Would 1st-level Discourage You From Playing?

[Herobizkit]

I voted 'somewhat discouraging'. I don't generally get to play much these days. Were I playing a 3e game, I'd be excited to play, but dreading the climb to get to a prestige class or two. For 4e, it wouldn't be so bad, as I've only just started trying it out; the rules are new enough that low-level is perfect for testing the waters.

 

[Haltherrion]

My first thought was that the scenario you describe was okay.

It's one thing to make me start at first when everyone else is much higher level. I'd always feel like a second class citizen in the group, just waiting for a new campaign where I could finally be equal.

Your scenario, however, feels much more accomodating at first until I start wondering, wait, every time a new player joins the group I need to park my favorite character and start a new one? I might not mind so much as the new player but I think I would mind the next time a new player joined. But it also depends how often new players join and how you structure the campaign. If it is infrequent and the concept of a second group of PCs is well handled it could be a plus, not a minus. For instance, if once the new PCs are at-level, if we could swap between the two PCs it might be kind of fun for variety.

On the otherhand, it really isn't that hard to start a PC at the group's level. There's nothing magic to level 1 unless it's a player new to the system who needs to learn the rules. I've played in and run many campaigns where we started at anywhere from level 3 to 11 and it can work just fine with seasoned players.

For the case of a new campaign starting at first level, no issues at all.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm a long-time AD&D 2nd edition player, so I have a deep-rooted fixation for starting the game with a multi-class character. Like for instance elves should be fighter/wizards. This is why I almost always start from 2nd level and tell my players that if they are planning multi-class build, it would be best to do it right from the start.

 

[Micp]

well, when i first tried D&D i have to say that i was a little dissapointed with first level, but as i've learned to play the game i'm not so much against it anymore, and i can usually appreciate starting at first level. still with some campaigns it's understood that our characters have "experienced" things before the start of the adventure, and so we usually start at fifth level instead.

 

[MarkB]

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.

Same for me. I tried playing a Pathfinder Society game at the last convention I went to, playing a rogue, and having to go back to playing a character with single-digit hit points, never more than a hit or two from oblivion, was definitely a turn-off.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

For me, it's important to start at first level. I like to know my character's humble origins, and it helps me to think both in terms of story and in terms of just learning how the character works mechanically.


It's imporant enough to me, that, were I to DM an "epic from the start" campaign with my group (i.e. the campaign starts at lvl 20), it wouldn't really start at lvl 20.

What I'd do is run the players through 3 or 4 "prequel" adventures, say at levels 1, 6, and 12 (and maybe 16). These would be one shots with the same characters for the same reasons I mention above.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Do we really need to kobold stomp through the Caves of Mediocre Locks again?

...doing the whole "apprentice adventurer" thing is something I've experienced an awful lot.

Count me in the category of "too many low level campaigns, let's do something different".

Likewise. I don't mind starting at 1st level but after a rash of short games and restarting at 1st level, I prefer starting a little higher.

I find that 4e adds an additional incentive to start at first level - unless you've played that class before, you're going to need time to get to know your powers.

This is a good exception to my preference. If there's going to be a learning curve for either the players or the GM it's best to start as a fledgling.

 

[DumbPaladin]

If the game is using a standard system with next to no house rules, starting at 1st is not much of a hindrance, and a non-issue compared to more important things like my level of comfort with the DM, other players, and gaming environment.

If the game is heavily altered from a standard system, a completely DM-crafted system, or drowning in house rules, starting at level 1 is probably the only way I will have a chance of acclimating and/or keeping up ... in which case my answer changes to "Encouraging".

Besides ... level 1 can be fun.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yes. I already said I personally prefer it.

But I was responding to, "necessary part of the RPG experience," not, "highly desirable."

 

[Beginning of the End]

Same for me. I tried playing a Pathfinder Society game at the last convention I went to, playing a rogue, and having to go back to playing a character with single-digit hit points, never more than a hit or two from oblivion, was definitely a turn-off.

Lethality is a feature not a bug for the game as it was originally designed. But, yeah, keeping that lethality in a campaign where you then try to avoid being lethal is just painful. Cut to the chase and start people at 3rd level. Or triple hit points. Or whatever.