Like Clockworkjoe said, if it's a long term campaign I don't mind starting out at low levels. If it won't be a long term campaign I don't wanna play the low levels. But then again, I don't mind starting a long term campaign at level 10+. Fleshing out the character and all that can be done during creation. You can give the character plenty of background before you even play the character once. Sure it takes a bit more effort but hey, it's fun all the same.
People who always start a campaign at level 1: Does it ever get boring?
- Thread starter clockworkjoe
- Start date
Emiricol
Registered User
I don't think it is a munchkin question, and certainly I've been involved in campaigns that have started at 3rd or 5th. But I think asking whether going through those levels from 1st over and over again is a loaded question. Playting devil's advocate, I might just as well ask whether starting at 5th, or 10th is boring. Heck, why not just start at Epic?
Personally, I've been unsatisfied by campaigns I started at 3rd or 5th or whatever. The characters don't really develop as well (ymmv!)
Personally, I've been unsatisfied by campaigns I started at 3rd or 5th or whatever. The characters don't really develop as well (ymmv!)
clockworkjoe said:
Desdichado
Hero
Just because each class has 10 levels doesn't mean the game is limited to 10th level characters. With the multiclassing of Modern, you only need 10 levels in a given class.Tonguez said:
Although I do agree with you -- I don't much like to go too far beyond 10th level most of the time. That's when I find the game boring.
jdavis
First Post
Always been a fan of the lower levels, just a personal preference. Our campaign now is winding down with characters from 12 to 15th level, everbody is just ready to move on. That is how we normally do, once the characters are rich it just seems like why should they want to risk their lives anymore. We've fought off small armies and dragons, we have saved the kingdom and built our own castle, time to retire. The thing is we won't just start back with a D&D game, we will game something else for awhile (looks like were giving d20 modern a try), when we do go back to D&D we will start all over again. If we played 6 campaigns at once or played D&D over and over again, then I can see where the low levels would get boring, but for me the whole game gets boring if you just keep playing over and over with new characters starting in the same basic setting. By changing games and trying something else for awhile we keep from burning out, and when we do start D&D again we will be excited about those first 5 levels.
Seule
Explorer
I play in a campaign where we started at 1st level, and are now 20th level, and getting ready for Epic play.
I run a game where the players started at 1st level, and are now 21st, and only playing every few months.
I play in a game where we started at 3rd level, and are very slowly toiling through 4th.
I run a game that started at 1st and the characters are currently 4th level.
I played in a game that started at 1st level, and the characters retired at about 17th level, and many of us became gods, replacing the old gods of the world.
It's all good. However, I prefer to start at 1st level, and advance pretty quickly to about 3rd or 4th level, before really getting settled into a long campaign.
--Seule
I run a game where the players started at 1st level, and are now 21st, and only playing every few months.
I play in a game where we started at 3rd level, and are very slowly toiling through 4th.
I run a game that started at 1st and the characters are currently 4th level.
I played in a game that started at 1st level, and the characters retired at about 17th level, and many of us became gods, replacing the old gods of the world.
It's all good. However, I prefer to start at 1st level, and advance pretty quickly to about 3rd or 4th level, before really getting settled into a long campaign.
--Seule
The_lone_gunman
First Post
I am suprised at the number of folks who say it gets boring and/or unchallenging around lvl 9 or so. You guys really need a DM who can challenge you at that time. For me at least, the roleplaying opportunites really open up around that time. It is around that time that you can really start playing that "character" that you have been envisioning. For me, the whole point is to get to lvl 7+ so that you can REALLY play a hero.
Low level campaigns have their uses, and can be highly entertaining when DMed well and in the correct setting, but high level is where it is at IMO. Of course this all depends on the DM. My players are nearly 10th lvl and I have no issues with keeping them challenged. The whole concept of the "DM" not being able to challenge his players is foreign to me.
I am certainly NOT munchkin, but i have found that once the PC's reach a certain point of power, it opens up many doors for some fantastic roleplaying and such. You really start to get a chance to become epic heroes and deal with the more powerful NPC's on a more equal level. IMO, you are really missing out if you neglect these possibilities.
TLG
Low level campaigns have their uses, and can be highly entertaining when DMed well and in the correct setting, but high level is where it is at IMO. Of course this all depends on the DM. My players are nearly 10th lvl and I have no issues with keeping them challenged. The whole concept of the "DM" not being able to challenge his players is foreign to me.
I am certainly NOT munchkin, but i have found that once the PC's reach a certain point of power, it opens up many doors for some fantastic roleplaying and such. You really start to get a chance to become epic heroes and deal with the more powerful NPC's on a more equal level. IMO, you are really missing out if you neglect these possibilities.
TLG
Quickbeam
Explorer
I completely understand your point CWJ, but I don't share your views. For me (and most of the folks in my group) the very best part of D&D is the character creation and development process. To be sure, we've all created higher level PC's -- either for specific campaigns or to replace fallen characters -- and enjoyed doing so. But more often than not, the sessions we most fondly recall, are those where the characters are designed, and begin adventuring together in an endeavour to climb through those first few levels.
In our case, the primary drawback is that we very rarely see our PC's evolve to epic levels, but that's our choice. If you (and your group) are tired of slaying goblins and smiting orcs, and would prefer finding a Rod of Lordly Might to another +1 mace, then beginning at higher levels makes perfect sense to me.
In our case, the primary drawback is that we very rarely see our PC's evolve to epic levels, but that's our choice. If you (and your group) are tired of slaying goblins and smiting orcs, and would prefer finding a Rod of Lordly Might to another +1 mace, then beginning at higher levels makes perfect sense to me.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
In 1st edition, the general consensus seemed to be that the very best of the game was from about 5th level to about 9th level. Above 9th level, the DM had to go through increasing contorsions to find something to challenge the party. There were some nice things about having a character who was counted among the great and mighty, but by and large such characters were retired to the back ground and only retrieved when sufficiently epic events required thier presence.
With the increased challenge of monsters, and the more rapid advancement of characters, that sweet spot seems to have shifted upward to between 7th and 13th (granted, I haven't played a 13th level 3rd edition character). But still, there are the same sorts of breakdowns that seem to be begin in 3rd edition, only this time you are a little bit closer to 20 before they start happening.
I can't imagine wanting to begin a long term campaign at or above 7th. I have however noted a whole lot of younger players who have never played anything lower. To be frank, they have absolutely pathetic dungeon crawling skills, in part because they have always had a ready spell or magic item as the solution to most any problem they encounter.
By 7th level, even in 3rd edition, my characters have started seeming just a little too proficient - not that things with sufficient CR 'overage' don't challenge them - but that they seldom are stretched beyond thier class abilities to find a solution to a problem.
I reject the notion that 1st level characters aren't heroic. To my mind, the most heroic period is that point in the heroes clear when he is faced by the most overwhelming odd and must succeed on his own merits despite this. The point that I find this true occurs down in the mid to low levels. As a DM, the time I enjoy most is when I can start throwing the bigger foes at them, but the average foes are still troublesome. I can send orcs after 6th level characters, but it gets pretty pointless to send them after 10th level characters unless I stack the odds pretty heavily in some fashion. All the sudden, my world, hereto previously inhabited with orcs and goblins, has to contain leveled ogres and outsiders (and so on and so forth). It just doesn't feel right.
With the increased challenge of monsters, and the more rapid advancement of characters, that sweet spot seems to have shifted upward to between 7th and 13th (granted, I haven't played a 13th level 3rd edition character). But still, there are the same sorts of breakdowns that seem to be begin in 3rd edition, only this time you are a little bit closer to 20 before they start happening.
I can't imagine wanting to begin a long term campaign at or above 7th. I have however noted a whole lot of younger players who have never played anything lower. To be frank, they have absolutely pathetic dungeon crawling skills, in part because they have always had a ready spell or magic item as the solution to most any problem they encounter.
By 7th level, even in 3rd edition, my characters have started seeming just a little too proficient - not that things with sufficient CR 'overage' don't challenge them - but that they seldom are stretched beyond thier class abilities to find a solution to a problem.
I reject the notion that 1st level characters aren't heroic. To my mind, the most heroic period is that point in the heroes clear when he is faced by the most overwhelming odd and must succeed on his own merits despite this. The point that I find this true occurs down in the mid to low levels. As a DM, the time I enjoy most is when I can start throwing the bigger foes at them, but the average foes are still troublesome. I can send orcs after 6th level characters, but it gets pretty pointless to send them after 10th level characters unless I stack the odds pretty heavily in some fashion. All the sudden, my world, hereto previously inhabited with orcs and goblins, has to contain leveled ogres and outsiders (and so on and so forth). It just doesn't feel right.
jdavis
First Post
For me the challenge level has nothing to do with it, I can always find a challenge no matter what the level, after a year with the same character sometimes people just get tired and want a change. The challenge is still there but the characters are getting a little old and it just seems like time to move on, it happens.
I prefer the lower levels because that's where it feels the most dangerous. You can be killed by a farmer, you can't overpower hardly anything and magic is still wonderfully rare. If you die you are not going to be resurected, it's all or nothing. It makes more alot more thinking and planning, you don't have the ability to bull through, even the fighters are not that strong. I find that more appealing than standing toe to toe with a Dragon bashing it out for 7 or 8 rounds. The challenge is the same but it seems like the danger is more real.
I prefer the lower levels because that's where it feels the most dangerous. You can be killed by a farmer, you can't overpower hardly anything and magic is still wonderfully rare. If you die you are not going to be resurected, it's all or nothing. It makes more alot more thinking and planning, you don't have the ability to bull through, even the fighters are not that strong. I find that more appealing than standing toe to toe with a Dragon bashing it out for 7 or 8 rounds. The challenge is the same but it seems like the danger is more real.
La Bete
First Post
In the dying days of 2e, we tended to start at higher levels - 3rd through to 7th. That was due to more interest in Birthright style games, where the players are supposed to be princes etc. And also, yes, I think we had 'done the dash' as far as low levels go.
In 3e though, we havent been playing in too many games, so our group still starts at 1st. I personall prefer this for three reasons:
(1) As the character develops, he tends to get a few skills and feats that arent optimised towards a PrC or a feat chain, simply because he needs it at the time, or thinks he does.
An example - my players are currently 7th level, and 2 have multiclassed, and agonised at each level over what class to increase - and they have picked up languages, and craft/knowledge skills etc on the way - I doubt this would have happened otherwise
A comparison, a game I was playing in had reached 6th, and a new player joined, promtly making a Barbarian2/Ranger1/Fighter3.(or similar). bleagh.
(2) At low level, because of the more dangerous nature of it in some ways (low HP), combat and adventuring still has that rush of danger.
(3) At low levels, you often end up defining yourself by those miserable failures (hideous botches, inablity to hit ANYTHING etc), and by your unlikely sucessess (the crit that does max damage and just takes out the ogre).
I mean in Rolemaster, where at first level you suck much, much worse than in DnD (just try killing a small dog - I dare you), we still always started at 1st.
Of course, YMM(aPD)V.
In 3e though, we havent been playing in too many games, so our group still starts at 1st. I personall prefer this for three reasons:
(1) As the character develops, he tends to get a few skills and feats that arent optimised towards a PrC or a feat chain, simply because he needs it at the time, or thinks he does.
An example - my players are currently 7th level, and 2 have multiclassed, and agonised at each level over what class to increase - and they have picked up languages, and craft/knowledge skills etc on the way - I doubt this would have happened otherwise
A comparison, a game I was playing in had reached 6th, and a new player joined, promtly making a Barbarian2/Ranger1/Fighter3.(or similar). bleagh.
(2) At low level, because of the more dangerous nature of it in some ways (low HP), combat and adventuring still has that rush of danger.
(3) At low levels, you often end up defining yourself by those miserable failures (hideous botches, inablity to hit ANYTHING etc), and by your unlikely sucessess (the crit that does max damage and just takes out the ogre).
I mean in Rolemaster, where at first level you suck much, much worse than in DnD (just try killing a small dog - I dare you), we still always started at 1st.
Of course, YMM(aPD)V.
Similar Threads
