What level do you start your campaign at?

[Ibram]

when 3rd came out i started a campaign at 1st level (as no one in my group knew the system). But now that my players are familiar with the system I usualy start my characters around 3rd level. There are several reasons for this:

1) its easier to design adventures (i dont have to worry about a single Dire Rat killing the entire party)

2) it allows the characters to have a bit of a backstory. 1st level characters are pretty much "fresh from the farm" while a 3rd level character could have served in a mercenary outfit for a few years.

3) I have never been in a D&D game where the characters stayed at 1st level for more then 1 game session (one game we leveled up when we took a pizza break half way through). Second level is usualy the same (1-2 sessions).

4) It saves time, allowing me to dive right into a campaign without dooing a "Kobold hunt".

I'd never make a character start out at a lower level then the rest of the party. It just causes to much trouble for the players (so why are we bringing this shmuck along as anything other then a servant?) and for me (why dont the 3rd level oger barbarians avoid attacking the first level guy when they are fighting the 9th level party)

 

[Aristotle]

Oh...

I start my games at 1st level, but if a character dies I bring that player's new character in with as much experience as the lowest experienced living character in the group.

 

[StalkingBlue]

I started my Midnight campaign at 1st level and none of my players* complained about lack of heroism. Then again I didn't give them rats or kobolds to hack through. Instead I gave them 2nd level Fighter Orcs, right from the start.

(*In fact, thinking again, one of them grumbles. He thinks he's served his gaming 'apprenticeship' in a gazillion other games run by other people, and now feels that he's 'entitled' to high-level play! Obviously, starting the game at 3rd or 4th wouldn't have appeased him, so he doesn't really count.)

 

[KB9JMQ]

I always start at first level. To me it is a better way for the pc and players to grow. Building a 4th level pc and leveling up to 4th always seems to me to make different PCs due to the fact that skills and feats and mannerisms come from learning your character from each encounter and how they interact with the DM and other PCs and the campaign itself.

I always thought it difficult to build the PCs then fit the players, DM and campaign around the already supposed backstory/history that was skipped by not playing up thru the levels.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Didn't vote. We either start at 1st, 3rd or 5th.

AR

 

[Talmun]

Actually, the problems I have here with D&D are both mechanical and setting related. Consider: how do you create a viable 1st level adventure in an area and then logically also set up a higher level adventure? Do you mean that only a couple of Orcs are in the district and then suddenly someone realizes that there is a dragon there later? I find this incongruous. 1st level characters are so fragile that there is no way they can take on any serious opponents, yet vastly powerful monsters and perils then pop right after the removal of these pests, if the character is to advance further.

I think this also explains why, with D&D, I end up running fairly "short run" campaigns. I tend to start them at 3rd level and end them by 10th; below that is too "rules fragile" and above that the rules fall into the level of superheroes (and many rather silly monsters).

I find that other games have a less steep "power curve" for characters, that low power characters can take on moderate opponents if they are clever and that there are no ridiculously high-power critters on the other end. This is something I prefer.

So, in the end, my group feels that we are placed into this position, not out of want of heroism, but by the way the rules are set up. This is a rules issue, not a mythological issue.

There is a certain level of suspension of 'logic' that is necessary when designing plots and adventures.

If you have, say, a 12th level mage you are using as the major villain, you would design the games' over-arcing plot so that the players will thwart his schemes and fight his minions until they finally meet him in battle around 10 or 11th level. You do this in such a way that the artificiality of the game and the machinations of his (your) plots are relatively invisible.
Naturally in 'real-world' logic, as soon as the PCs became anything more than a nuisance, the big bad guy would either deal with the party himself, or send some overwhelming force under the command of a powerful lieutenant to deal with them.

Not to be confrontational, but it sounds to me like you prefer to throw randomly generated encounters at your group, since the act of you choosing a monster means that you must 'artificially' place creatures of the correct CR in the party's path.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your post.

 

[Ransom]

Has anyone ever rolled a d20 to decide starting level?

I like starting low 1st or 2nd it really builds the character more than any backstory ever could.

 

[Philip]

Actually, the problems I have here with D&D are both mechanical and setting related. Consider: how do you create a viable 1st level adventure in an area and then logically also set up a higher level adventure? Do you mean that only a couple of Orcs are in the district and then suddenly someone realizes that there is a dragon there later? I find this incongruous. 1st level characters are so fragile that there is no way they can take on any serious opponents, yet vastly powerful monsters and perils then pop right after the removal of these pests, if the character is to advance further.

If they were mechanical related I think I must surely have encountered it, but I didn't. I always try to start every player with a 1st lvl character. Levelling is fast enough as it is, it gives more time let the characters (and players) bond with the world.

I guess the 1st level characters survive by the same means 1st lvl commoners survive the vastly powerful monsters and perils: they don't go looking for them. I am not climbing the Mount Everest on my first mountaineering trip either, even though I know its right there, challenging me. But maybe someday, after climbing lesser hills and mountains (building up my experience) I might someday.

I don't understand what you find illogical about it.

 

[Nightfall]

Varies. I've only run a few long term campaigns. As for wombat suspension of disbelief, I think he views everything as "black" or "white". It is in reality, just a game and a way to spend one's time other than living in THIS reality. So excuse me while I got hunt down some Slacerian Godminds, and try to keep the Chaositech creatures in check.

 

[Philip]

There is a certain level of suspension of 'logic' that is necessary when designing plots and adventures.

If you have, say, a 12th level mage you are using as the major villain, you would design the games' over-arcing plot so that the players will thwart his schemes and fight his minions until they finally meet him in battle around 10 or 11th level. You do this in such a way that the artificiality of the game and the machinations of his (your) plots are relatively invisible.
Naturally in 'real-world' logic, as soon as the PCs became anything more than a nuisance, the big bad guy would either deal with the party himself, or send some overwhelming force under the command of a powerful lieutenant to deal with them.

You don't have to go as far as that. The major villains in my campaign have more than one problem on their hands. And certainly bigger problems than the low level PCs that thwart their minor plans. Sure, the major villain will expend what he thinks to be sufficient resources to stop the PCs after they have made themselves nuisances, but they will not send an overwhelming and out-of-propertion force, their resources are limited enough.

Usually the PCs have gained experience (and levelled) since then, often proving that the force that had been deemed sufficient at first now proves to be too little.

I always assume that for each group of PCs the villain has failed to eliminate he did eliminate one or more groups of NPCs.