I can go either way, and in fact, mixing them up is good.

I don't mind starting from nothing in a D&D game, particularly in modern incarnations of the game that are a lot more forgiving at first level. The feeling of becoming more competent is genuinely fun.

On the other hand, a little Competence Porn never hurt anybody either.

There are also genre considerations. If you're in a horror game, it makes sense to start off inexperienced and outclassed. Indeed, you may be in a downward spiral, where the best you can hope for is a meaningful death.

But if you're playing superheroes, there should be some basic competence. You should be able to hold your own against a mugger, but there are probably bad guys out there that will give you a lot of trouble. And your power/skill levels will go up as your story unfolds.

And if you're playing James Bond, you'll start out at a high level, and maybe not advance all that much.

If I am running a game for people that have never played TTRPGs before, I always try to encourage starting as bottom ringers clawing their way to the top.

You only get that feeling once. There will be plenty of time to play "Masters of the Multiverse" when they know enough inside baseball to understand how the sausage is made.

But, when the game is still a magical and brand new experience, even the most mundane of events inside the story they are forging with their decisions makes everlasting impact.


I personally prefer games that let you start with an actual concept and not have it gated behind "levels" of experience. What I mean by this is, if I want to play a Knight-Errant with a trusty steed, back in the D&D3e era you would need to wait until level 4 or so to get a mount as a Paladin.

So, if your concept involved being a mounted knight and everyone started at level 1, then you would have to wait to play that concept.

Same if you want to play a scruffy mercenary that is more of a thug that can fight well but is also skillful at lockpicking and has enough moxy to talk his way out of a bin. That would be a Fighter/Rogue and thus would be impossible as a 1st level character.

So, if the concept is that your character are already competent or has a specific something you are looking for, then I like games that allow you to have a fully realized concept at Session 1 instead of however many sessions the designers decided it would take for my character to be high enough level for that feature.

This is why I prefer point buy & skill based games instead of level and class based games. Usually, with a point buy skill based game you will be able to have an actual concept to start with as those tend to allow more lateral progression instead of strictly vertical like D&D. Meaning, a warrior in Mythras starts as a competent and deadly combatant, since he invested his creation points in stats and skills that are conducive to be a great melee opponent. But, there's room to grow however, that same character at the end of the campaign will not be a demi-God that can take on hundreds of combatants at the same time, unlike a D&D Fighter that just by virtue of HP scaling, will come a time where goblins and kobolds are less than fodder and wont represent any sort of challenge.

I know some people actually really enjoy that, they love being able to just trounce lower CR enemies but for me a dagger to the eye should always be a dagger to the eye. Just a different way to play ttrpgs, not trying to say people that like those types of games are having "bad wrong fun". I just don't find it enjoyable.

I generally prefer character development to occur across the game but the Mythras approach to starting age and experience is a pretty sweet compromise to players who don't want characters with no hair on their balls.

Bottom rung of the ladder for long term sandbox games.

Focused campaigns with a backstory or playing a supers game...depends but not a strong preference for me. You lose to much, for to little gain.

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 08:01:09 PM
When you say it's an "epic fantasy game" - does that mean that it's important that the characters eventually become powerful heroes who can go toe-to-toe with a dragon? Or is it OK if the characters stay at more regular human levels?

Well, yeah, I think being able to fight dragons should be on the table. Dungeons & Dragons, after all, is the tradition. Beyond that, it is also fighting dragons, hydras, monsters, giants. Epic fantasy. Growing to be reasonably capable of such feats is important.

Cool. And I agree that's fine as a preference. If someone specifically likes the path from ordinary peasant to epic hero, they should do what they enjoy.

But it's just one way to enjoy things. Some people don't like the epic power with fantastical stuff, or only like it under some systems or settings. They might like HarnMaster, or Burning Wheel, or some historical RPGs -- or maybe D&D/OSR with an E6 variant or just sticking only to low levels. Some people don't like the mundane stuff, and prefer the epic power fantasy. They might like Fantasy HERO, or Amber Diceless, or D&D where you start at higher level.

What I'm saying is, people shouldn't put up with stuff that they don't enjoy in order to later get to stuff they do enjoy. I'm not a video game player, but I hear about grinding, where players go through dull earlier levels so they can get to the cool stuff later -- and it sounds infuriating. Especially, players seem encouraged to think "Well, I've put 100 hours into this game, so now I really should keep playing or those 100 hours were wasted." I hate that in game design.

I think there are plenty of good, fun low-level D&D adventures. I am fully behind having fun games at low-level and progressing. But if it's not to someone's taste, then they should play at whatever level range they prefer.