level up in the first adventure

[Phlebas]

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

Game = fun = good

Game = long hours of hard work = Job = hey where's my paycheck

when i play, casual mediocrity is sometimes merely an aspiration

 

[Phlebas]

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 do agree its important that players have time at each level to get familiar with their abilities and learn how to use them to the best advantage, and its very difficult to get the best out of a character if you're parachuted in at high levels or accelerated through the ranks, but to imply that levels are some way of scoring the player's ability doesn't really fit with my experience

YMMV of course

 

[S'mon]

I prefer around 3 sessions to reach 2nd level (going to ca 5 sessions to level later, and 6-7 sessions per level at high level), but the problem is that level 1 PCs are so vulnerable and not-heroic, and this hasn't really changed in 3e - in fact 3e 1st levellers are less likely to survive an ogre or a few orcs than were 1e 1st levellers. Apparently 4e will address this, which is good. A stop-gap measure would be to give 1st level PCs more hit points, maybe give them rolled hit dice + full CON score at 1st level, which would make them durable enough to survive a few sessions before levelling.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Hmm, that doesn't match my experience. Most adventures I've seen that practically guarantee the pcs will advance to level 2 seem a bit strained to me.

I think it's a lot better to use 2-3 smaller adventures to bring the pcs to level 2. Adventures that are more limited in scope and only cover a couple of (combat) encounters work a lot better at level one where your resources are _very_ restricted.

 

[delericho]

My preference is for character to hit 2nd level not only in the first adventure, but by the end of the first full session of play.

As another poster said, my preference is that they start at 1st level (you seem to get stronger characters that way), but actually being 1st level rather sucks at times. So, get them through it ASAP.

I don't fudge it, however. Characters can and do die in that first session (rather frequently, since it's a bit of meat-grinder generally), and I don't give out more XP than the party have 'earned'.

 

[rossik]

thank you all for the replys!

really, its a though time being a 1st level character, and since im talkink of new players to the game, the "firts level as a intro to the game" idea, fits the best for me.

for experienced players...well, they can do alot of adv. with lvl 1 characters

 

[Wik]

My preference is for character to hit 2nd level not only in the first adventure, but by the end of the first full session of play.

As another poster said, my preference is that they start at 1st level (you seem to get stronger characters that way), but actually being 1st level rather sucks at times. So, get them through it ASAP.

I don't fudge it, however. Characters can and do die in that first session (rather frequently, since it's a bit of meat-grinder generally), and I don't give out more XP than the party have 'earned'.

That's my experience, too. And many of the old Grognard's I've spoken to did the same thing. My dad, who used to be a pretty big D&D'er, even once told me:

"In the first session, the characters should gain a level, get a magical item, and beat a dangerous creature that's not just an orc". Which is something I still follow.

I take exception to the "Paizo is to blame for this mentality" comment of Reynard. Due to the nature of 3e itself, players gain a level in 13 encounters. Most adventures are going to be a fair amount of encounters - usually around 13. And, by the way, levelling isn't always EXPECTED in a Paizo adventure - it's a notice they put in (and something they build around) because the adventure writers have no clue how much XP the PCs had going into the adventure, so that it's likely they'll level up sometime during the adventure.

If memory serves, this same assumption was made in Dungeon's 2nd edition years, as well. And I know a lot of 1e adventures, by the Gygax himself, that made this same assumption - that PCs would level up during the adventure.

 

[DragonLancer]

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.

My preference (as DM) is a lot slower than most I guess. IMO there should 3-4 scenarios between each leveling. Doesn't always work that way, but hey.

As for 1st to 2nd, I would never allow it from the first adventure. Second, maybe.