PC survivability and starting at 1st level

[Glyfair]

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.

I disagree. They are better off than 90% or more of the population (about the percentage that are low level commoners). Even in your core D&D game, 1st level characters start off much better than "grunts."

However, my age is showing when I agree with starting at 1st level and disagree about survivability. You guys who have only played 3rd edition (and, to a lesser extent, 2nd) have it easy. In the AD&D days you didn't start with maximum hit points. In D&D clerics didn't have spells until 2nd level. 1st level casters could cast 1 spell per day, period. In later AD&D they might be able to memorize a few cantrips instead of a 1st level spell.

You guys have it easy and you are complaining about survivability. Maybe it's just a more modern mindset of charge in and attack everything

 

[Glyfair]

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.

You do have a point. It's very hard to have a coherent story and plots when the characters are constantly rotating. In the early days it might have been more acceptable (although it wasn't in the circles I ran in), but that I suspect was because players weren't fanatical about not metagaming (in this case I mean their new characters often knew what their old characters did).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

ah i got it.


Q: Why did the low level high powered character cross the road?
A: He didn’t have a choice, but he manage to make it across anyhow.

 

[Sejs]

You know, to be honest, I never really had much of a problem surviving as a 1st level character.

I think a lot of it comes down to: don't swagger about with your er.. bravado swinging in the wind like you're a hero, because buddy you ain't.

Stack advantages. Engage from distance if possible with ranged weapons. Use terrain to the best of your ability. Never go anywhere alone. Work as a team. Quit while you're ahead. Know early on when to run the hell away. Be a sneaky, underhanded bastard. Never give the other guy an inch if you can in any way prevent it. Never take a fight with poor odds - if they're bad, leave.

Adventure like a miser, basically.

 

[Darkness]

... [1st level PCs are] redshirts hoping to get a yellow or blue top if they can. ...

That's how I see it as well. It's why I have the PCs start at level 6 for the most part. Well, that, and because I simply don't enjoy DMing D&D adventures at the lowest levels any more. (For the most part. Exceptions are rare but do exist.)

To each his own, though.

 

[ChristianW]

I agree with the original poster. In my 1e campaigns, no one wanted to play a Magic User. Every time someone attempted the AC 10, 1 spell, 4 hit point death wish, it ended poorly. Eventually, one player managed to get a Magic User to 8th level and it was awesome. His character tore the bad guys up with his spells, as it should be. In my mind, Magic Users deserved to dominate settings at high levels because getting them to that point was darn near impossible.

And now, if you please, I'd like to share a little poster I made....

 

[Akrasia]

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!

I agree. In the last long-ish camaign that I DM'ed (lasting roughly 10 months) I wrote up backstories for the PCs.

However, those backstories had little impact on the campaign as it evolved. Rather it was what the PCs did during the adventures that led to further adventures, goals, stories, etc.

My earlier 'old school' approach was best. A lesson learned.

 

[Vymair]

For any campaign, I like to start the characters at first. Then they grow together, learn to fight together and fully explore their capabilities. My experiences with group of higher level characters thrown together is that people use sub-optimal strategies since they really don't know how to mesh together well.

 

[PallidPatience]

Honestly, some of the responses here, while fun for their posters, wouldn't be fun for me.

I don't have "Kool Powerz" and "Leet Skillz" in real life that, in any way, compare to what higher level characters can do. I don't role-play to play me (I can just wake up every morning for that). I role-play to play people who have a major, lasting impact in their worlds (and who can do stuff that I can't).

I also don't think that teaching someone not to care when their character dies is the best way. Teaching someone not to get overly depressed over it is one thing, but what point is there in playing a game in which there is no investment? I'm not going to spend time doing something that means nothing to me unless I'm getting paid (that's called a job ).

 

[Wraith Form]

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

Because, in the case of these particular first level characters--they're your players. As a DM, I'd hope you'd be concerned about those particular first level chars.