Akrasia
Procrastinator
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.
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.
