People who always start a campaign at level 1: Does it ever get boring?

I start out at level 1, but give a little more background and survivability.

Everyone gets Wound Points equal to their Con (or 3/4 Con for small races). This means all 1st level characters can take a few hits before dropping. WP heals at a rate of 1/day, while HP heals 1/level/hour. This gets rid of the need to always use healing magic, and thus I can get rid of clerics (never was too fond of them).

Everyone gets 10 bonus skill points that they can only use for Craft, Knowledge, or Profession. This helps round them out.

But yes, low level play is fun. There's more ingenuity, usually, and less usage of the 'big guns' to kill off bad guys. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Somewhere between the five games I play in (all D&D right now), I would say yes and no.

Yes, it's boring because if you are familiar with character classes and start with just the basic class and race skills. It cannot yet live up to the vision you have for your character as the great wizard/ paladin/ hunter/ swashbuckler, or whatever. In fact, you still have a long way to go.

No, it's not boring because there are enough class/race combinations (even without including prestige classes) that you should be willing to try something new every time and still not have exhausted all your possibilities. If you are bored, try something totally different than what you are used to.

As a DM, it's important to provide a challenge to low level characters while still providing reasonable survivability. A good DM will always be able to provide a good mix of combat, mystery/puzzle elements, and strong personal motivations for the PCs in every adventure.

It can be boring if the DM doesn't put together something appropriate and challenging for low level characters, but especially so at first level.
 

I must be the exception, because I actually prefer low level play. Once the characters get to about 9th level, there isn't any more challenge. They're powerful enough to cut a huge swath through anything, and so why bother?
 

I agree Buttercup- low level play is a lot more fun in my experience than high level (9+ play). I have been a player in several games that started characters between levels 8-12, and in all cases, the level of roleplaying was much less than if the characters had been started at 1st level. It probably has to do with the fact that trying to play a high-level characters without benefit of history, backstory, or developed personality makes people regard them as a stat block, rather than a personality. Besides, once characters get 6th level spells, things get boring since they have to use very little ingenuity or problem solving to resolve a dilemma, and instead blow through things with the most potent spells first.
 

I just got done playing in a game where I was a 16th level Lizardman druid. And now I cringe that we are starting over -- especialy since I am now a thief. My Farscape game, however, is a different manner.

Every game and player is different, but I was sort of starting to enjoy my 16th level wizard for several reasons. My group wasn't into role playing and in 2 years of gaming the GM never had us explore the lizardman homeland -- unlike the countless visists to the elven and human kingdoms, so the Lizardman half of the character was pretty much shut down or ridiculed. All I had left was my Druid stuff.

And with the Druid, the GM has to keep the class in mind when designing an adventure or it gets short changed. Animal Companions are not familars, so a lot of GMs seem to not even want to bother with them. At 16th, I felt my character was starting to shine with the help he brought to the party with his spells.

Instead of the same old fights, the GM had to get creative, sticking us in city alley ways so as area effect spells were too dangerous. We just got Wind Walk, so it felt as if the whole world had opened up to us. Plots were starting to move a lot faster because we could travel half the continent in a couple of days. But we could tell the GM wasn't enjoying himself any more since he couldn't just open the monster manual and toss most anything at us anymore.

As an aside at this point, when I GM DND, I ususaly start the game at 4th level. The classes seem to finaly settle into their roles at that point, the PC are not total newbies (I run and play rpgs to be a competent hero), and players still get a chance to "develop" their characters. (As a personal opinon only, I see the whole "development" of a PC through levels as an excuse to not fully develop the personality during creation. Anything you can do in play can be made up as backstory. I have seen several highly developed characters at 1st level. Now for development of the party's dynamics, some of that can be done with improv and flashbacks, it mostly happens in play.)

And I can't fathom why thieves are penalized for 2 levels (before Weapon Finesse). Before they get to shine. That's another reason I skip the earliest levels.

As for my Farscape game, the design of a first level character is completely different. 1.) Before the errata, one added his constitution score to 1st level hit points, making even weak combat classes have double digit hit points. 2.) The game mechanic called Control lets PCs temporarly have boosted skill roles of up to +5 or even a reroll. It's like getting more experienced characters for half the paperwork. In that game with only 3 months of play, the group already have ton of memories to reminise about and strange villians chasing them. In this version of d20, 1st level rocks.
 
Last edited:

I kinda mix and match, setting a starting level to match the campaign/scenario. For instance, ever since buying Deities and Demigods, I've had the idea to create a one-off in between scenario where all players would be demi-gods...

I guess another reasong to start at higher levels is player expierience and/or age. With veteran players I could imagine they don't want to start from lvl1 all over again. (except maybe if the campaign demanded lower levels. I guess even veterans will fight a horde of Goblins if the DM can make them interesting)
 

In my recently starting campaign, I ran a prologue at 1st level, and then began the campaign at 2nd level. I don't believe that the players have been bored :).

Of course, I'm not running a 'goblins attack a wagon, fight them off' kind of campaign, either. It's a brutal war, with the PCs as fresh recruits-turned-POWs.

Low level doesn't have to mean 'low adventure'.
 

I'm with Buttercup and Gothmog -- in the low teens in levels, I start to feel like I'm tapped out already. Low level is more fun.

That said, however, I prefer to start at 2nd or 3rd when I DM. Also, we fit the WotC market research fairly well -- we restart campaigns much too often to always start at 1st level. If we did that, we'd almost always just be 1st level...
 

Levels 1-5 are the character building levels (as expressed earlier in this thread)

Levels 6-10 are the "fun" levels where you are tough enough to worry about death from a hang-nail, yet there are many very mundane challenges that can bring you to your knees.

Beyond 11 things get to be a lot more work for the GM, but they are still quite playable, for the most part. Although I truly wish the old "double XP per level) system had been kept. Hense, I still use a similar system for my XP levels in my games.
 


Remove ads

Top