Dead Horse: Starting at level 2

[boombrakh]

Question raised on chat: Is starting at level 2 a good or bad thing? Let's discuss!

[Xanthea]

It is a good thing because level 1 D&D is like hitting yourself with a hammer because it feels good when it stops.

[Zelknolf]

We have a very limited amount of content in our game-- a significant portion of it being actually-CR-1 content; Xan complains, yes, but Xan complains regardless of actual circumstance. Changing this doesn't make the Xans in ALFA happy; it just levels people out of what content we have faster. So the builders lose some audience and the players run out of things to do faster.

[FoamBats4All]

No.

[Arianna]

I prefer to start from lvl 1 it gives me time to get the feel of my character and flesh out all the Bits and pieces that make that PC tick

ALFA is not about racing to the next level so I thought

Its about learning to be smart and play well with others not try to be the lone wolf solo that only joins a party when there is a DM in play

If you can't keep your toon alive at level one level two is not going to make it much better

[MaskedIllusion]

My thoughts on this have always been a bit two fold, sometimes, because the concept of starting at level 1 just doesn't make sense.

If I want to play a character who is a 50 year old fighter, and war vet, it would stand to reason that he would at least have a bit more experience then the bab and such of a level one fighter. Same with a monk who has spent their entire lives training in a monistary to master their body and their fighting styles. And for another dozen scenarios I could easily list off the top of my head.

Then again, there are another dozen it just dosn't work for. The farmer fresh off the field trying to find another way to feed his family, the run away teenager, ect ect.

So I guess my thoughts would be this, if I had to have any.

Make it be something that you have to apply for to get, and submit your bio or reason for it. That would of course mean setting up some sort of guild lines, but, it would make it easier for the people with the "I have trained for the last 20 years" back story to get approved, and be level two, then the "I am a kid who has never picked up a sword before today" That, and people with those back storys may not want to start at level two anyway. I don't think I would.

So make it something we can request and be granted, if anything at all.

[kid]

If we're a PW then no lv2 start.

If we're a DM platform then I don't mind a level 17 start if that's the game the DM wants to play.

[Veilan]

If I want to play a character who is a 50 year old fighter, and war vet, it would stand to reason that he would at least have a bit more experience then the bab and such of a level one fighter. Same with a monk who has spent their entire lives training in a monistary to master their body and their fighting styles. And for another dozen scenarios I could easily list off the top of my head.

It's a matter of taste, but this is a sentiment I do not share. Why not bake the cake instead of having it delivered? Why not start a character with the intention of seeing their journey to a 50 year old fighter - and see where her journey actually leads her? It is both more rewarding (and might even turn out to be surprising!) and more conducive to a PW gaming environment.

If a character can only be the product of a journey, I find it more satisfying to play the journey instead of narrating it. It adds depth and an organic quality to characters that cannot be beat, even with the most creative bio-writing. Also, to keep myself short: Sartre.

But again, it's a question of preference. To repeat kid in a different vein: If ALFA stays simulationist, no. If ALFA becomes a narration - well, anybody should be able to do whatever his playing group agrees with.

Cheers,

[Swift]

No.

Not sure I have ever said this before but I agree with Foam.

[kid]

If I want to play a character who is a 50 year old fighter, and war vet, it would stand to reason that he would at least have a bit more experience then the bab and such of a level one fighter. Same with a monk who has spent their entire lives training in a monistary to master their body and their fighting styles. And for another dozen scenarios I could easily list off the top of my head.

Unlike V, I understand your issue, MI, sometimes you want to play a grizzled old dude with lots of experience and see where it goes from there. however, level 2 isn't going to give you that anyways, and you don't need it either.

I've played my share of dudes like that.

Slate was, Oda was. Both old vets that even at level 1 felt and RP'd like old vets.
You don't need the levels. If you rp well enough people play along.
As long as the build is right to represent it, it works.

There's some suspension of disbelief needed in rp, we also pretend our cloaks don't bend stupidly over our heads when we use those damn Kemos.

[boombrakh]

My thoughts on the "old vet" guy from my own experience in pnp is that a man who hasn't seen combat in 30 years tend to be out of shape and more prone to nostalgia than actual combat prowess. I mean, the theoretical experience is there, but the body is a bit rusty.

Sadly, in a game like dnd, there is no real way to have that knowledge/theoretical experience since it is a level-based system with ranks capping to what extent you can know things. I guess the choice then, is to be an old vet who is also somewhat senile

[Zelknolf]

We do keep getting this campaign words suggestion whenever chats like this come up-- I would remind folk that the path to that is already open. The correct and sustainable way to do your campaign world is to download the ruleset and module off of the repository, aim for a local vault/database, start your server and then DM on it. You'd get the actually-isolated campaign that doesn't get mucked up by other DMs, you'd get the lack of regulation/ oversight associated with being the True Lord and Master of your world, and we get the free advertisement of "ALFA" written all over it.

And then we also don't have to fight about all the things you want to change to try to use a multi-server persistent environment like a campaign server, and then we're all happier.

[Ithildur]

There's a few multiclass character concepts that are (imo at least) somewhat archetypical/iconic in DnD/fantasy genre that are difficult to pull off with a lvl 1 start (the warrior/mage archetype is the most obvious, going back to days of basic DnD when 'Elf' was a ftr/mage multiclass not just a race, to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D multiclass rules, etc. PnP 3e has various options for supporting such concepts but these aren't available in ALFA); for these I could see someone maybe applying ala extraordinary PC-like process to get a lvl 2 start... maybe

But in general I don't support a lvl 2 start, and probably never will.

[oldgrayrogue]

It is a good thing because level 1 D&D is like hitting yourself with a hammer because it feels good when it stops.

Could not agree more. A level 2 start also allows you to start as a multiclassed PC and allows for a more robust back story as well. It also helps when you are in a campaign and your PC dies and you want to rejoin the same campaign when all the other players are higher level.

I am very sympathetic to Zelk and the other builders who have spent lots of time developing low level content, however. The truth is you can get to level 2 very quickly in today's ALFA without trying very hard and without much risk.

[boombrakh]

The truth is you can get to level 2 very quickly in today's ALFA without trying very hard and without much risk.

QFT.

Sadly, it all feels like grinding anyways. I mean, all you want to do is get to that level 2 so that you havn't really wasted a well thought through character concept on a crit from a house cat.