Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Nifft]

I run 1st level as solo adventures. We then start our group campaign at 2nd level. [...] My goal with the first group campaign session is to try and level them up to 3rd. At that point we really start digging into the story.

So you mostly avoid levels 1 & 2 either... like most groups, it seems.

Throughout history, very average people have done very extraordinary things and become heroes in the eyes of millions; without magical abilities, special powers or powerful items.

True, but that tends to require lots of hard work, which is very much NOT what I want to model in my game. Hard work can happen off-camera.

I'm in no way saying that anyone who doesn't like low-level play is lacking in creativity or is wrong for how they feel. for some people, like my brother, it's all about being all-powerful and just kicking butt with a flick of the wrist. His take is, "hey, I'm normal in my daily life, when I game want to do all the things I can't do in real life."

I do agree with him to some degree. Such escapist fantasy power-play pleases some of my players greatly at times. It's a good stress reliever, I think.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach either. I just don't think it's fair to say that certain things "suck" about a game just because that particular person or group deems it so.

Everything written here is an opinion! Even if people don't explicitly call it out as such.

"X SUCKS!" means "In my humble opinion, X is sub-optimal for my purposes". At least, that's how I translate it.

In this case, it's also a clue as to the desired tone of the conversation: "Why does X suck?" means "I have a bias, and I'd like opinions from similarly biased people regarding why, because perhaps we can fix this or better understand our bias".

There are obviously a lot of people who prefer the lower levels and don't think they suck.

And plenty of threads for them, too! Particularly in House Rules these days, the E6 crowd has been quite productive.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Levitator]

So you mostly avoid levels 1 & 2 either... like most groups, it seems.

LOL....you caught that eh? While we didn't altogether avoid it, I just tried to find a happy medium that kept them happy but allowed us to get to the meat of the story as quickly as possible.

True, but that tends to require lots of hard work, which is very much NOT what I want to model in my game. Hard work can happen off-camera.

That's where I'm lucky as a DM that my group likes the diversity that playing at different levels can offer. My group really seems to enjoy a gritty game that doesn't have super-high fantasy, so unfortunately for them, that means they have to work a little harder at standing out in the crowd.

I do agree with him to some degree. Such escapist fantasy power-play pleases some of my players greatly at times. It's a good stress reliever, I think.

We definitely have our power-play sessions where the party gets a taste of epic style conflict. It just wasn't a big enough part of the group's playing style to keep my brother's interest on a regular basis. He sits in and runs NPC's on occasion when there is something big happening though.

Everything written here is an opinion! Even if people don't explicitly call it out as such.

An excellent point! Something I should try harder to keep in mind.

"X SUCKS!" means "In my humble opinion, X is sub-optimal for my purposes". At least, that's how I translate it.

Yeah, me too, for the most part. I didn't mean to come off too hard on that statement if I did. I was really just trying to show the other side of it. I don't think bad of how any group plays the game, as long as they are all having a blast!

In this case, it's also a clue as to the desired tone of the conversation: "Why does X suck?" means "I have a bias, and I'd like opinions from similarly biased people regarding why, because perhaps we can fix this or better understand our bias".

OK, FINE!! I'll stop reading these things late at night when my brain is in skim mode! Just kidding! I really do try to read threads carefully, but sometimes interpreting emotion or intent from text is difficult, which is why I sometimes go to great lengths (like this post) to better explain things.

And plenty of threads for them, too! Particularly in House Rules these days, the E6 crowd has been quite productive.

In retrospect, I kind of agree with the OP in a way. Low levels, with the wrong group, can be really difficult to make interesting and exciting. I think one of the most important jobs the DM has is to really develop a game that the players will respond to and enjoy. I once ran a short campaign for 2 friends that wanted to start at 10th level. I was really hesitant at first, partly because these two weren't that familiar with D&D to begin with so I was really worried about constantly stopping the game while they figured out just what their characters could do, and partly because I was afraid I wouldn't be able to develop an interesting enough story right at that point. But as the DM, I did my best to accomodate them and even though it wasn't my preferred way to begin a compaign, we all had a really great time with it! (despite the fact that they constantly had to look up things about their characters)

Thanks for the insightful (as usual) response Nifft!

 

[Slife]

Because I enjoy having characters that I like, and it's hard to like someone who's already dead.

And I'm not going to want to spend much time preparing backstory which can be completely wiped out on a higher-than-average roll.

Early levels are much more enjoyable with some safeguards in place (action points, swashbuckling cards, whatever)

 

[Rhun]

So far, "There is No Honor", in STAP, is probably my favourite (or maybe 2nd favourite) adventure in the path - and the PCs are first level for most of it.

It was fun...but for our game the quote would be "our PCs were unconscious for most of it." At least one PC would get dropped every single battle.

Personally, I dislike 1st level. 2nd level is a lot better. However, I would prefer to start games at 3rd level or higher.

 

[Delta]

And I'm not going to want to spend much time preparing backstory which can be completely wiped out on a higher-than-average roll.

I hope this doesn't come off as snarky, but... for me, that's one of the strongest arguments in favor of playing at 1st level.

 

[DarkKestral]

I prefer levels 3 and above. However, I like the Saga system's approach to it; giving everyone 3 "levels" of HD without giving them the rest of the benefits, like BAB and saves seems like a smart approach favoring 1st level characters who act a little more like action heroes-in-training. However, I'm likely to also do the same for NPCs, just in the interest of balance. It also seems like a really interesting way to work racial hit dice.. instead of giving the monster hit dice w/ BAB, saves, you could compress monster classes with 'racial HD multipliers' that instantly increase HD by 2-4 each time, but only increase saves and BAB as if they'd only gone up one level, and doing so in a way that each 'monster level' is equal to one level in an ordinary class in total added power.

I think criticals should hurt, but I don't think it's reasonable to start PCs at levels where a single non-critical attack from a weapon without additional bonus damage can drop them to negative hit points. I think it should take a few hits before they go down. Plus, I like it when each character can be their own; instead of having Fighter A = Fighter B (a common thing when you only have 2-3 feats total to your name, and one of those is probably Power Attack and another probably weapon focus) you can make characters suitably different from one another.

Also, with the cost of many of the goods in the PHB and DMG, it is almost impossible to build a character with all of the possessions that would probably be common to even the peasants. I don't mind having penny-pinching in games, but that just goes too far for my taste.

 

[Humanaut]

My 2 bits:

As a DM i start them off at 2nd level. Just outta poverty and single digit HP (generally), but still counting every coin they find.

As a Player i enjoy starting at 2nd for the same reason. Everything and anything can be a challenge, and when you get ANYTHING its a joy... 'specially that level 3. The excitement of getting 2nd level spells... "Now I'm the MAN!" :^)

That said, in highschool games never went past 10th-11th level before we got bored with them. In college i think we hit 15-16 and then started over. My favorite range is around 5-9th level.

I'd really like to try something uber high once, and maybe something at 1st too... just for a change of pace.

That's what's great about the game though... you can do and play whatever you want if you have some willing players.