level up in the first adventure

[rossik]

what do you think of a first adventure, with people new to the game, that you dont pass from level 1 to level 2?

my experience shows me that they normaly get a little upset, at least in the first adventure.

 

[Reynard]

The problem lies in selling levelling as a major component of the fun and reward for playing the game. Really, I blame Paizo for this. While the adventures in Dungeon were usually very good, they all were built around the idea that the adventure itself would net the PCs enough XP to rise in level. Every adventure, at every level. Prior to 3E, there was never an assumption that an adventure = a level. Advancement was slower and other rewards -- most notably the act of sitting down and playing itself -- were emphasized.

There are lots of reasons why fast levelling is inconsistent with D&D as it was orginally designed, not the least of which is that slower levelling gives players a chance to really understand and make good use of their current level's abilities. that being said, when you are talking first level characters for new players, letting them feel accomplished by hitting level 2 after saving the merchant's daughter from the goblin bandits or whatever is probably a good thing. But adventure #2 should not get them to level 3, else you run into the problem of players needing to level every session and focusing on that to the detriment of playing.

I think a good benchmark is a number of adventures -- not sessions -- per level, per level: i.e. 1 for 1st to 2nd level, 2 for 2n to 3rd level...10 for 10th to 11th level. That of course assumes a long term campaign, and by long term I mean "weekly for years".

 

[kenobi65]

While I generally like having PCs start at 1st level, being 1st level kind of stinks, and I don't like to make players sit there at 1st level for very long. Thus, I'm a strong proponent in getting them to 2nd level ASAP. Leveling after making 2nd can slow down, but that first jump helps survivability, and, IMO, playability, quite a bit.

 

[ivocaliban]

As a DM I've learned to fudge this one. First level characters who survive the adventure without making huge blunders (i.e. Paladins who slaughter everyone at the tavern just for kicks) automatically advance to the second level. In fact, I try to make the first level "adventure" a prologue of sorts where numerical xp doesn't really play into it so much. The idea being that by the time the first adventure is over everyone is starting out fresh as a second level character. Then the real fun begins.

 

[Hairfoot]

Prior to 3E, there was never an assumption that an adventure = a level. Advancement was slower and other rewards -- most notably the act of sitting down and playing itself -- were emphasized.

There are lots of reasons why fast levelling is inconsistent with D&D as it was orginally designed, not the least of which is that slower levelling gives players a chance to really understand and make good use of their current level's abilities.

Wearing my grognard's hat, I agree completely, and try to run campaigns that way.

Hat off, frequent gratification is the default mode of hobby games these days, whether it's on a computer or at a table. For new players, a couple of quick levels is good bait.

 

[T. Foster]

IMO it should take surviving through around 4 sessions for a character to gain 2nd level, and this should feel like a significant accomplishment to the player (especially since he's likely had a false start or two (or twenty) of characters who didn't make it, including some who may have come tantalizingly close). I don't like the idea of an assumed rate of progression and that implies that all a player has to do is show up consistently and he'll eventually get a medium/high level character. I prefer the notion that many (casual or mediocre) players will never get a character to 2nd level, even more will never get a character above 3rd or 4th level, and only the best (or luckiest, or, most likely both) players will ever have high-level characters achieved through actual play. To me, having a character of 7th-8th level should be a sign that 1) you've been playing this character regularly for a year or more (assuming weekly to bi-weekly play), and 2) you're really good -- at tactics, problem-solving, negotiation, effective teamwork, outside-the-box thinking, risk assessment (knowing when to run away), etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I like beginning PCs to have a good chance to make 2nd level by the end of the first adventure (note that this doesn't mean the first session). As DM, I'll make sure there are enough XP points (in monsters, treasure, etc) available. However, if the PCs miss some, they're out-of-luck; I don't advance them automatically.

After a fairly rapid advance to 2nd level, over the course of several sessions, I like for things to slow down.

 

[Phlebas]

............
In fact, I try to make the first level "adventure" a prologue of sorts where numerical xp doesn't really play into it so much. The idea being that by the time the first adventure is over everyone is starting out fresh as a second level character. Then the real fun begins.

1st level = prologue works for me too. as a lot of people have said before, survivability at the lowest level can be an issue so it makes sense to treat it as a special case.

 

[cougent]

Personally I would tend to fudge (as DM) more on the survivability than the XP. Yes the 1st lvl wizard with 4 hp has a tough time, but does the 2nd lvl wizard with 5 hp really have it any better? Or the 3rd with 7 hp? Maybe they miraculously find 3 CLW potions instead of 1 in that treasure when 2 PC's are comatose and the fighter is down to 1 hp, hey it could happen.

 

[ivocaliban]

IMO it should take surviving through around 4 sessions for a character to gain 2nd level, and this should feel like a significant accomplishment to the player (especially since he's likely had a false start or two (or twenty) of characters who didn't make it, including some who may have come tantalizingly close). I don't like the idea of an assumed rate of progression and that implies that all a player has to do is show up consistently and he'll eventually get a medium/high level character. I prefer the notion that many (casual or mediocre) players will never get a character to 2nd level, even more will never get a character above 3rd or 4th level, and only the best (or luckiest, or, most likely both) players will ever have high-level characters achieved through actual play. To me, having a character of 7th-8th level should be a sign that 1) you've been playing this character regularly for a year or more (assuming weekly to bi-weekly play), and 2) you're really good -- at tactics, problem-solving, negotiation, effective teamwork, outside-the-box thinking, risk assessment (knowing when to run away), etc.

I've never liked the idea of D&D being for elite strategists. I'm all for casual mediocrity, thanks.