Quote from: Werekoala;369261I usually like to start around 5th level, to avoid the worst of the low-end grind. Max HP at 1st, roll thereafter, use whatever stat generation you prefer (I'm a pushover, what can I say). Starting cash at 2.5x, and we'll roll for a random magic item as well. I usually grant one re-roll (not for the whole item, but on one table) but you;re stuck with the second result.

From a different thread, obviously.  

I started the Castle Amber game here at about the same level, because the module was designed for the higher levels.  But it raises a question for me:  are characters around 5th level a better representation of what people think are beginning adventurers?

I'm trying to gauge opinion, not counter a point.  At this point in my life, I don't exactly relish the though of starting out at first level, either.  I suppose I could make this a poll, but those don't tend to garner much discussion.

I tend to do it because I think it starts people out in the "competent" zone - no worries about a handful of goblins taking you out, or one bad roll on a spike trap, but you can still feel threatened by a couple of really mean orcs. It also gives the character a chance for a bit of back-story aside from the "Ok, the farm got burned down by raiders, here is your pitchfork and cloth armor." approach.

I'm used playing with guys who have gamed together for 30+ years, and starting from 1st level doesn't have the allure it used to. Hell, sometimes we'll start a game at 15 or 20 just for some variety.

I tend to start around 3rd but it varies.  I like some experience to avoid random death and to give room for a short backstory but I like room to grow and I'm not big on high level gaming in general.

Quote from: Werekoala;369270I tend to do it because I think it starts people out in the "competent" zone - no worries about a handful of goblins taking you out, or one bad roll on a spike trap, but you can still feel threatened by a couple of really mean orcs. It also gives the character a chance for a bit of back-story aside from the "Ok, the farm got burned down by raiders, here is your pitchfork and cloth armor." approach.

I'm used playing with guys who have gamed together for 30+ years, and starting from 1st level doesn't have the allure it used to. Hell, sometimes we'll start a game at 15 or 20 just for some variety.

Quote from: Nicephorus;369277I tend to start around 3rd but it varies.  I like some experience to avoid random death and to give room for a short backstory but I like room to grow and I'm not big on high level gaming in general.

Ok, so two results, 3rd-5th level starting out generally.  Divided on the high level play, it looks.

What about something like E6, but starting out around 3rd to 5th and going to maybe 10th or 12th?  A more condensed set of levels, in other words.  Would packing in 20, 30 or 36 levels into 5-8 levels get too complicated or heavy?

Quote from: StormBringer;369263From a different thread, obviously.  

I started the Castle Amber game here at about the same level, because the module was designed for the higher levels.  But it raises a question for me:  are characters around 5th level a better representation of what people think are beginning adventurers?

I'm trying to gauge opinion, not counter a point.  At this point in my life, I don't exactly relish the though of starting out at first level, either.  I suppose I could make this a poll, but those don't tend to garner much discussion.

NO, NO, No, No, No.

That's my vote and opinion.
I only let PC's start with more EXP if they have been wiped out and are rejoining with a new character, and still, I don't start them on an even keel with the survivors.

Quote from: LordVreeg;369283NO, NO, No, No, No.

That's my vote and opinion.
I only let PC's start with more EXP if they have been wiped out and are rejoining with a new character, and still, I don't start them on an even keel with the survivors.

I apologize, I haven't read over Celtricia for a while, but approximately what equivalent level are starting characters in that system?

If you are talking strictly about D&D, then I will register one 'nay' vote.  

Quote from: StormBringer;369263I started the Castle Amber game here at about the same level, because the module was designed for the higher levels.  But it raises a question for me:  are characters around 5th level a better representation of what people think are beginning adventurers?

Depends on the context.

If you are into Campbellian adventuring, i.e. a farm boy living in a mundane world receives an invitation to Adventure, answers the Call, and goes through a series of challenges and trials up to a transforming epiphany, and back to the mundane world to share his experience, then my idea of a starting character is a 1st level AD&D First Ed character. Even a 0-level character, as a matter of fact.

If you are more into grand epic frescos, more into the instant depiction of heroes pitted against the evil of this world rather than the way in which they got there (i.e. an instant snapshot, a trial, rather than a path to adventure), then you'll want to start with experienced characters.

I personally much prefer the Campbellian approach, mostly because I think it provides many more occasions for a simple character concept to grow, change, evolve into a hero in actual play, rather than off camera. The character then becomes factual, rather than theoretical in some written background somewhere. Also, if you start with a character who already has a clear adventuring concept, the player is in my experience more resistant to the idea of his character changing, evolving through the game. It's counter productive.

Quote from: StormBringer;369263But it raises a question for me:  are characters around 5th level a better representation of what people think are beginning adventurers?

No, not for me personally.  I still think that 1st level is the best representation of a starting character.

Quote from: Stormy

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg the mildly insaneNO, NO, No, No, No.

That's my vote and opinion.
I only let PC's start with more EXP if they have been wiped out and are rejoining with a new character, and still, I don't start them on an even keel with the survivors.

I apologize, I haven't read over Celtricia for a while, but approximately what equivalent level are starting characters in that system?

If you are talking strictly about D&D, then I will register one 'nay' vote.

I like starting at the beginning or even earlier.
I really enjoy things gritty and dangerous.  The current highest HP in Celtricia is 53, I think, for a 15 year old character.

From the Guildschool character creation...
"Starting EXP guidelines
Guildschool offers tremendous flexibility in the type of campaign or game a GM wants to run.  Both in terms of stating a game or adding a player into an existing game.  And obviously, this holds true for creation.
A GM should look at 2 things when deciding how close to the normal model to cleave.  The aggragate amount of experperience they want to start a character with, and if they want to set up any restrictions.

A traditional GS game starts PC's with 5000 real EXP+any gotten from social charts.  No less than 5% of the total real exp amount can be put into a skill[2], so no more than 20 skills can be chosen in the beginning (and no one should every do that anyways.)  Also, a beginning character may only choose commonality 1 (basic) skills, not sub skills and dropdowns.  Those are advanced, 'graduate' level skills.
This is based on a normal commoner having 3k-5k total, experience, with maybe 1-4k in artisan skills.  Obviously, an expert/mastercrafter in the potter's Guild probably has more like 6-8k exp, with perhaps 4-6k IN THEIR AREA OF SPECIALIZATION (making them probably a 8th-11th level potter/glazer/kilnworker/artist).

A GM has to think of starting exp as how much time and exposure the character has had put into their skills.  A young character might have less, an older character, more.

Now, in an old Miston Game, Brian wanted to push the system a bit and create a real commoner.  So we decided that since he was young, he'd have only 4k starting exp, no magic skills, no more than level 1 in any combat skill, and no esoterics.  Basically, he ended up creating Drono Biddlebee the hobyt Commoner, a simple peasant of the Turniper's Commune (which is was and is a playable school).  We let him do L2 HP (I think it was 10 he ended up with), L1 basic Spear (he used a pitchfork, literally), l1 Bow, l1 basic defence.  The rest (about 2200exp) went into Farming, Cooking (he was hired by the Miston group as a porter and cook), basic Outdoor (tracking was useful), etc.

We also had Cassius, an escaped Omwo~ slave from the Argussian Empire, only 29 years old (very young for Omwo~).  Similarly, he was allowed 3700 starting EXP, no magic, and very basic weapon trainging, but allowed l2 HP as he had been toughened up by the slave life.  He asked if he could take basic ettiquite, saying he had served in a wealthy house, I allowed him a will save +20%, which he succeeded in.  But almost all the skills were menial and artisan, though I will say he played that basic ettiquite to the hilt...

Characters that come into a group later can be given similar bonbuses to starting exp, to account for the group going out and finding a peer or at least someone more useful to them. "

That Hobyt commoner, Drono Biddlebee, has been played for 13 years and has almost 40K experience now, Drono is learning to be a priest of Amrist of the Autumn Harvest now, and has leve6 HP (23, I believe) now.

I look at levels in D&D like this:

• Normal Man (0-level): Your average man.  He may be a farmer.  He may be a tailor.  He may be a line grunt soldier.  He may be the king.
  
• Veteran (1st level - 3rd level): An exceptional or experienced man.  A seasoned veteran, a doughty warrior or an expert swordsman.  (Or a man able to cast a few spells, or the like.)
  
• Hero (4th level - 7th level): A man among men.  People know his name.  There may even been some songs about him.
  
• Superhero (8th level - 12th level): A legend.  The kind of man who could handle a whole squad of enemy soldiers single-handedly.  Conan.  John Carter.  Superhero also overlaps with "name level" (usually somewhere around 10th), where the PC starts gaining special followers and benefits if he chooses to establish a lordship or domain.  
  

While I don't put a top-end limit on levels, anything beyond 10th is exceptional among mortals.

So, to answer the question, I think of 1st level as already being special, and suitable for a starting adventurer.  Nevertheless, if I didn't want to start PCs at first level, and wanted them to start as more seasoned heroes, I'd probably choose either 3rd or 4th level.  (That is, the top of the "veteran" scale or the bottom of the "hero" scale.)

I tend to top my characters off at 8th level, but otherwise my analysis of character level meaning is similar to Philotomy Jurament's.

Sometimes I start 'em off at 1st level, but usually 3rd so they are experienced but not quite heroes. This gives them the chance to do more without fear of the random death by a single blow. However, I usually start them at 0 XP so it takes them a while to get out of 3rd and onto 4th level.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;369321Hero (4th level - 7th level): A man among men.  People know his name.  There may even been some songs about him.

Somehow "The Ballad of a Man Called Jayne" (from Firefly) keeps echoing through my head at the moment.

All very good ideas!  Keep them rolling in!

I look at campaigns mechanically.   These are my questions to determine starting level.

1) What is the feel and focus of the campaign?

2) What level range do the players enjoy most?

3) How long will the campaign realisticly last with this group?  

4) How much gameplay will actually occur that is XP focussed?

5) What level do I want them at the end of the campaign?

6) What do I want levels & XP to be based on for this campaign?