Opportunity Actions: Why Does 1st Level (Have To) Suck? @ RPG MUSINGS

Opportunity Actions: Why Does 1st Level (Have To) Suck?

When starting a campaign, I’ve always noticed a tendency for players and DMs alike to inevitably ask, “What level are we starting at?”

I always get confused by this question. There’s a starting level other than 1? You’re kidding, right?

A Disclaimer

The ideas presented here are not all-encompassing. I’m not accounting for one-shots, short-term campaigns, or other types of limited-scope games. This really points at long term campaigns where people plan on playing for longer than a few sessions.

The Inherent Problem

Why must we start higher than level 1? Level 1 represents an entry level hero. Starting a campaign higher than that assumes that the character has been adventuring for some time, and has earned some accolades along the way. As you start a campaign, you haven’t done anything yet.

I don’t like the idea of starting a campaign with great acheivements already in the past. If a character has the potential to acheive great things, that character should be given the space to do so. I’m a major proponent of “Show, Don’t Tell”, where a character should be doing fantastic things, as opposed to telling great stories after the fact.

Some players and DMs, however, feel that level 1 is too weak to play a fun game. Is it that the characters are too weak, or is it that the players aren’t taking what they’re given at level 1, and recognizing the potential inherent in pushing character design out into every unused corner?

Journey vs. Destination

Something to think about: The value of a story is in getting there, not just the end point. If we chop off the early parts of an adventurer or adventuring party’s journey, we run a very high risk of cheapening the experience. The further away from the starting point we get, the more spectacular the events should naturally become.

The Opposite of 11

A well known movie about a fictional rock band mentions an amp that goes to 11. The interviewer asks, “Why not make 10 louder?”

I put forth this notion: Why not make level 1 better? Make the challenges more exciting. Make the puzzles more interesting. Give the mysteries more layers. Whether my wizard can barely light a match or vaporize a city is irrelevant if he unlocks the mystery that has plagued a region for decades.

I say that early levels should be the warm up levels, if nothing else. As you wend your way through those levels, Your creative juices are gettingused to the idead of amazing and fantastical concepts. By the time you hit those middle levels, you should be in your stride, making exciting choices, and keeping yourself and others involved. By the time you’re in what some systems call the ‘Epic’ levels, you should really be testing the limits of your imagination, rewriting realities, inventing universes; in effect being the epic being your character portends to be.

Conclusions

Start at level 1. There’s great adventure to be had there. Live in the world before you become so powerful that it no longer means all that much to you. Dealing with human issues means nothing to creatures that have passed beyond humanity’s trifles. Remember that, and later levels are automatically a triumph.

Watch your threatened squares. Don’t let them threaten you.

IMAGE NOTES: The drawing of the writer was found at Game Informer. This Is Spinal Tap is the property of MGM Studios. Motivational poster was found at Giant in the Playground.

In 4e, I like starting my games at level 2 for a few reasons. From a story/character perspective, it gives the player more leeway to potentially have a background that has more evidence of experience. If your warlord has been a mercenary for the last 5 years, shouldn’t they be at least a little better than a downy-cheeked warlord who just graduated from a military academy? Not every player takes advantage of that opportunity, and indeed many don’t, but I like offering that little bit of flexibility to the players to help them make their characters mechanics and backstory line up a bit better.

Mechanically speaking, I like starting at level 2 because as a player it gives me that one more additional power I can use and an additional feat. It let’s me feel a bit more customized, different than every other player with that class. It also might mean a magical item and that’s always fun. As a DM, I like starting at level 2 because I get a few extra monsters that I can use as-is and a few more still that I can use with some tweaking to throw at my players.

WolfSamurai on March 23rd, 2011 at 12:33 pm

@WolfSamurai – Excellent point. I guess I’m speaking to the players and DMs who feel they need to start at level 6 to make their characters more ‘bad-@$$’, and less from the perspective of someone that wants to start at level 2 because they feel it offers slightly more flexibility. A campaign game shouldn’t start at a point where the foundation of the campaign is already over, and level 2 (while not where I’d necessarily start) happens during some of that foundation building phase.

The Opportunist on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:04 pm

I also start my games at level 2, for the same reason– characters just tend to be more interesting with that extra feat. But I’d never start an ongoing game higher than that, because it’s very important to learn your character when he’s simple, and then only complicate him once you’ve got him figured out.

I find one of the common complaints about low levels are that people get sick of fighting the same bad guys– kobolds, goblins, skeletons, and so on. I’m new to roleplaying in 4e, so I don’t have a lot of the biases old-time players do; as such, I always furrow my brow at these people and ask, “Err, who says monsters need to exist in fixed level brackets in the first place?” The last group I ran started out at level 2 fighting elementals leaking out of the Elemental Chaos and then proceeded onto a fire-imbued cult of lava-worshipping orcs, and finally brushed against a sinister empire of Gnomes and its corrupt clerics of Corellon– all before hitting level 3.

The ease of level adjustment and reskinning in 4e gives the DM infinite freedom to make the game world as interesting as he likes, so there’s no excuse at all for level 1 to be boring. In fact, I’d argue that level 1 should be the most exciting level of the heroic tier, because in my experience that’s the crucial time to get your players hooked and invested in what’s going on. There’ll be time for kobolds later– maybe once they get to Paragon. :)

Captain Spud on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:53 pm

I’d recommend taking a closer look at the monster, HP, attack bonus and defenses math. There’s no power difference in terms of d20 rolls between level 1 and any other level in 4E.

Monster’s stats scale with your level. Many, many skill DCs scale with level. Largely, the idea of getting more powerful as you level is illusionary. At level 1 you might need to roll a 9 to hit an equivalent level brute for your particular character. The system is designed that at level 21, you’re still going to need that 9 to hit an equivalent level brute.

Level in 4E is not a power mechanic but a pacing mechanic. All the system math (1/2 level bonuses, assumed enhancement bonuses from items, etc.,) assumes the same +1 to various stats that monsters get when they are one higher level. Similarly, skill challenge DCs also scale.

It’s kind of like an insubstantial monster. You hit it and are annoyed that you do only half damage. Yet it has exactly half the Hit Points of a non insubstantial creature of the same role and level.

4E’s level system is about the pacing of the story through the tiers. It’s power mechanics in terms of target numbers (like the amount of damage you need to roll to kill an insubstantial monster seeming like more) are largely illusory.

Where power increases come is in the form of new powers. An extra encounter power per encounter is a measurably increase of the damage/conditions that character puts out. Feats unrelated to attack and defense bonuses (as those are already assumed by the monster scaling math) also add options and additional abilities.

Items form the last part of power increase by level. But not the enhancement bonus of the items as those, again, are included by the system scaling math. It’s the critical effects (except in Dark Sun as again, those are included by the system scaling math), properties and powers. Furthermore, the rituals related to item creation, enchantment transferring, disenchantment, etc., actually make this a form of points-buy character advancement. This is even more blatant with the use of wish-lists where characters are expected to get exact items as they level.

Don’t take this as a criticsim of 4E. I run the game weekly and love it. If I were to draw a conclusion about this information, it would be that if a player sees a higher level as better than a lower one in terms of the system math, it’s probably because the illusion of having your damage halved by insubstantial is so effective. If it’s not because of wanting better bonuses in terms of system math, then it’s about options. Some people want more of them. Playing a level 11 character gives you a ton more options during each round of combat than at level 1. If that’s what someone prefers in terms of game play, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

From their perspective, why should they spend time session after session in playing less that the experience they want? Heroic tier just might not do it for some and the journey of becoming a more powerful character may simply not appeal to them.

Nathaniel on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm

@Spud – Here’s the thought I put out to one that suggests enemies are not varied enough in early levels: Vary them. One group of goblins may be a raiding party of hunters with bows and arrows, another may be a warren guard, with sword and shield. If you take some of the advice of the game’s designers (notably that of Chris Perkins) you can adapt monsters pretty much on the fly to be anything you need them to be.

@Nathaniel – Part of my point, and yet not. If there truly is no difference in the Difficulty/Ability relationship as you level up, then there’s no point in starting at a later level, since everything’s the same.

However, as one progresses in levels, characters become deeper mechanically, and involve more work overall. This being said, I think it’s harder to find a definite working strategy with so many options to use. This also can cause a jarring disconnect if players are trying build an effective party at a later level, and there’s not as much synergy in character concepts or mechanics as happens when people are growing the party together. I could illustrate many examples of this if you like, but I don’t know if I have the space to do that here.

The Opportunist on March 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Thanks The Opportunist for a well written and though-provoking article! I agree with your position regarding level 1 as being as good a level as the later ones and the best level to start at. Who would begin reading a book in the middle? Not I.

Captain Spud raises a valid point as well regarding the value of getting to know your character well before pouring on the additional power from higher levels.

I almost always enforce level one as the default starting level when I GM. I have noticed that whenever I cave in to player requests to start at higher levels, the game always suffers from a certain degree of disassociation – the players got what they wanted, but since they received many of their advancement powers “off screen”, the player doesn’t completely identify with their character. It really makes a difference when every aspect of the character is gained during play instead of simply handed to them fron the start.

Spiralbound on March 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm

” If there truly is no difference in the Difficulty/Ability relationship as you level up, then there’s no point in starting at a later level, since everything’s the same.”

Yes! This is correct. There is only a negligible mathematical difference in to-hit numbers, damage expressed at a % of monster HP, skill challenge, DCs, defenses.

The only reason to start at a higher level is if you want to have more:
- encounter & daily powers
- extra bonuses & options from feats
- extra bonuses & options from magic items

An experiment: At levels 4-6, you get the benefits of a paragon path’s abilities. Then do the same to get the Epic Destiny bonuses at levels 7-10.

Take paragon and epic tier monsters and level them down appropriately.

The game will work just fine as a compressed 3 tiers in one game.

4E Leveling is pretty much about pacing through the story of the different tiers. Since the system math compensates for all leveling by simply increasing the difficulty of challenges at the exact same rate, it takes very little effort to transform any level of play into the tone of any tier of play.

I once ran a min-series where level 1 characters were demigods. All mortals were level 1 minions no matter how great their power. At level 4, they fought and killed a leveled down version of Tiamat and then used her blood to kill Bahamut and restore Io.

Nathaniel on March 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm

Also, excellent point about characters developing together being better at working as a party than those thrown together at high levels. That’s a great point.

Nathaniel on March 23rd, 2011 at 7:34 pm

I too like starting at 2nd for the extra feat and action. I was going to follow up with the nice thing about starting at higher level, like 6 is that it gives the GM more ability to vary both encounter challenge (there is a lower floor) and change up the type of monsters. But with how easy it is in 4e to re-skin and modify monsters, it’s not really a valid point. In the adventure I ran last week, I made 2nd level troglodytes and used a 6th level trap and dialed back the damage and effects to be level appropriate.

Mike on March 23rd, 2011 at 8:04 pm

I’m going to have to disagree a little. I think newbs should start at 1, after that its a judgement call.

For experienced players, I think level 5 is more appropriate. At level 5 you have two of every power (daily, encounter, utility). Allowing players to have some versatility in their actions and choose some magic items.

Use the magic items as story seeds for character development, and always have the players write a background explaining how they got to level five. It gives you, the DM, plenty of ammo for quest integration using Sly’s 5×5 method (personally I use 4×4).

You also have to consider the culture shock of ending an epic tier. Levels 27 – 30 contain the most epic of everything available. Level thirty powers last but 1 level. If you keep gaming next week, are you going to have them bring level 1 characters? Starting gold 100. 1 encounter, 1 daily. That’s it.

Level 30 is a hard high to come down from, level 1 is a harsh rehab.

*Editor’s Note: I believe that is the 5×5 method proposed and designed by DaveTheGame, not SlyFlourish, just to give proper credit where credit is due (not that Sly doesn’t also do awesome stuff). Cheers! – DMSamuel

j0nny_5 on March 24th, 2011 at 12:08 am

@j0nny_5 – That’s why you need to take a break from D&D once you hit level 30. After playing an entire campaign levels 1-30 you need to cleanse the palate. Any level below the 27 neighborhood is going to feel extremely weak. I don’t think anyone can really go from 30 to 1 in one week’s time, and if they say they can they’re probably lying.

Hit level 30. Play out the end of the campaign. Establish the mythological impact your party has rightfully attained. Then, go play a few sessions of Mouse Guard. Or Vampire. Or some entirely other system that scratches your itch. Nerd does not live by D&D alone.

After you’ve played the field some, D&D will still be there. Level 1 won’t seem so ridiculous.

At this point, I think it needs to be mentioned: I am not forcing anyone into anything. If you want to start at a higher level, that’s fine. I just want to illustrate where I think some important steps might be unnecessarily skipped. My .02.

j0nny_5 on March 24th, 2011 at 12:55 am

The early levels, perhaps anything 5th and under, are sometimes the absolute most fun!
You have to use your wits… not a load of gadgets, like some Monty Haul campaigns become.
I have no issues with high(er) level play, but the danger and newness factor of lower level play can make it just as exciting. As you say, it is more about the journey to some GMs/players than it is just about becoming some epic hero. The Hero’s Journey is about being and becoming a hero through growth along the path… it is intertwined. Racking up XPs and waiting for the next best thing (level) is missing the point, IMHO.

Great post! Thanks for sharing it!

Jeff O on March 25th, 2011 at 9:09 am

I have an on-going campaign that started at level one that I DM. As long as your story is good and the encounters are challenging. What’s the problem? I also think starting at level one gives the sense of investment and earning your way. In the long run, in my opinion, most players are more connected in a campaign if your start from the beginning. Anyways with 4th edition, player characters are over powered anyways so you can give them harder encounters compared to past editions.

Paul S on April 5th, 2011 at 1:37 pm

I know a lot of DMs who believe that it’s important to start the characters out at 1st level every time they start a new campaign. However, in my case, I usually like to let the story I want to tell dictate the level of the game. For example, if I want to run an extraplanar campaign, for example, I’m generally going to start my players at a higher level. If I want to tell a story involving kobolds, then I’m generally going to start my players out at a lower level.

The only time I feel an absolute need to start players out at 1st level, is if they’re brand new to the game. I figure that when you’re starting out, it’s important to get a feel for the basic mechanics, and it’s a lot harder to do that when you’re starting out with a 14th level character, than it is when you’re starting out with a 1st level character.

RPG MUSINGS Play The Game You Want To Play