PC survivability and starting at 1st level

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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 grow attached to their characters. This is especially true if they've been heavily RPing (IME).

They have an idea of what they want to become, but they have to live long enough to do so. If they die, their new character probably won't be "Knuckles the Third" because that's seen as cheesy.

They have backstories. Some DMs demand backstories to support RP. Others seem to hate them. But IME backstories are becoming more common. (I'm not talking "I personally saved the king's life" kind of backstory, though.)

a dime a dozen

Players almost never feel that way about their characters.

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)?

Maybe. I kind of doubt it, though. IME, 2e campaigns were less deadly than 3e campaigns, except for specific modules.

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.

Except these kobolds have rogue or sorcerer levels. My group was scared of kobolds at 8th-level. I think it's silly to expect that kobolds or orcs can't be as good as humans.

If that means that Zontar the first, second, and third must fall before Zontar the fourth can achieve glory, then so be it!

See the above point about not bringing back the exact same character concept.

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.

That applies to villains, too. Who says 1st-level villains have to be less tactically competent than the heroes?

 

[shilsen]

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.

That depends on DM and player choice, doesn't it? Personally, I like my PC's backstory to have an impact on the game. And as a DM, I'm currently running a campaign that's over a year long and has taken PCs from 3rd to 9th lvl, and their current situation is often inflected by the backstories they created.

As for why the survivability of 1st lvl PCs matter, for me it's because when I create a PC that's a character I'm putting a lot of thought into and intending to play for a while. I don't consider it one of various options that I might try, only getting to play the PC for a long time if luck (and skill, though 1st lvl survivability has a lot to do with luck) is on my side. YMMV, and apparently does.

 

[The Shaman]

Personally, I like my PC's backstory to have an impact on the game....As for why the survivability of 1st lvl PCs matter, for me it's because when I create a PC that's a character I'm putting a lot of thought into and intending to play for a while. I don't consider it one of various options that I might try, only getting to play the PC for a long time if luck (and skill, though 1st lvl survivability has a lot to do with luck) is on my side.

I prefer the character's in-game experiences to far outweigh their out-of-game experiences.

Rather than come to me with a character with a revenge motive, how 'bout developing a motive for revenge based on what happens to the character during play instead? How about a character developing a hatred of trolls and questing for a flaming troll-bane sword because of an encounter with trolls instead of something written on the character sheet before the game starts?

My personal feeling is that some players focus too much effort on their characters' backstories and not enough on reacting to the events of the game. I prefer to hang adventures on character hooks that come from the character's in-game experiences.

YMMV, and apparently does.

Difference of opinion...horse race...and all that.

 

[shilsen]

I prefer the character's in-game experiences to far outweigh their out-of-game experiences.

I'd say that's inevitable - unless the character comes in with a big backstory and gets killed at 1st level.

Rather than come to me with a character with a revenge motive, how 'bout developing a motive for revenge based on what happens to the character during play instead? How about a character developing a hatred of trolls and questing for a flaming troll-bane sword because of an encounter with trolls instead of something written on the character sheet before the game starts?

Doable, but most players have proportionately much less control over the character's experiences in-game than in the backstory. If you want a revenge-focused character and want that to arise out of in-game events, you're dependent to at least some extent (less, depending on your creativity) on the DM playing ball. Wanting your character to hate trolls because of in-game experience doesn't help much if the PCs never actually meet any trolls. Where your backstory is concerned, however, there's far more freedom. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but one is definitely easier.

My personal feeling is that some players focus too much effort on their characters' backstories and not enough on reacting to the events of the game.

I've probably played a lot less D&D than you, but my experience seriously belies that statement.

I prefer to hang adventures on character hooks that come from the character's in-game experiences.

I'm greedy I like to have both.

Difference of opinion...horse race...and all that.

Absolutely.

 

[EricNoah]

I usually start above 1st level nowadays. Sometimes it's about PCs surviving. Sometimes it's about the fact that 26 years into D&D, the first couple of levels bore me a little. Probably because I've DM'd them more than any other levels!

 

[Montague68]

That applies to villains, too. Who says 1st-level villains have to be less tactically competent than the heroes?

Who says they have to be as competent?

IMO most of the problems with character survivability at 1st level could be solved if certain DM's didn't treat every encounter as a chess match.

 

[Perun]

I'm actually one of those who likes 1st-level characters. I also believe that combat encounters, even at those low levels, can be dramatic and fun -- the CR and EL system makes most of the hard work, and the DM just needs to add some "flavour".

I'd much rather play a 1st-level character than a 17th-level one. For me, the game's most fun up till 10th level, on average. After that, it's mostly "teleport in, blast, teleport out" action, which I don't consider neither dramatic nor overly fun.

Also, like many have said, starting at those low levels allows my characters to grow. I like to have a simple concept, and then develop a persona for the character during the first couple of sessions. And I'm not really into heavy role-playing, I just like to "grow accustomed" to the character. Starting at 1st level allows me to see whether the character concept I had in my head is actually the right one for me. A lot of classes look like fun on paper, but prove not to be "my kind of character" in actual game. Or they'd work for a one-shot game, but not in a longer campaign.

I've also dicovered that player's tend to forget about character's abilities more if the characters were created at higher levels. Probably because high level characters have so much abilities, it's difficult to keep track of it all, especially if the player has no previous experience. This is especially true for wizards, IMO, and their huge number of spells at later levels.

Regards.

 

[Drowbane]

...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...

QFT

 

[howandwhy99]

1st level is essential in my opinion. It's when all participants discover what the others bring to the table. The basic adventuring style is worked out. Best solutions to common problems are discerned. Like 1st gear on a 10-speed bike more effort is put into shorter spans. But without this initial practice you're at a loss when climbing a steep hill and need shift down from 10th.

Hey, I love playing first level characters. My first level character died in each 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.

It's no fun killing the characters of an outbound player, so I am doubly glad you enjoyed it. 100 lizardfolk are bound to get anyone's blood pumping.

It also sucked to hear potentially event changing suggestions come up during game only to go unnoticed in both sessions. Play is definitely getting better though.

 

[hong]

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 not. That's why they start at 2nd level.

NEXT!