Would 1st-level Discourage You From Playing?

[Dausuul]

For me it would depend on the system I were playing, but overall, it would be a little discouraging, especially in 3.5. I played 3.5 a lot at 1st level, and it is not all that fun, really. I like a few more options, and mages shooting crossbows is not fun for me.

4E, on the other hand, is fine at 1st level.

Yeah, pretty much the same here. Pre-4E, I find 1st level tedious--I like characters who can take a punch or two, and have some mechanical versatility. It's certainly not a deal-breaker, but it is a negative... at least in a typical campaign where the DM expects us to be heroic and stride valiantly into battle.

I wouldn't mind nearly so much in a "gritty" campaign where a straight-up fight is something to be avoided and the focus is on cunning tactics, ambushes, and social encounters. But my experience is that most DMs run 1st level like it's 4th level, so let's just start at 4th and be done with it.

 

[NN]

A new group may have all sorts of weird house rules and habits and unspoken assumptions.

Id rather work these out with a semi-disposable low level character than get chucked in the deep end of mid to high level play.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like low levels, so this is a feature, not a bug.

 

[SteveC]

This is one of those situations where it depends strongly on what the game is going to be. Are we going to have a strong, character driven story where we learn and grow our characters in their role in the world right from the start? If so, sign me up!

If the game is going to be "help, I seem to have a rat problem in the cellar of the inn," or "bandits have been raiding caravans, you've signed on as bodyguards for a two week journey through the Orc Filled Hills," then no.

The thing is, I've been doing this for a long time: over 30 years now! For me, the fun in a game comes from doing something interesting, and something that I haven't already done a dozen times already. A higher level campaign introduces challenges and strategies into the game that are simply more interesting to me, and avoids a lot of the "Fantasy Vietnam" elements of the game that I'm largely bored with.

A great example of a game that starts from first level as something different and interesting is EnWorld's Burning Sky. I'd be all over playing that -- if I hadn't already run a large portion of it.

So I guess that's an answer for you... I think anyway.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Would making a 1st-level character discourage you from playing in a new campaign? And how likely would it be to discourage you?

The scenario: You are joining a new group for the first time. Maybe the game is ongoing, maybe it isn't. If it's a new campaign the GM is starting everyone at 1st-level. If it is an ongoing campaign, existing players will be playing alternate characters (also at 1st-level) until you and any other new players have attained enough power, points, or levels to work with existing characters. Would the fact that you have to start at 1st-level play a part in your decision to continue playing with that group?

Starting a 1st level character in a new campaign? Of course. I always expect to start at 1st level in a new campaign. I mean, who doesn't?

However...

Starting at 1st level in an "ongoing campaign, existing players will be playing alternate characters (also at 1st-level) until you and any other new players have attained enough power, points, or levels to work with existing characters." strikes me as bizarre? Why not just let the new player(s) make a PC of the appropriate level and get to the main storyline? Since the other, older players will be dropping whatever they are playing to get back to their main PC I can't imagine them being much invested in the game at that point. I would feel uncomfortable that I, as the new player, was forcing them to play this side campaign when they would rather be playing their regular characters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The quality of the company and the level of interest I find in the campaign overall are the factors most important to me. Power level doesn't have positive or negative effect on the entertainment value of the game.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

My campaigns generally start at 1st level (as have almost all the campaigns that I have played in from the start). I generally prefer to start my campaigns at 1st level.

I wouldn't have an issue starting at 1st level, so long as the other PC's were also close to 1st level. The tipping point for me would probably come around 4th or 5th level. At that point a 1st level character is either going to be a bystander to any fight that challenges a 4th or 5th level character, or they are going to get themselves killed. So at that point you're more a spectator than a player, and I don't consider roleplaying to be a spectator sport.

New players in my campaign start with the same XP total as the lowest level PC in the party. So anyone joining the group will at least be in the ballpark when it comes to power levels.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Ranes]

I would never mind, not in the least, under any circumstances.

Seriously, if the rest of the party is 20th level and my PC's life expectancy is less than the next encounter, that's fine, as long as I can keep on rolling up new characters.

 

[kitsune9]

As a player and a GM, I prefer to start a new campaign at 1st level (or as starting characters, for games without levels). So, no problem there at all.

If I'm joining a campaign already in progress, I don't mind coming in as slightly less powerful than the rest of the PCs. But if it is far enough behind that my character can't pull his own weight, or is just very likely to die because he can't handle what the GM is throwing at the party, then there is a problem.

So, if the rest of the party is 12th level, and you say I have to start as 1st, I'm likely to decline, as the first area-effect spell damage tossed at the rest of the party is apt to just kill my character outright, so why bother.

This is my opinion exactly.