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

[clockworkjoe]

Most campaigns in d&d typically start at level 1 and then work their way up. I've played and run in more than a few of these games. However, lately, I've come to think that games at level 1 are, well, boring unless the campaign is exceptionally well designed. Characters are just too fragile and too limited to actually do much in the way of adventuring. And going over the same ground in campaign after campaign is tedious to say the least. How many times is getting a +1 longsword or your first level 2 spell fun? While ideally it would be fun to build the same character from level 1 to epic levels, I've never had the chance to do that and I think that campaigns that manage that are the exception, not the rule. Of course many people will scream "munchkin!" for even suggesting that low level campaigns are more boring than higher level ones. But the whole point of d&d is to make believe and have fun. I can have more fun as say, an epic paladin questing in hell, than as a level 1 cleric debating whether I should spend my last silver pieces buying an extra torch or another day of rations.

What I'm saying basically is that I don't want to spend all my time killing goblin commoners in an enlarged sink hole when I could be fighting dragons in the bowels of the underdark.

 

[Breakstone]

For long-term campaigns, I prefer starting from level 1.

Levels 1 through 4, as I see it, are the "characterization" levels. You're really filling out your characters, based on what's going on. Those goblins you're fighting may scar your character for life.

Or not.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[MerricB]

Or swamps it in your case, Tsunami?

For long-term (5+ years) campaigns, starting at low levels is probably the way to go because it gives you more room to move, unless advancement is rather slow in your game.

Starting at higher levels gets you a bit away from the 'traditional' D&D, but that's fine if you've got a good DM. I've had lots of fun playing Amber DRP, and you're about as powerful there as most D&D characters could ever dream of...

Cheers!

 

[Christian Walker]

I'd like to try a "Forgiven" style campaign. Create some grizzled veterans with a set of serious baggage and let them evolve/de-evolve. It'd be a nice experiment.

That's one thing I always liked about GURPS. I could make a 100 point character that was, say, a demon on the horseback with shield and spear, but an old war wound meant he could only hobble about feebly on land. He was, in a sense, balanced with other starting characters.

 

[Crothian]

I've started characters at level one for most of my gaming life and it never gets boring. Occasionally, like once every 10 years, I've done something a little higher. However, I really like the character developement at low levels. Heck, I've even started a d20 game at level 0 once.

 

[Lucias]

Low levels are where it's at, man! There's nothing like the challenge of living by your wits and a prayer.

In a long term campaign, levels 1-5 are arguably the most important because it's where your PC actually develops his character, style, and depth. What's the fun of playing a 10th level fighter if you can't turn to your group and say "Remember the plan we used back in the Lair of the Octooze? Well...."

 

[JohnClark]

In d&d I like to start low since you do get alot of good character stuff, make contacts and the like. However, in spycraft I like to start higher, because I figure you got the low level stuff out of the way doing whatever you did before the agency recruited you. Also, it seems kind of pathetic if your super spies cant hit first level minions who dont know they're there with a gunshot.

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Of course this is just my style, but I have always found that my characters truly start developing around level 7. This is the point at which they truly get options and capabilities. Low level gets very boring IMO. In 2nd Edition, this was truly true, and we would play the same characters all the way from lvl 7 or whatever lvl we started at all the way through the immortal ruleset (2-4 years usually, and that is playing 5-7 times a week easy). However, developing your character really doesnt have anything to do with what lvl you start at. It has to do with what you do with that character WHEN you start him.

TLG

 

[Alzrius]

If I know that the next campaign Im starting is one that will meet regularly and last for a while, I have the players start out at level 1.

Beyond that, its much cooler to start with heroes who have more levels under their belt, usually at least level 5, maybe more. To me, this denotes many novels and comic books where, even in the beginning, the heroes start out with a respectable degree of power. Heck, in FCTF, one of my favorite game products to date, it talks all about this with taking Hero levels (and not letting the players take any more levels of Hero) for games with a more action-comic feel to them. I personally find it also helps for developing an exciting backstory ("now, tell us what your character did to gain those first x levels that he's starting with"), with villains, exploits, previous haunts, etc.

 

[Robbert Raets]

Though I wouldn't start with 10th-level characters, having at least a few levels to work with helps customisation (=multiclassing and skill building) and allows for ECL-adjusted Races.