PC survivability and starting at 1st level

[Merkuri]

As a player, I like starting at 1st level. Although I've been interested in gaming for a while, I haven't been in too many long-running campaigns and I appreciate the opportunity to learn to use all of my lower-level abilities before I start gaining more powerful ones. This is especially true for spellcasters. If you start a campaign as a 7th level wizard and you've never played a wizard before, you'll probably have a hard time picking what spells to memorize and cast. If you've been playing since 1st level, you know how all of your lower level spells work already and it's just the new ones you have to get used to.

I never understood the argument that 2nd level characters are better because they have more "background" than 1st level characters. A 1st level character didn't spring up out of the ether. There's an assumption that you earned that 1st level through training and trials. A pre-1st level character is not really any fun to play, since they have basically no abilities or talents, but it's assumed you'll have done something to distinguish yourself. 1st level characters (in my opinion) are already a little better than the average person, so it's okay to say they've been around. Perhaps a full adventure is out of their league, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 1st level rogue has picked his share of pockets and the 1st level druid has put out plenty of forest fires. True, a 2nd level character will have more experiences under their belt, but does that little bit really matter all that much?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Blackleaf, no!

 

[Kishin]

Blackleaf, no!

5 points for that.

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!

Well, I'd like to think its a result of moving away from the idea of PCs as little more than interchangable sets of numbers on a sheet. Character death is all well and good, I personally just prefer to amount to more than the sound of someone crumpling a piece of paper, followed by the words 'Someone pass me 4d6?" Heroes deserve deaths that are at least slightly meaningful, in my opinion. Furthermore, if you're killing off at PCs at that rate, it tends to have some unfortunate side effects, such as a) Demoralizing the players and b) (And this is the one that irks me) Crushing their desire to add personality, depth or any sort of backstory to a character. Why waste time developing an identity for a character who has an overwhelmingly high chance of being reduced to hamburger 30 minutes into his first adventure? And characters without names? Completely anathema to me. To me, this sort of thinking is a relic from when D&D was more a very odd board game sans included board rather than what we now refer to as a roleplaying game.

In short, Ed_Laprade's post summed it up very well: After the fourth or fifth iteration of Bob the Thief, suspension of disbelief is pretty much a faded memory, and that's frankly not something I'm willing to accept, since suspension of disbelief is pretty much the foundation on which the game is built.

In the end, There are plenty of other ways to engender a sense of accomplishment in a party, and its not a difficult task to put fear and a sense of doom into a party, no matter what level play is taking place at

 

[Akrasia]

And characters without names? Completely anathema to me.

Ummm ... sarcasm, eh? (Sheesh, I even included a !)

...Heroes deserve deaths that are at least slightly meaningful, in my opinion...

But at first level PCs aren't heroes. They're redshirts hoping to get a yellow or blue top if they can.

A PC who is level 10 is a friggin' hero. Especially if the player needed luck, daring, and wit to get her there.

[And for the record -- not that anyone cares of course -- I'm not a 'killer DM' myself. In the four campaigns that I've run since 2001 (one 3e campaign that lasted over one year [avg. level = 8]; one 3.5 campaign that lasted 10 months [avg. level = 6]; one C&C campaign that lasted 3 months [avg. level = 2]; and one C&C PbP campaign that has dragged on forever [avg. level =2]), I've only had 3 PC deaths. If anything, I've suffered as a player far more than I've dealt out death as a DM.

However, I don't think that punches should be pulled, or that PCs should be boosted to 5th level for 'kewl powerz' simply in order to keep their precious, and no doubt uniquely fascinating, 'backstory' alive.

It goes without saying that YMMV, but since this is the internet I said it anyway.]

 

[wmasters]

I love running adventures for first level characters.

First level for me as a DM is about setting a tone of the campaign, getting familiar with the setting, meeting friends in the community, lots of RP with a splash of combat. The splash can be lethal, sure, but those 10hp below 0 often mean that it's not because your monsters often aren't doing more than 10pts of damage anyway.

Granted, PCs need to stabilise, but if there's a healer who's cautious and not in the front line then there's cure minors kicking around

1 character survives the fight with a potion of cure light wounds in the party and the clerics back up and your party functions again.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Hey, I love playing first level characters. My first level character died in eaqch of the last two sessions I played, and I love it. There has to be some level of risk and finality for the game to be fun, IMO. And not being all powerful means you really have to think about some tactics -- 1st level should teach that there are often better ways to solve problems by a frontal attack or a couple of skill sets. Surviving a tough, terrible dungeon through a smart use of mundane equipment like rope, oil, and 10' poles can be tremendously rewarding. Revisiting that from time to time can even be fun for higher level characters -- fond memories of In the Dungeons of the Slavelords, anti-magic zones, and rust monsters.

But then, I think the occasional rust monster is fun, so that probably makes me a grognard.

 

[Endur]

I like starting PCs at level one too.

However, I'm not sure how long I'll keep the PCs at level one.

I might level up the PCs after the first adventure/evening to level 2.

 

[The Shaman]

Backstories, grandiose undertakings, became more commonplace. Ramazalt wasn't just a farmboy who picked up a sword to decide to adventure, no, there was a grand purpose in his adventuring, he was trained by the Grandmaster Tralliath in the way of the sword, and when the dojo burned to the ground he swore revenge on the ones who did it, using adventuring as a means to an end other than gold and fortune. This became the norm.

Backstory is what a 10th level character accumulates, including when his mentor was killed when the character was 5th level and he swore revenge on the ones who did the dastardly deed.

At 1st level he was just some git with potential.

Here's to the gits!

 

[Kishin]

Ummm ... sarcasm, eh? (Sheesh, I even included a !)

This actually came up in someone else's post with an example, so I was more referring to that, not your direct comment, sorry.

But at first level PCs aren't heroes. They're redshirts hoping to get a yellow or blue top if they can.

Except they are, because the campaign is their story. They're the stars. At least, that's how I view it. I like to see my PCs as a bit more than "Captain, I've found som---*splat*" cannon fodder, but YMMV, as you said.

However, I don't think that punches should be pulled, or that PCs should be boosted to 5th level for 'kewl powerz' simply in order to keep their precious, and no doubt uniquely fascinating, 'backstory' alive.

I agree that punches shouldn't be pulled (at least without justification), but nor do you need to be going all Tomb of Horrors on a 1st level party from the moment they set out.

 

[Hussar]

I start camps from first level as well. But, now, my first level adventures rarely feature much in the way of combat. I use first level to build the background of the characters to the point where I don't even ask players to give me backgrounds anymore. What you do in 1st and 2nd level IS your PC's background. Kind of a Traveller approach where you can die during character creation. (I know, that's not accurate, but you get the point.)

1st level fightes boring? Bull!! Its the only level you play where you sweat dying from the first swing of combat until the last.

I'm with ThirdWizard on this one. I not so recently obliterated a 15th level monk in the first round of combat with a fire giant. Given that many creatures in 3e can do enough damage to kill a given PC of their CR in a single round (not likely, but possible) I'm not really sure about this criticism.