Thinking of D&D adventure in the general abstract

[Umbran]

We know from WotC's pre-3.0 market research that most people start their PCs at 1st level. And that most campaigns only last until the mid levels. Ergo, for most players, most of their time is spent at the low- to mid-levels.

Well, we probably have to be careful here. The pre-3e research said people started at 1st, and got to mid-level, yes. But they then rebuilt the game, so that "mid-level" really isn't the same thing, numerically.

An 11th or 12th level character was "name level" in 1e, a force to be reckoned with in 2e. These were major heroes, ready to start considering taking on major dragons and demon lords. The old module, "Queen of the Demonweb Pits", where you take on Lolth herself, was for levels 10 to 14. Try that today, and the CR 20+ critter will take your rear end, surgically remove it, and give it back to you with bernaisse sauce and a parsley garnish.

Not to mention how long it took to get to "mid level" in each system. The current system is designed so that you can run an action-oriented game, and if you play every week, you'll reach level 20 in about 18 months. People used to do that same style of play in 1e, and take a whole lot longer to reach the same goal.

It makes me want to start a new campaign and somehow convince the players that their PCs will be 10th level right from the get-go. (In reality, I would get heavy pushback on this.) But I'd love to see how it plays out -- and get to use all those higher CR monsters I never use now!

The major problem with doing this is simple - player learning curve. If you haven't played the character along for a while, getting used to additional abilities as you go, it can be heck to try to keep them straight. Unless your players are used to it, there's little point in starting at such a high level, as they'll tend to end up "underplayed", thus missing the point of the level raise in the first place.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Well, we probably have to be careful here. The pre-3e research said people started at 1st, and got to mid-level, yes. But they then rebuilt the game, so that "mid-level" really isn't the same thing, numerically.

A very good point; however...

The current system is designed so that you can run an action-oriented game, and if you play every week, you'll reach level 20 in about 18 months.

... how many campaigns actually play every week, without a TPK, for 18 months, with the same PCs?

The major problem with doing this [starting PCs at much higher than 1st level; e.g., 10th] is simple - player learning curve. If you haven't played the character along for a while, getting used to additional abilities as you go, it can be heck to try to keep them straight. Unless your players are used to it, there's little point in starting at such a high level, as they'll tend to end up "underplayed", thus missing the point of the level raise in the first place.

I agree. However, I think that with the existence of games like Neverwinter Nights and D&D Online, it is possible for people to get a feel for the mechanical aspect of playing higher level PCs without doing it in a tabletop game. So, those people would be able to take on a 10th level wizards and play him competently without making a hash of his spell selection. Or, a 10th level fighter and not choose screwy feats. Etc.

Obviously, with inexperienced players, I would never try to start a campaign at 10th level -- that would be a recipe for disaster. And it would cheat the players out of really learning their PCs' abilities.