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

[MerakSpielman]

It depends on your point of view. I think a character gets more boring the more powerful they are. At higher levels, characters stop developing beyond their next level/spell/magic item that makes them more uber.

When I had a party of 5th level characters stuck on a desert island with a colony of blue dragons, that was fun.

Of course, I don't play to hack-slash-kill. That is a very dull and minor part of the game to me.

But that's just me.

 

[Voneth]

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.

So in a lot of cases, we have discovered that is it player behavior, not game stats, that are the source of the problem. (heck we all know of players who went from high to low levels in their PC with NO character “development” ever occurring.) Though this is a feature of designing a game on levels, you can never have a consistent power level, the group is always creeping up, no matter how much you mess with the XP table.

So what can we do to get players to invest more in their PC’s back story without having to drag them lower levels to do it. Or do some GM prefer lower levels because it’s just easier to swamp the PCs and then see how they have to cope with the situation without the resources of getting to use high spells or +9 to their skill rolls. Then there is also the question of experienced teamwork as well. (how low level PCs should be trying to do things more on their own compared to a experienced group where the PC all stick to their assigned roles.)

To some degree I find this all a little confusing. It seems that people mention development, as in role playing, and then slide into combat tactics in almost the same breath. Which sort of development are we talking about?

As an aside, I had one cleric who went through that stage of “just sling the spells.” But that was because there wasn’t much else to do – in combat. Flat terrain and a group of guys rushing you, two guys per PC, even for the wizards. It was only heal, heal, heal. Off the play mat, my cleric became a knight templar and he had plenty to do with his knightly order and courtly/religious order. Then we had a war and there was plenty to on the battle mat, mostly running around and flanking ranks of rank and file.

 

[Arnwyn]

*Never*. Of course, I guess my group is an exception, as we only play long-term campaigns. We always start at 1st level, and then keep on going until there's a TPK. We haven't had one for 4 years now.

 

[volcivar]

High Level challenges

I think playing low level is boring. I have been playing DnD for more years than I care to admit and even though the rules have changed, low level play has largely remained the same.

People complain that challenging high levels, 9+, is difficult. I so it is not. I pitted my group of 11 level munchkins against a Mature Adult Shadow Dragon. The won, but ran back to town screaming like girls because of the 4 negative levels half the party suffered. I also misplayed it. Had I played the dragon to its fulles the party would have been wiped. A mirror imaged, stoneskinned Shadow Dragon will do that.

I call them muchkins because I basically wanted to see how things played out in a no holds barred type game. Heck, the main fighter uses a mercurial greatsword, nasty.

My point is that even in a wild and loose game that I am running, high level PC's can be challenged. It all depends on what the DM is willing to invest into his or her campaign.

 

[MEG Hal]

I love starting at 1, it let's me flesh out the personality of my PC---so it is not boring to me.

 

[jgbrowning]

nope

nope.

the fun is in the play, not in the power.

joe b.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I feel like I am cheating if I start at higher levels.

I know I should not, but it is imbeded deep into my moral code. I can't bypass it, I mean, I have started at higher levels, but I never feel the same way about the character as I do with the 1st level younglings.

 

[Tonguez]

Modern got it right in limiting things to 10 Levels

after Level 10 DnD is about Super Heroes who can singlehandedly destroy armies as such I have never run a game with PCs beyond Lev 10.

That said I also (in 3e) start PCs with an NPC class and then Level 1 of their PC class (so they are kind of level 1.5 I suppose)
Use VP/Wounds and Defense house rules so aas to make the characters a bit more tough

Furthermore level 1 doesn't have to be about bashing goblins, it is just as possible to pit Lev 1 characters against an Ogre or even make them deal with a Celestial Heron and a Fiendish Giant Dire Eel (they don't have to fight it afterall - just get through the encounter unscathed)

and making better use of skill tests rather than kill fests can make a low level adventure fun and generally less lethal

 

[Dave Blewer]

I was going to start my next Sundered Sky campaign at first level, but after reviewing my first scenario, I think it will be more realistic (and fairer) to start at third level.

 

[diaglo]

level 1 never gets boring.

but a 1 shot adventure at higher levels every now and then doesn't hurt.