PC survivability and starting at 1st level

[Akrasia]

Perhaps it's because I'm a grognard, but I feel that when running a 'real' D&D campaign (any edition), as opposed to a one-shot adventure or 'mini' campaign, it is best to start at first level. Starting at first level lets players see their PCs grow organically, as opposed to sprouting fully armed from the head of Zeus. In addition, IME, players (including myself) gain a greater sense of accomplishment when running a PC from level one onwards. And frankly starting at a higher level seems kind of cheesy (just my opinion, of course).

However, in this thread a common reason given by many posters for starting at level 2+ is the 'fragility' of 1st level PCs.

But why should people be overly concerned about the survivability of first level characters?

They're grunts, a dime a dozen in a world of evil dragons, vile assassins, and dark eldritch magic. In Basic/Expert D&D, and 1e AD&D, it was quite normal for players to have characters die off regularly during levels 1-3 (at least IME; I assume that this was also true for OD&D, although I never played it myself). The few, the strong, the cunning ... the lucky ... those were the ones who survived until higher levels. Once a PC made it to third level it was time to give him/her a name!

I wonder if this concern over PC 'survivability' reflects a generation shift, or perhaps a 'cultural' shift that occurred at some point during 2e (which I never played)? I don't know, but life during first level should be nasty, brutish, and (not infrequently) short. There is a real sense of accomplishment in keeping a PC alive long enough to no longer be afraid of three kobolds. If that means that Zontar the first, second, and third must fall before Zontar the fourth can achieve glory, then so be it!

Or at least that is how I see things these days ... after looking through my battered copy of 'Keep on the Borderlands' over a few pints of Guinness.

 

[bento]

IMHO its "getting to the good stuff." If you're GMing and the campaign is demon hunters or abberation hunters, or some such, players are going to have to have a couple of levels on them to start out or its major TPK.

With game groups having a high rate of failure these days (as in people leaving), a GM, and often players, don't have time to dink around with kobolds and orcs for a couple of months if they really just want to slay dragons.

On the other hand, if you're creating a homebrew campaign where the players will start from humble beginnings and eventually move to "mover and shaker" status, then I think it makes sense to start low. I typically start at a lower level for this reason or to teach new players how the game works and party tactics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I too confess to being a grognard.

As a GM, I'll start an adventure or campaign at whatever level I think is appropriate for the storyline I've come up with.

But I have no real prejudice towards "character survivability" on either side of the screen. As a GM, I leave the fate of my player's PCs in the hands of their decisions and die rolls- I only fudge rolls when I think "the story" would be better with a particular result (which could be pro or con the PCs).

As a player, I do try to keep my PCs alive, of course, but I'm not hung up on them. In the past couple of years, I've had several PCs die at 1st level...1 even died on the first swing of the 1st combat- his opponent maxed out a crit with a 2 handed sword, after which he bled out.

I design my PCs, not with survivability foremost in mind, but rather with optimizing the PC concept. That is to say, I make design choices that make the most sense for that PC to become all that he can be as a "person," not for game mechanical reasons.

OTOH, I do keep a catalog of old PCs, just in case I have a concept I think should be recycled, but despite my love of some of them, only a few concepts have ever been replayed. There's always another PC concept out there asking to be played...

 

[Mycanid]

Akrasia - I completely agree with you, although I'm CERTAINLY no grognard.

Oh, and by the way, it is nice to see someone from Eire posting in here.

 

[Quasqueton]

Do we coddle new Players?
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=119978

How did D&D survive its early years?
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=43333

Quasqueton

 

[Warehouse23]

Part of the survivability concern may stem from the DM side. Many DMs have a grand story put together for their PCs to be "run through." With constantly changing PCs, it is difficult to keep a campaign focused. It's the difference between wanting to write a novel and wanting to write a collection of short stories.

Part of the issue is also the power creep inherent to the system. There are may more rules options open to higher level PCs, meaning character building is more rewarding at higher levels.

 

[Agent Oracle]

people might kvetch about "survivability" but only for one reason: CR 1 fights are DULL!

(interestingly, Kvetch is in Fire fox 2.0's spell check feature)

Four PC's vs. ... a camel.

Four PC's vs. ... two human-sized zombies.

In the end, most encounters against ECL 1 parties are CR 2, or 2.x (give 'em something to cheer about!)

Four players Vs. a giant ant soldier! that sounds more fair!

Which is partially why so many 1st level characters die.

just my opinion, just something i'm throwing out there.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I tend to make builds that will live so that they can live to develop into characters. I would hate to have a character with a huge back-story die on the first swing.

 

[gizmo33]

There is a real sense of accomplishment in keeping a PC alive long enough to no longer be afraid of three kobolds. If that means that Zontar the first, second, and third must fall before Zontar the fourth can achieve glory, then so be it!

Some random thoughts:

Sometimes I think it's DMs more than players that are afraid of PC death. DMs build story-lines around characters often. DMs also sometimes want to run encounters against certain types of monsters. 1st level adventuring limits your options as to what elements you can use to challenge PCs. I also think Bento makes a good point about the short life-span of many campaigns.

I also think it's hard to introduce new PCs into an existing party. When everyone starts the game it's easy to build a back-story to explain the party. When someone's PC dies, the new PC to replace them typically shows up and says "hey, guys, can I join?" I think that contributes to DMs not wanting to kill characters.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I nearly always start at low levels, 1st or 2nd. IME, players make the characters they want to play for a long time, and even though they are 1st level now, the players have grand ideas as what the character will be when he grows up.

If that character dies, odds are the replacement is going to be pretty much the same thing. Since at low levels characters are more or less interchangeable, why go through the likely aggravation and delay? They aren't gaining or losing much as a character, but it can really screw up a session.

Note that 2nd is pretty much as high as I'd start, though. I do like the low-level sense of dread!