Everyone starts at 1st level

[Ginnel]

I'm just wondering why everyone thinks characters need to be punished for dying?

In a roleplaying game where everyone is telling a story together is there no room for heroic sacrifices, risk taking and the like, where there is an amazingly good chance if not certainty of dying?

Why would you want to discourage these things from happening, the player is already losing a (hopefully) well loved character they've put a lot of time and effort into
*shrugs*

 

[Nifft]

I'm just wondering why everyone thinks characters need to be punished for dying?

Because victory is meaningless if defeat is insignificant.

In a roleplaying game where everyone is telling a story together is there no room for heroic sacrifices, risk taking and the like, where there is an amazingly good chance if not certainty of dying?

To create a venue where such heroism is meaningful.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Remathilis]

Because victory is meaningless if defeat is insignificant.

To create a venue where such heroism is meaningful.

Cheers, -- N

Kinda like some of those old Nintendo games; 3 lives, no continues. Yeah, guess how many of THOSE I garage-sold.

 

[Korgoth]

Anyways, I still don't see the point. What's the advantage of starting at 1st level, when the rest of the party is like 12th?

Well, that's how the game works (when I run it) and how the world works. There are hardly any people in the world with that kind of power. To get there, you have to earn it. As a player, that's part of your reward for successful play.

Sure, it's fun to be able to hit on a roll of '8' and do 12 points of damage in a shot. But that's not the point of the game, is it? So if Biff the Mighty bites the dust, what's the big deal? He died like a man (we hope... dragon's breath, disintegrate, 1000' fall... something cool) and we should all go out with such a bang. Or maybe he died fighting hobgoblins... not as exciting but still honorable. He died facing the enemy, right? He got to explore weird realms and do crazy things, and so will your next guy.

Adventurers are like rock stars. They live fast, die young and leave one heck of a crater when they go out.

 

[Hereticus]

Monster Barrel

One player is in the Monster Barrel. He runs the monsters (as handed to him by the GM). The GM is strictly a referee.

If a PC dies to a monster's attack, that PC's player spends the next session in the Monster Barrel, and the current MB player plays a new PC (or comes back from the dead).

I did this as a player and as a DM.

I had one player whose character died take over an Ogre Mage, then backstab the rest of the monsters during their ambush. He then appealed to the other characters (actually the players) to allow him join the group.

What the heck... it's only a game, so I went with it.

 

[Hereticus]

Everyone that comes to the game should have fun, if your starting someone at first when everyone else is higher in level, your basically penalizing them for being new to the game.

I don't really think that there's a way to make it fun for the low level guy either, practically every combat is an instant death situation for him.
So, not only does have to deal with the confusion of starting in a new campaign, but he also has to deal with being almost compleatly useless in combat.

This is the core point that must be addressed.

D&D is a game... it need not follow reality when reality opposes fun.

No DM has ever been complemented for a great game because they meticulously followed a rigid system of rules. Great DMs are recognized because all players enjoy the game, not just the few who are of higher levels.

 

[Hereticus]

Anyways, I still don't see the point. What's the advantage of starting at 1st level, when the rest of the party is like 12th?

Well, that's how the game works (when I run it) and how the world works. There are hardly any people in the world with that kind of power. To get there, you have to earn it. As a player, that's part of your reward for successful play.

When my company looses an employee (like an adventuring group), we try to replace that person with someone of approximately equal experience. We will not replace a 12th level engineer with someone fresh out of college.

That's how the world works.

Sure, it's fun to be able to hit on a roll of '8' and do 12 points of damage in a shot. But that's not the point of the game, is it?

It's no fun to miss on a 17 either when others are hitting on an 8.

And it's no fun to do 3 points of damage when others are doing 12 points.

The point of the game is to have fun, and few people find running a lower level character along with higher levels to be fun.

Yes, you are an exception, but do not expect it from the majority.

 

[Ariosto]

The point of it all originally had to do with the original meaning of "campaign", something quite different from today's common context of "THE party" engaged in "THE adventure". Like many such things, the approach may not work so well when transplanted out of its native environment. 4E is very alien to that; as the designers suggest, "the game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that the characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate".

For a lot of people, it has been (and continues to be) a lot of fun to play the game as originally conceived. It's a game of strategy more than a string of tactical set pieces. All sorts of aspects, from recovery of hit points and gaining of experience points to the dynamics among class capabilities, were fitted to that concept.

The basic principle you'll probably want to follow if trying "everyone starts at 1st level" with the newer game framework and a rules set designed for it is to reduce the significance of levels. Using old D&D, I found that the HP system from Arduin Vol. III served nicely. A male human fighter with constitution 14 got 35 HP (a female 36) at 1st level, going up +1 per level for 70 (or 71) at level 36.

With WotC-D&D, other level factors are more significant than they were in that context.

 

[Korgoth]

It's no fun to miss on a 17 either when others are hitting on an 8.

And it's no fun to do 3 points of damage when others are doing 12 points.

The point of the game is to have fun, and few people find running a lower level character along with higher levels to be fun.

Yes, you are an exception, but do not expect it from the majority.

"The majority". Great. Well, I guess I don't let the majority play in my campaign. Power gamers need not apply.

 

[Thanee]

Power gamers need not apply.

Have you read the forum rules?

Anyways...

If the way you play/master your campaign works for you and your group, that is great.

But you are simply not answering the question of this thread with it.

The "average campaign" in D&D is combat-focused.
The question in this thread is, whether it works despite a huge level-gap (which it does not, in my opinion).

The "problem" does not exist in the way you play, since you are completely sidestepping it by not running a game, where levels and such are that meaningful (apparantly) and where character ability is not as relevant as player ability.

Bye
Thanee