Would 1st-level Discourage You From Playing?

[greatamericanfolkher]

I have brought in a good number of new players into existing campaings over the years, whose level is greater then one but less then the existing players. I have gotten a little grumbling, but do it so that they can play a less complicated charecter and get use to it.

Any one else see this as a problem?

If it is one or two less than the party average then no, not really a problem. (my post was a little hyperbolic with the 2-22 comment.) If it's more than that I would be a little discouraged.

 

[the Jester]

I have brought in a good number of new players into existing campaings over the years, whose level is greater then one but less then the existing players. I have gotten a little grumbling, but do it so that they can play a less complicated charecter and get use to it.

Any one else see this as a problem?

Not me, but the parties I run usually have a small level variance, and I bring new players in at the party's bottom level.

 

[The Human Target]

Generally speaking, it would have no bearing on my decision one way or another.

But if I had played that system's 1st level before and not enjoyed it, or played it so many times before I was sick of it, then yes it would.

Nor would I play a 1st level character in any game in which any other PCs were higher than say 2nd level.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Not starting at first would be a bit odd, but I've done it when the campaign started at level 2-3 once or twice. I also started at level 1 in a (1e)AD&D game where the average level was around 12ish. Fortunately I wasn't the only one. We died several times, but got Reincarated a bunch! Good times (mostly)!

 

[Reynard]

The impact of bringing a 1st level character into a higher level party varies by edition. In general, assuming "higher level" only means up 5th or so, it is perfectly doable in O/B/AD&D. The newbie has to be careful, for sure, but can still contribute and will level up to meet the rest of the party in relatively short order.

In 3E or PF I would be loathe to include a new PC more than a level or 2 behind the party average. The power curve is just too steep.

To answer the actual question: I prefer to start at first with characters made via roll-in-order stats, whether I am playing or GMing.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think that's a bit overstated.

Most games out there don't have "levels" as a game concept. Several of them have a variety of different power levels at which a party can reasonably start. Superhero games are especially know for this.

And, even in D&D, "1st level" doesn't mean a huge amount, as you can see if you look at what it means to be such a character over several editions. The play experience at 1st level in 4e is more like that of 3rd level in 1e.

So, not, it isn't necessary. It is, however, convenient for many things.

While it may be true that most games don't have "levels" as a game concept, RPG players recognize levels as the most common currency of character power because of the enormous popularity of the game that started it all (D&D). There are a lot of point-based or power-based gaming systems out there, but I would find it very surprising if all of them combined made up more than a small fraction of games being actively played. Level-based games like D&D seem to be solidly in the majority. I don't have any statistics to back that up, but just take a look at the games being played in your FLGS and you will probably see the pattern.

Anyway, I believe the concept applies equally well to point-based games and the like. Starting out at a very rudimentary power level and advancing forward from that point is often highly desirable compared to the alternative of starting out at a high power level and advancing forward from that point.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

1st level can be fun, especially for the experienced gamer

It's refreshing to play a noob every now and then. When I do, I like tog et off the beaten path, try and explore something that's challenging - like a blind orcish illusionist with a vow of poverty (been there, done that)

 

[Hussar]

It wouldn't turn me off. It's pretty much the norm.

What would turn me off is every time we start at 1st level, we play for six or eight months and then the campaign dies because the new shiny appears and we start again at 1st level.

Like Patryn of Elvenshae, doing the whole "apprentice adventurer" thing is something I've experienced an awful lot.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If everyone else is 1st-level, fine. Otherwise, no way!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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 level is not a factor for me- I've even joined established, experienced groups as a 1st level PC. That just means I level up fast...or die and start over. Heck, sometimes, when you're the "cub," the experienced PCs will let you use their castoffs & backup gear.