RL vs. PbP: starting level

[LordBlades]

Something I've recently realized and that got me thinking: there seems to be quite a discrepancy between the starting level of RL games and PbP games:

Most PbP games I've seen advertised or played in start at level 1.
Most RL games however seem to start above level 1. I read both this forum and Gitp quite frequently, and among character advice requests, campaign journals or just general ramblings campaigns starting at level 1 seem to be a minority.

Do you think this is true? Or has my limited sample size lead me to a wrong conclusion?

If it's true, what do you think is the reason behind it?

[sirpercival]

I rarely start at level 1 in either set.

[littha]

I very rarely start at level 1 in either case. The damage rules are way too swingy at level 1...

[wotmaniac]

in 17 years, I've started every single game ever at level 3+

(oh, wait ... except for 1 or 2 games that started at level 2)

I've always considered 1st level to be the "tutorial level"; an to a lesser extent, 2nd level as well (teaches you how to level-up an integrate your new abilities)

[InnaBinder]

Something I've recently realized and that got me thinking: there seems to be quite a discrepancy between the starting level of RL games and PbP games:

Most PbP games I've seen advertised or played in start at level 1.
Most RL games however seem to start above level 1. I read both this forum and Gitp quite frequently, and among character advice requests, campaign journals or just general ramblings campaigns starting at level 1 seem to be a minority.

Do you think this is true? Or has my limited sample size lead me to a wrong conclusion?

If it's true, what do you think is the reason behind it?

I rarely see PbP games starting at 1st level, myself, and only start there if the group is newbies or universally wants to.

[ariasderros]

in 17 years, I've started every single game ever at level 3+

(oh, wait ... except for 1 or 2 games that started at level 2)

I've always considered 1st level to be the "tutorial level"; an to a lesser extent, 2nd level as well (teaches you how to level-up an integrate your new abilities)

This.
The ONLY games I ever started at level 1 was with my brother DM'ing. One was the 2nd edition box set, with the pre-gened characters, the other one in 3.5.
In 20 years for me.

[veekie]

I almost never see PbPs start at level 1 personally. They tend to start at significantly higher levels, games in the teen levels are probable, simply because there is that much more time to react to unexpected player competencies and the like.

Live games span the gamut, but tend to avoid higher levels. The mental load on managing increasing player capabilities make real time response increasingly tricky.

[Unbeliever]

I haven't started a game at low level in a long time, either.  I prefer characters that have a little bit of a personal history (easier to develop motivations) and ones that have some of their mechanics realized (otherwise my goal is to power level till I get to play the character I really want to play). 

That's the perspective from someone who plays RL exclusively.

[Complete4th]

I've always considered 1st level to be the "tutorial level"; an to a lesser extent, 2nd level as well (teaches you how to level-up an integrate your new abilities)

Heck I consider 1 & 2 to be the comedic apprentice levels. Fighters can't afford grown-up armor, rogues are clutzes in melee, casters rely on mundane weapons for consistent contribution, and stepping on a garden hoe can spell death. Things don't begin to get fun until 3rd level.

But alas, most RL DMs IME start at 1st. Almost universally. (I don't pbp.)

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

In my experience, the lower the op level, the more likely to start at 1st. That's not absolute but it's definitely a general trend. I've often heard players who don't care about op say things to the effect of "I want to experience my character's rise from being incompetent to being awesome." Players with more op ability tend to be more along the lines of Unbeliever above: "the character I want to play doesn't exist before 6th lv so starting lower than that is pointless."

Personally, I lean towards the latter. 1st lv can be fun occasionally but it's like a different game. You either op for 1st level, in which case you're doing silly things like Precocious Apprentice + Reserve feat that will be useless later (unless you can retrain of course), or you plan out your build ahead of time and pray you don't get one shotted by a Kobold or something.

[veekie]

The main thing there. In PbP, when you start at a level, you're staying there, more or less, for the year at least. Muse on that and level 1.

[Dkonen]

Wow.

Every single game I've played has started at level one, or even zero, and then gone up from there.

About half of those ended with characters in epic levels.

I've really enjoyed starting characters off at low levels because I can feel the growth of the character, it seems more full.

Now, you'll realize I didn't say we stayed at those levels for very long 

[LordBlades]

In my experience, the lower the op level, the more likely to start at 1st. That's not absolute but it's definitely a general trend. I've often heard players who don't care about op say things to the effect of "I want to experience my character's rise from being incompetent to being awesome." Players with more op ability tend to be more along the lines of Unbeliever above: "the character I want to play doesn't exist before 6th lv so starting lower than that is pointless."

Personally, I lean towards the latter. 1st lv can be fun occasionally but it's like a different game. You either op for 1st level, in which case you're doing silly things like Precocious Apprentice + Reserve feat that will be useless later (unless you can retrain of course), or you plan out your build ahead of time and pray you don't get one shotted by a Kobold or something.

Completely agree. I dislike starting at level 1 from a multitude of reasons:

First of all, RNG. In my group most DMs (all but one) don't fudge. This means death by crit random goblin #34 is a very real possibility. And nobody wants to put too much effort in a character that might die in a single lucky hit that he can neither avoid nor reverse.  The most extreme example of this I've seen in my group: one player makes an elf druid with quite nice background: she was the healer and spiritual guide of a small village, our first quest was actually her hiring adventurers to help uncover the source of a supernatural blight that had appeared in the fields). First encounter of the campaign, a cleric of Nerull (the source of the blight) meets the PCs and tries to play them double what the elf is giving them to stay away. He's come to talk  but has a pair of skeletons with bows in the bushes to cover his escape in case things turn south. Paladin detects evil, starts asking some uncomfortable questions, then weapons get drawn and stuff escalates from there. Skeletons go first, one of them crits the druid for around 20 damage. Dead druid, 6 pages of wasted background and a very disheartened player.

Secondly, starting at first level 'kills' certain character concepts, especially the ones that require multiclassing, since you'd have entirely new abilities just pop out of thin air mid adventuring.  Take a Gish for example, RPed as a guy who;s trained from the outset to blend blade and magic into a single style. If you start at higher level, you can simply accept that 'this guy is a fighter-wizard, he can do magic and fighting' without putting too much thought into the timeline of the progression of his abilities. If you start at level 1 however, you have a problem. You can play a duskblade, but that might make for a too weak character later. You can play an outsider with a wizard level (and pretend you're a fighter-wizard due to innate martial weapon prof.) but that also weakens your build(you lose HP for doing that, and maybe SP as well if you want to do a Warblade/Wizard), and the only LA 0 outsider is Neraph. Barring that, at level 1 you have to be a mundane fighter, who at some point during his adventuring career suddenly gets the ability to cast spells.

[Arturick]

Secondly, starting at first level 'kills' certain character concepts, especially the ones that require multiclassing, since you'd have entirely new abilities just pop out of thin air mid adventuring.  Take a Gish for example, RPed as a guy who;s trained from the outset to blend blade and magic into a single style. If you start at higher level, you can simply accept that 'this guy is a fighter-wizard, he can do magic and fighting' without putting too much thought into the timeline of the progression of his abilities. If you start at level 1 however, you have a problem. You can play a duskblade, but that might make for a too weak character later. You can play an outsider with a wizard level (and pretend you're a fighter-wizard due to innate martial weapon prof.) but that also weakens your build(you lose HP for doing that, and maybe SP as well if you want to do a Warblade/Wizard), and the only LA 0 outsider is Neraph. Barring that, at level 1 you have to be a mundane fighter, who at some point during his adventuring career suddenly gets the ability to cast spells.

This is why I, as a DM, never ask people to "justify" their multiclassing.  I'm also quick to divorce mechanics and fluff.

However, if I had to absolutely play a Gish at 1st level and it HAD to "make sense" for me to take levels in Wizard, I would see if I could grab one of the Forgotten Realms regional feats that gives you a few cantrips.  That way, you are technically swording things and casting spells at first level, at the cost of a probably sub-optimal feat.

[Unbeliever]

Just wanted to say +1 LordBlades.  Those are pretty much my reasons for not playing a 1st level character. 

I'd add to it, is there a single iconic hero, the sort of thing that would inspire you to play D&D, that is a 1st level character?  There is, no doubt, some place for the villagers who grow up to be great adventurers story arc.  But, the idea that that is THE arc for a D&D campaign strikes me as a mistake, and more limiting than anything else. 

[LordBlades]

Just wanted to say +1 LordBlades.  Those are pretty much my reasons for not playing a 1st level character. 

I'd add to it, is there a single iconic hero, the sort of thing that would inspire you to play D&D, that is a 1st level character?  There is, no doubt, some place for the villagers who grow up to be great adventurers story arc.  But, the idea that that is THE arc for a D&D campaign strikes me as a mistake, and more limiting than anything else.

Also, another reason that I meant to add but kind of got lost in the trail of thought: some characters 'need' side quests, a certain spiritual evolution etc. to be who they currently are(think vassal of Bahamut for example, who needs to solo kill a red dragon, but some can get a lot more complex). While stuff like like that is cool to put in a back-story, not everyone will be content to play sidekick to your quest to awesomeness for very long.

For example, one of my most memorable (IMO) characters was a fallen paladin/ur-priest/bone knight. His story was that he was a paladin to a not-so-powerful demigod of courage, who got cowardly slaughtered by a green dragon for some magic items. He swore vengeance, and spent a long time tracking the dragon, every step driving him farther away from the ideals he used to uphold, and more toward an 'end justifies the means' mentality. He began stealing divine power to get strong enough, acquiring undead servants because they were the only ones he could trust etc. His years of relentlessly pursuing the dragon shaped most of his personality, but all of that was completely unfeasible to happen during a campaign (unless it was about him&his sidekicks hunting the dragon)

[Eldritch_Lord]

I agree with those who have said they like to start higher than 1st to allow more fleshed-out histories and competent PCs.  My group generally starts around 4th-6th level for our games, as we view the various level ranges as roughly mapping to 0th level as children, 1st-2nd level as the teenage hero with his father's sword or a magician's apprentice, 3rd-4th level as competent young adults, and 5th-6th level as the average adult.  The average adult, then, has finished his or her general education and is able to take a prestige class to specialize, so most character concepts are realizable at game start without needing to worry too much about PrC early entry or the like.  7th-10th is roughly top-of-the-line mortals, 11th-15th superhuman, and 16th-20th mythical beings, so our more party-focused games (e.g. the party is a group of Eberron airship pirates, master assassins, etc.) generally end around 13th and our world-focused games (e.g. stopping a planar invasion, taking over a kingdom, etc.) end around 18th or so.

For my PbP games, I don't think I've run any that started lower than 6th, and most of them start in the 12th-15th range.  As veekie said, with most PbP games you stay the same level for a year or more and games tend to die before that, so people like starting off more powerful, or just getting a chance to play at levels they don't usually reach in RL games.  One of my games is the exception to that--they started at 8th and have leveled up to 16th over the course of just over two years--but that's a major exception, with a very proactive party with a high posting rate.

I'd add to it, is there a single iconic hero, the sort of thing that would inspire you to play D&D, that is a 1st level character?  There is, no doubt, some place for the villagers who grow up to be great adventurers story arc.  But, the idea that that is THE arc for a D&D campaign strikes me as a mistake, and more limiting than anything else.

I'd say there are tons of iconic heroes that start at 1st level, including all of the "farmboy with a destiny" heroes that you mentioned, as well as many magic-using heroes, because the audience has to have the magic system explained to them and explaining it to an apprentice protagonist is a good way to do that without an OOC infodump.  The problem with that, of course, is that characters in fiction have plot shields (so they don't need to deal with the swingyness of low-level RNGs), and most books end around the equivalent of mid levels (so starting off as a gish works since being a duskblade rather than a fighter/wizard won't hurt you in the long run).  Many protagonists start at 1st level, but as you noted, staying there for a while sucks and isn't very heroic.

The series closest to the D&D model that I can think of is Wheel of Time: you have five low-level PCs coming from a village somewhere after it's attacked by orc-equivalents and everyone they know dies, everyone becomes highly magical as the series goes on whether from spellcasting or supernatural abilities or magic items, the "game" changes as high-level magic comes into play, etc.  Hell, the main characters of Ran, Perrin, Mat, Nynaeve, and Egwene even map fairly closely to the wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric/bard roles (well, barbarian more than fighter and more a high-Cha cleric than a bard, but you get the idea).  And yet even there the characters aren't 1st level for more than one or two books out of 13+, really: Rand channels (= takes a few levels of wizard) and Perrin becomes a wolfbrother (= takes a few levels in ranger) before the end of book 1, Egwene and Nynaeve start Aes Sedai training (= take a few levels in cleric) in book 2, and Mat starts gaining his past-life memories (= takes a few levels in factotum) by book 3.

So even in the most D&D-like fantasy series on the market that maps the most closely to the hero's journey and "farmboy heroes" thing, the time the heroes spend below 3rd or 4th level would map to maybe one or two sessions, tops, and could more easily be relegated to backstory if the setting didn't need to be introduced.

I use this example because a friend of mine gave Wheel of Time as his reason for wanting to start at 1st level and work his way up, but when I pointed out how fast the characters come into their power, he agreed to start at 5th level like the rest of our group wanted.  That's the problem with 1st level, really--it seems like the right place to start a game, so a lot of people tend to like to start there, but it doesn't work out as well if you spend several sessions there without author fiat helping you along.  I liked things better in AD&D, where you spent just a few sessions working your way up to 4th or so, then a bunch more sessions working your way up to 8th, then things plateaued at the mid levels, so you got out of the swingy-lethal levels quickly and spend more time in the "fun" levels.

[Jackinthegreen]

I think the lower tabletop level is because more people who tend to participate in RL games get the impression that 1 is "the starting place."  They want to tell a tale that's supposedly start to finish.  Contrast this with PBP players who by the very nature of being online are exposed to things like the Tier system and numerical evaluation of D&D.  The PBP players are more likely to see that 1 is probably not the best starting place because it is so swingy.  2 is in a similar boat, but once you get into 3 and 4 you've got enough going for you that you can be comfortable.

One of the possible problems with D&D is you can build your character without actually having to play your character.  There's sometimes an obligation on the DM's part to facilitate the items and adventures the players were planning so it's a bit like laying your own railroad tracks.  Obviously it's better than having them laid for you, but you're still kind of stuck with that and if you find something that might suit the game better then tough luck.  Unless of course you're using retraining, but most sane DMs would put a limit on how far that can be taken.

There's also the perceived ease of DMing for 1st level players as well as letting them "grow into the character."  As I think on it more I find I'm not fond of that really.

[Kajhera]

I usually have people start around 3, but had a level 1 start recently because a. we needed those tutorial levels for a new player and b. a different player wanted to play out the transition from incompetent to seriously dangerous.

Also, gestalt, so, mixed concepts were feasible from first level. (Man being gestalt really cuts into the XP output at first level more than others. I'm scraping for terrain-based-CR-increases here so they don't spend too long at it.)

Really looking forward to a level when they won't die to two lucky hits though. -_- I like 3rd and 7th levels as starting points, generally speaking, the first has located its feet and the second you have a reasonable amount of room to play with a character build.

[RogerWilco]

In my group we start at 1 and play until 20. We're now at 16 for the third time. We completed one cycle in ADnD 2E and are now close to completing the second cycle in 3/3.5.