't remember what earlier versions of D&D did) where the higher level you are, the less XP you get for killing things; which helps to keep that disparity somewhat flat by making lower level characters rather quickly start to catch up to the higher level characters who are significantly handicapped by slowed XP. However, that's a rule that we long since jettisoned as more trouble that it's worth to do that math, so we'd either have to reinstitute it, or come up with an easier handwavey approximation of it, I think.

I'd prefer it in a system that had a "flatter" interpretation on what it means to level up. Old School Hack, for instance? I'd do this in a heartbeat--no hesitation. With D&D of any stripe (maybe E6 excepted), I admit that I'd have a hard time accepting the idea.

 

[S'mon]

I think a character dying is punishment enough. Having them create a new character at a lower level is punishing them a second time and quite lame.

It's an old-school idea that needs to die.

"All PCs must always be the same level" is a stupid, lame idea that needs to die.

References to "punishing players" also are lame, and need to die. Players play what they want to play. My groups where PCs start at 1st play those games because they like them. My groups where PCs are all the same level play those games because they like them, too.

 

[S'mon]

I'd prefer it in a system that had a "flatter" interpretation on what it means to level up. Old School Hack, for instance? I'd do this in a heartbeat--no hesitation. With D&D of any stripe (maybe E6 excepted), I admit that I'd have a hard time accepting the idea.

I started doing it in February with my Pathfinder Beginner Box game; by default PBB only goes to 5th level. Then after I played Labyrinth Lord in July I started running a Labyrinth Lord game with the same rule - though LL allows you to take a henchman as replacement PC, and they often have earned XP already.

 

[Umbran]

"Geared for potential survival" =/= "Will survive".

You said the environment was "tailored to survival at 1st level". Specifically, in the context of how those characters can expect to survive, even if they are traveling around with higher level characters!

Sorry, but I took from that a rather stronger statement than "geared for potential survival". If I buy a tailored suit, I expect that it darned well *will* fit. In a tailored environment, I expect survival is not just potential, but downright likely.

... rare areas that will test high level PCs. There are trolls in the marsh, you've probably heard of them, but you probably want to be at least 6th level before you go take them on. There's a dragon up on Serpent Ridge. Maybe you can take Black Fang at 1st level - maybe not.

Ah. That does not at all sound to me like a tailored environment - that's an environment where I'm picking things off the rack, and if I pick the wrong thing, that's my own fault. Standard sandbox.

Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that in play. But it doesn't really match the previous description.

I also don't see how you're managing to present things that are challenging to 4th and higher level characters that are still interesting but survivable for 1st. I'm not claiming it cannot be done, just that I don't yet see how you do it from what you've said.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with both your points - Upper_Krust's 117th level PC Thrin is the most careful, paranoid guy you'll ever see.
On the second point, yes I agree that 4-5 levels is around the most where PCs can reasonably adventure together. At above a 4 levels' gap, players with high level PCs need to create new low level PCs to adventure alongside the other players' low level PCs - as it says in eg the Rules Cyclopedia. In my Pathfinder Beginner Box-based game there is a level cap at E10, and likewise my Labyrinth Lord game effectively caps ca 10th-14th.
I have not found that "The gain in levels is slow enough that a character requires multiple lottery wins with zero losses to catch up to the point where survability stops being random" though. Depending on what you count as 'random'.

I was thinking of the larger splits in character levels. I agree in 1e a 4-5 level difference is generally survivable and depending on the rules in use for training, not too onerous.

In the 11+ level gap campaign I referenced, I was one of four players with a 1st level character. One of the 1st lvl characters didn't make it to the adventure site: a random encounter with Stone Giants had him die to thrown boulders the first round. Another died at the adventure site because the encounters targeted them. The two survivors ended up gaining a level, but one died before training could occur. The one that made 2nd level died on the next adventure.

It was harsh until the low-levels managed to get through a few encounters with luck to hit 2nd and then banded together to handle some much lower threats themselves that got them to 3rd. Extremely careful play had most of them hit 4th at which point individual encounters weren't automatically lethal if the character was targeted. Area effect abilities were still a grave threat though ("A fireball bursts in the centre of the group -- 56 damage, save for 28! Um, I only have 14 so I guess I'm toast again").

 

[Desdichado]

"All PCs must always be the same level" is a stupid, lame idea that needs to die.

At least he had a reason for what he said. Mirroring the expression back to him with a different playstyle preference doesn't really follow. Or necessarily make any sense.

References to "punishing players" also are lame, and need to die. Players play what they want to play. My groups where PCs start at 1st play those games because they like them. My groups where PCs are all the same level play those games because they like them, too.

This I definitely agree with. The notion of "punishing" players because bad things happen to their PCs doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. I don't know how many of you read books or watch movies or TV shows or otherwise engage in entertainment where the goings-on of fictional characters is at the heart of the entertainment. If so, the notion that bad things happening to the characters being "punishment" doesn't make any sense. If bad things didn't happen to the characters, it would be more boring than dirt. Bad things happening to characters, and then finding out what they do about them is the very essence of entertainment. I've found that this is no less true for PCs in a game than it is for characters in a novel or a movie.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Obviously this does not allow for Adventure Paths, but for sandbox play IME 'start at 1st level' works brilliantly:

The biggest issue I'd highlight here is the potential goofiness in the narrative.

Adding a PC to the group is generally hard to justify in-game -- a good friend and partner has just died, so you go to the local pub/guardhouse/bounty hall and recruit someone roughly similar? And only one person rather than deciding that actually having a group of 10 people would be nice rather than 4? And whether you go with "lose a level" or "start at 1st level" as your penalty, it also implies that the group specifically settles for exactly one person who is generally less useful than the guy that just died.

It's not insurmountable, but it's a big part of why my group generally tries to avoid the whole thing.

 

[Agamon]

I'm just starting my ACKS game and we'll be playing this way. The game has a rule that is you if you blow money on things that don't really help your PC, 90% of it's value becomes XP for your next PC. And money can be important in ACKS, so it's not an easy choice either. You can also take over a henchman, as in LL.

Being raised from the dead in the ACKS involves a roll on a chart that may bring you back not quite the same as before you died, or not at all, and the more you get raised the worse it gets.

Death needs to be something to be concerned about, in my opinion. I had a player play with 11 different PCs when I ran RttToEE a few years back. He just kept dying and making a new PC (my rule was -1 level to the lowest level PC alive in the party). I don't think he cared that he kept dying, it just let him make new PCs.

I think the key to this line of thought is how you play. The OSR movement isn't just about player agency or simpler rule systems. How the players approach each encounter is important, as well. In my 3e games, if a monster was met, 90% of the time it was fight time.

But not every encounter in a sandbox game should be assumed to come to a fight. Especially when a 1st level party is doing some wildness exploring and a dragon flies by. They probably don't want to engage unless they're suicidal.

I'm making sure my players understand that the game is about exploration and survival, not kicking the ass of everything they come across. Live to fight another day, and all that.