What level do you start your campaign at?

What level do your PCs start at for your campaign?

  • Level One

    Votes: 161 58.8%
  • Level Two

    Votes: 25 9.1%
  • Level Three - Four

    Votes: 67 24.5%
  • Level Five-Six

    Votes: 17 6.2%
  • Level Seven-Ten

    Votes: 4 1.5%
  • Eleven and higher

    Votes: 0 0.0%

I always start campaigns at level one. I think it is a good way to get into the world, for people to get into their characters, to grow with them, and it is just more fun to get to the high levels by way of the low.

I won't say I'd NEVER start higher, but it would really have to be for a good reason, with an already established group of players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Every DM in my group, including myself, starts the players at 2nd level. We began doing this in AD&D 1E for reasons of survivability (you magic-user cast his magic missile,wounding the orc-the orc hit your mage with a dagger,killing your magic-user). We continue to this day becouse its still D&D and that is how we play D&D :)
 

am181d said:
You should have included the option "varies by campaign." My last campaign started at 1st and ran through 20th. My next campaign will probably run 3rd through 8th. Maybe it's just me, but I like to customize for each campaign.
Another write-in vote for "varies by campaign".
 

Sqwonk, Heroes are made by role playing, not by mechanics. Heroes do die from lucky hits, and a good GM makes that death worth it. Death can inspire or impassion the other players to make the loss not in vain. Player’s death can build into a powerful story defining influence. Heroes do die over the stupidest things or in the dumbest situations: check out history, fantasy books, mythology or whatever you want. I think you will find it is true. Its an excellent role paying opportunity that should be delved into and explored before dismissing it.

Now, no one hates a straw death more than I. Dying for no reason, without explanation or story, is just irritating. Taking a death and building it into something that is worthwhile is what keeps players from puffing up and getting pissed off about it. Some of the greatest stories in my 23 years of gaming have been from the most unexpected or accidental deaths.

However, coming to the subject at hand, I start characters at level one outside of a few, very special short lived games. Starting at higher levels tends to stunt character development and retard the gaming experience for extended games.

Wombat, I'm sorry to hear that. The very fragile state of life is what makes heroes into, well, heroes! Its not that they can survive the arrows from the Orc archers hanging out around the bend. Its that they chose to attempt to recover their dying comrade by charging into the face of a flurry of arrows, or that they outsmart the bow-bearing irritants and save their fallen fellow that makes them heroes. Conquering things that do not test us, or that is not out of our reach (whether truly so or not...) is not really the stuff of heroes. Do we cheer for the guy to whom which everything is easy? The brain who can do esoteric functions in his head without a glance when we can’t even figure out how to balance a checkbook? No, we cheer on the underdog, the guy who has to go through hell to reach the same heights or overcome the same challenges. Were you cheering on the bad guys in Die Hard or bruce willis and his one man ass-kicking parade?

Jwatt, then don't. Don't gun for your players necessary, but if they don't know when to run then maybe they should find out the hard way what happens when they don't! Death, as I pointed out above, is just another avenue for a bunch of plot hooks all on its own. I have had characters come back as spirits, ghosts, revenants, voices from the beyond for another character, reincarnated, etc. Some even built up families, complete with kin and a child of ready age to take on the world and with a burning reason to take it on (e.g. the death of their previous character). It’s a marvelous opportunity for players to really strut their stuff. One player, taking advantage in a break in gaming where we had put down the characters shortly after his death, built a magnificent plot harkening back to an old movie. When we started playing again, he played a reincarnation of his first character, who found a way to send back dreams to warn himself of dying. He did it in such a novel way that the other players chose to give up their current ones and player the previous set after he took the plot to its fruition and role played successfully warning him of impending death. The stuff of great games has come from the deaths of players…

Talmun, now you have the spirit of it. I usually put the burden of survivability on the players. After all, if they are not interested in their character's survivability then why should I be? Now, don't read that wrong. I cut them lots of breaks and will gladly consider just about anything to build on the atmosphere, role-playing and story as long as it doesn't bend the believability level too much.

This probably belongs to another thread but a comment I am seeing appear over and over is about "players being sick of [insert favorite little critter for low-levels]". You can be rid of this malady by a) building an ecology, and b) letting players find whatever that ecology dictates is around. If they are mucking about outside of town, and all that is about is robbers, bandits, fuzzy kittens, and rats, then that's all that is about. If they are exploring the local graveyard and find that not everyone is dead, and your local high level pug ugly happens to be around, they better make for the hills! If they chose to screw with your [insert your favorite tough nasty] then they should reap the reward for such a silly idea. Of course, lots of foreshadowing tends to deter stupid decisions like this. Not to mention dying a few times over bad decisions.

If you are afraid to kill your players, you are doing them a disservice. Risk is an integral part of the world, the real one or in gaming. Don't cheat your players by wrapping up everything in gauze. Surviving is as much or more their responsibility as it is yours.
 

Sqwonk said:
DMS: What level do you start your PCs at for a campaign? Not just "one-shots" or such, but true "long-term" campaigns.
And why.

It obviously depends on the campaign. In different times, we started at 1st, at 4th and at 8th level.

First of all it depends on the players. When playing for the first time a new RPG or edition, it is a must to start at first level, so not to be overwhelmed with options and abilities. That is the best even if only a couple of players haven't played before.

When the group was already made of people who had been playing 3rd edition before, we once started from 1st anyway, but the other times we just decided to start a little later, since we were already quite accustomed to low-level spells and tactics. In general, I think that the higher the level, the more difficult to play, and therefore I noticed that experienced players often feel a little bored to start again at first level, if they plan to play their favored kind character...

As a DM, there are advantages as well, likr for example that the characters already have a "history" which gives me reason to assign them quests without doing the same old tavern-meeting prologue :p
Furthermore, as a DM I don't like the idea of having magic-walmarts around to world to buy any magic items you want, but instead I never let put limitations on the starting gear: this way, a player of mine can have a pearl of power / headband of intellect / bead of karma if we start at level high enough, just by coming up with a simple reason why he has it. "My granma left it to me before she died" is still better than buying it in a shop :D

Another reason was to give someone the chance to play her old character from previous adventures again without going back to level 1.

I would never suggest to start after level 1 if you have a beginner in the group because he/she would probably feel like she cannot catch up with the other players. If I had just one newbie in the group, I'd take advantage of starting from 1 to try some character class that I have never tried before.
 

Sqwonk said:
DMS: What level do you start your PCs at for a campaign? Not just "one-shots" or such, but true "long-term" campaigns.
And why.

I run a Scarred Lands game, and I have always felt that the monsters are pretty dangerous out there. Your average low (or high) gorgon is CR 5. Keeping that in mind I tend to allow characters to start at 6th level. It just means that the characters can travel a bit more freely and doesn't restrict travel to "safe" areas only. Certainly it would generate a whole lot of fear in characters to realize that they really don't have a chance out there against all the "bad guy" until mid-levels, but I think that just hinders my campaigns. That's the main reason why I give 6th level characters to my players at the beginng of a long-term campaign.
 

I prefer to start my campaigns low. I think it helps for character generation. If you are told to create a character at 10th level, you may miss out on some of the nuances and subtle events that come with creating a character from lower levels.

Though as a GM I must confess that the urge to start characters at higher levels is tempting so that I can use some of the more fantastic and dangerous creatures that I rarely get to use.
 

Varies by campaign... For a 'normal' start it used to be 3rd. Trying from 1st level again at the moment (as it's AU - new system, etc).

We've started higher before (IIRC, highest ~13th):

I think it can be difficult starting at higher levels if one or more players are not familiar with how the game 'works' at that level... IMO, a 13th+ level party that does not know it's own abilities will likely be more prone to fatality than a 1st level party... and it'll probably get bogged down in a lot of looking up of rules as well.
 

It depends on the campaing but I like level 1, things ar so intimate then, and many lifelong, at least for the character, traits are formed at those early crucial levels... I liken it to a line in the AD&D books, about a dwarf that early on charges into battle at every opportunity if he is successful early on, he will keep doing it, making it his style... if on the other hand he gets his ass handed to him, then he will be much more cautious a minor trait that will most likely stay with him for a long while :)

So yeah I like level 1, fighting rats, not so cool, but there are plenty of credible threats at level 1 :) plenty that can be fun and terrifying ;)
 

Remove ads

Top