Level 1 Start

[danielmn]

Of coarse, beyond xp, when considering this, we also have to look at starting wealth via level 2 or 3, and if we compensate the PC's already made or let them get the rough end of the deal in that reguard as well.

[Brokenbone]

We have wealth by level tables which could apply equally well to newly minted characters.

You'll see from that Valdimir quote from ye olde Sembia forum, that the "campaign PCs" loot was potentially to be figured out by patron DMs from the get-go, as well a disposition on death, so that we wouldn't accidentally have any wealth balloons explode in established campaigns. Example, if a dwarven thug had joined Sembia's dwindling Obsidian Blades thieves' guild, under DM Electryc and HDM Valdimir's co-patronage, with a few levels and a handaxe +1, his dying in a horrible and gory manner would not necessarily have meant his cohorts would have had a new spare offhand weapon... "sorry guys it uh... fell off the stern deck of the Sporting Chance when that group of bandits in Whitehorn botched their boarding..."

Again, all the worst case what-ifs are mostly moderated if there's some actual DM-overseen program to gently introduce some kind of new way to start PCs into the wild. If instead some doomsday of 2000gp corpses (as opposed to 300gp corpses) littered every road, well, DMs need to fix it.

...

As to "compensation of other PCs", that's silly. Do you prefer more people to game with (potential server invigoration), or some pretend money? If an individual wants a full allotment of pretend money, retire the hard-done-by PC and start a new level 2 or 3 PC, I guess.

Alternately, if some program supported by DMs for their actual campaigns was figured out, that DM consulting with his or her existing group on whether a "new join at slightly higher lvl/wealth was okay by them" would be normal. Again, if DM Joe was running a regular "Adventurer's Guild" campaign which had dwindled to a fighter, mage and a thief all of 4th level, and he asked whether another guy in their timezone could join up with a cleric of 3rd level, that little group votes or states the conditions of their satisfaction, and there's a go / no-go on that basis. Imagine telling your DM "no, unless my PC gets 400gp?" It's easy though to tell that to admin, or 200 people on the forums. Seldom is anyone dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds though it can happen from time to time.

...

Anyhow, you'll all get the sense I'd figure this is really turf for "DMs who are patrons of campaigns" to figure out, since a lot of hand management like with Extraordinary Characters can and maybe should take place. I'm not sure if DMless 24/7 play is necessarily the way to try out any new concepts of adjusted start level (or wealth), although sister project members of Exodus are sharing some valuable opinions here.

[danielmn]

As for the compensation...merely forecasting the enevitable whinning that will come about if the change is made. "Well, it's not fair!!!! I didn't get to start out with 2k gold! All I got was 300!" And if you don't think complaints like that will be mouthed, then you haven't been behind the dm screen in a bit.

[Happycrow]

Another alternative approach: Most everyone seems to think crits are responsible. Use on the OnEnter script to apply immunity to crits to level 1s.

That would totally destroy the fun! Darn it, I want to PLAY a game, not auto-win it...


Looking further at the posts, I see what seems to be a disconnect between folks who think characters should be levelling quickly (in order to get to "the good stuff" play-wise?), and those who seem more comfortable with long and slow levelling. Is this an accurate observation, and something informing peoples' ideas?

[Brokenbone]

As for the compensation...merely forecasting the enevitable whinning that will come about if the change is made. "Well, it's not fair!!!! I didn't get to start out with 2k gold! All I got was 300!" And if you don't think complaints like that will be mouthed, then you haven't been behind the dm screen in a bit.

Here's 2000gp and a six month ban from DM'd events would be a reasonable response from a patron DM.

[oldgrayrogue]

I am at a loss as to why a discussion about whether a level 1 start makes sense seems to have devolved into a philosophical discussion about a powergaming style of play vs. an "ALFA" RP centric style of play -- at least between me and Veilan. =)

The fact is I for one have not played any of my level 1 PCs scared to leave town, unless it was IC to do so. I cannot honestly say it hasn't OOC crossed my mind though, and perhaps subconsciously dictated my RP. Call me crazy but that breaks immersion for me. The fact that a guy with a sword and armor on ( or a spellbook in his pack) who decides to leave home to pursue "adventure" is somehow "suicidal" if he decides to fight a monster alone is mind boggling to me, and indicative of the problem. It looks like other players do make the choice to "lay low" until they can survive, and still others choose to just grind to the point of greater survival. If someone likes RPing a tentative, fearful, immature, cautious adventurer who lacks the confidence to walk the road alone -- more power to them! They are free to do that. But why the perception that anything other than this is somehow powergaming or not good or hardcore RP? I am not talking about instant gratification -- the point of the discussion is should we take steps to address the all too often instant denial of future gratification. Look, a level 2 or 3 PC is not some insane powerhouse that can farm every cave and take down trolls at will. If that were so ECL level 1 PCs should not be allowed, period. They are not invincible. They are just not ridiculously vulnerable. My second ALFA PC (A monk) died at level 3 while fighting goblins in the hills above Rivermoot while in a group with several other PCs while RPing one of the static "exploration" quests. And that was just fine! No complaints. He had a fair chance to live doing that, but the goblins happened to win the fight. The difference with a level 1 is they pretty much have no chance, or perhaps a very, very high chance of dying immediately, if they choose to RP anything other than a tavern dweller who only goes out in a group. Once again, to me the fundamental question is why is it desirable to force that initial RP onto players? It seems like many think its dull, or a buzz kill, or a disincentive to play, and others just skip the RP and just grind right over it. Seriously, this is not something worth changing? Even discussing? And what exactly are the positives? Given that, the question asked by the OP is whether this is something that is essential to preserve or it will destroy ALFA (and if so why), or do people think a change would result in a more positive and enjoyable experience without wrecking ALFA (and why). Since it is pretty much the de facto system we have now for a lot of players who rush through the beginning levels I don't see it as a big change. Nor do I buy the Chicken Little fears that all of ALFA as we know it will come crashing down as a result. However, based on what has been reported on Exodus' experience, it may curtail the power grind to level 3, and get people actually RPing ICly sooner, without purely OOC concerns over toon survival dictating their play style. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[rorax]

Maybe a poll could help some? at least get some idea how many people of the playerbase support this idea?

[Regalis]

Veilan,

Call this arrogance, but the game got rules, and it fits ALFA's brand not to alter them simply for convenience

Apparently that doesn't apply to minor magical items?

To steal a couple sentences from a US newspaper article from 1987

Justice William J. Brennan Jr., without mentioning Meese by name, attacked those advocating a return to "original intent" as showing "arrogance cloaked in humility." Brennan also defended judicial "activism," saying the court must adapt its rulings to changes in society.

Am I to understand that, anytime you don't like a change, you're going to defer to the wisdom of the founders, be it Gary Gygax, Ed Greenwood, or the WotC 3.5 team but when you do approve a change then we can look past certain things for our convenience?

Of all the people who contribute to these threads Veilan, you're the one person who, when they disagree with something, doesn't come across as someone who has a differing opinion they want to express. You come across like you're the only one of us smart enough to understand the "original intent" of the rules.

Let's turn to the bible, shall we? I, of course, speak of the DMG of the denomination 3.5, for all else is blasphemy in the eyes of lord Gygax. We affirm the righteousness of the denomination 3.5 as the infallible wisdom of the second ecumenical council of wizards on--or being near to--the coast. In this, most ignominious, year of our lord 2 AG (After Gary), whereas we find upon pages 7 and 8 and within the first five sacred pages of the greatest books of the most holy liturgy:

Style of play

The DM provides the adventure and the world. The players and the DM work together to create the game as a whole. However, it is your responsibility to guide the way the game is played. The best way to accomplish this is by learning what the player want and figuring out what you want as well. Many styles of play exist; two that sit at opposite ends of the playing spectrum are detailed below as examples.

Kick in the Door

The PCs kick in the dungeon door, fight the monsters, and get the treasure. This style of play is straightforward, fun, exciting, and action-oriented. Very little time is spent on developing personas for the PCs, roleplaying noncombat encounters, or discussing situations other than what's going on in the dungeon.

In such a game, let the PCs face mostly clearly evil monsters and opponent and meet clearly good helpful NPCs (occasionally). ... Character motivation need be no more developed than a desire to kill monsters and acquire treasure.

Rules and game balance are very important in this style of play. If some characters have combat ability greater than that of their fellows, unfair situaitons may develop in which the players of the OP characters can handle more of the challenges and thus have more fun. If you're using this style, be very careful about adjudicating rules and think long and hard about additions or changes to the rules before making them.

Deep-immersion Storytelling

.... This style of gaming is deep, complex, and challenging. The focus isn't on combat but on talking, developing in-depth personas, and character interaction. A whole game session may pass without a single die roll.

In this style of game, the NPCs should be as complex and richly detailed as the PCs--although the focus should be on motivation and personality, not game statistics. Expect long digressions from each player about what his or her character will do. ... A character will sometimes take actions against his player's better judgment because "that's what the character would do." Adventures in this style of play deal mostly with negotiations, political maneuverings, and character interaction. Players talk about the "story" that they are collectively creating.

Rules become less important in this style. Since combat isn't the focus, game mechanics take a back seat to character development. Skill modifiers take precedence over combat bonuses, and even then the actual numbers often don't mean much. Feel free to change the rules to fit the player's roleplaying needs. You may even want to streamline the combat system so that it takes less time away from the story.

(Emphasis mine.)

Crisis of Faith

Lieth the bible or lieth Veilan?

He who sayeth we art not and must not be the kind of server whereupon we kicketh down doors, slayeth many monsters, and plundereth the phat lewtz upon their grotesque personages. He who sayeth "the game got rules, and it fits ALFA's brand not to alter them simply for convenience."

If that be-eth the brand of ALFA, then we must abideth the holy liturgy and kicketh down doors and f this howling RP hogwash.

Alack and alas, my faith doth wane so. Wicked and temporal experience telleth me that we followeth the doctrine of the ye olde "deep-immersion storytelling." But HOW? HOW CAN WE BE THUS? The bible telleth that we must giveth rules and mechanics a backseat to roleplaying and fun. Forsooth! Ah, but it cannot be so! There art rules! They cannot be casteth aside for convenience! Not even if the rules telleth us to do so!

Let us turneth to the hymnal of the AFLrican faith.

We must follow the doctrine of the hardcore kicked-in-door, with monsters and loot galore. Let us cease this commotion, and reaffirm our devotion. This I implore, let us roleplay no more. Let us be beholden to rules and dice, they will steer us clear of vice. They'll always settle the score, even if the servers become a bore. Let us obey Lord Gary, and let all who blaspheme before the rules be wary.

Born Again

Unless, perhaps, we follow the rule to violate the rules by violating the rule to violate the rules. Ah, yes.

In Veilan's name. (Did anyone else watch Babylon 5? LOL.)

PS: I respect all opinions, but let's try to recognize that our personal preferences and opinions are just that and not try to cloak them as dictates by those wiser than us. Especially if we're going to be inconsistent in the application of it, hm?

Perhaps it's even true that every now and then ALFA must adapt its rulings to changes in virtual society.

Given that ALFA is clearly a Deep-immersion Storytelling multiverse, I submit that any appeal to "higher powers" about how any potential change would violate the canon law are bogus. There are dozens of other canon references that would likewise demolish the fallacy of appeal to authority. Canon unequivocally supports the DM as the final authority, encouraging them to do whatever is required to adapt to the medium (both the story world and mechanically) and their players to make the experience as fun as possible. Canon seems to consistently confirm that the rulebooks defer to the DM's guidance and not the other way around.

So say we're not doing things because the staff doesn't want to or doesn't think it's a good idea. Don't say it's because "the rules" or "canon" says we can't. Unless the game engine doesn't allow it, that's intellectually vapid.

PPS: I'm playing a bard, what do you expect? Just be glad I didn't produce a Homerian epic in metered verse... this time.

[hollyfant]

All right, cool down everyone.

If it's personal, use a PM.

The next one to post anything except constructive feedback will make hollyfant very, very sad.

Don't make me sad. You wouldn't like me, when I'm sad...

[danielmn]

As for my own opinions....I have none. I would personally be willing to go along with a general concensus either way, as I really am not affected by the change at the moment, nor would the change matter much to me in the future, as I could just as easily start at level 1 as I could level 3. My MAIN concern is that we think the possibility through right now (what we really should be discussing, instead of if we should/shouldn't, is what will change if this is enacted) to determine what our implementation would be IF it is decided that this sort of coarse is acceptable for the PW...hence my previous posts dealing with awarding 3,000 XP, not level three, of how we are going to deal with wealth for a higher level starting player (which still has yet to be defined in terms of the situation we are dealing with...BB has offered "level advancement for dm campaign" advice, but of coarse this doesn't necessarily transfer over to what we are experiencing now...this is not the end of nwn1 where people just logged in for dm events, we are still experienceing the persistant world format on NWN2 platform) as well as questions of current player fairness (should we award 3k xp to those already playing, should we award current players the difference in starting gold in order to possibly be more fair to those whom have pc's already?) I will try to think of other ways this change would affect us (should we award a level 3 mage with a spellbook and spells he already knows beyond the starting wealth, as it is clear spellbooks and spells are not counted when considering wealth?) and I encourage the contributors here to do the same, instead of bickering back and forth about if it should/shouldn't happen. Let's come up with all the possible problems this change might cause, and try to iron out some solutions, before we even tackle weather it should/should not happen, we need to see if it is feasable, problem wise.

[Brokenbone]

I recognize the situation I described about "a mostly campaign world" don't necessarily apply to a "more PW" vibe, but some of the same logic might apply about how a SMALL hand managed pilot might work, if there's DMs willing to do the hand management, monitoring, getting their feedback before a wider program rolled out, etc. Again, much like the Extraordinary PC thing is supposed to work, at least on paper.

High DM support more than high membership support would always seem more important though... as you can always find ten players willing to try something new (especially if the carrot of DM attention were there, hah), but if you can't find at least one DM sponsor, you're snookered. And if you can't find even one DM sponsor, then that sort of nips anything wider than a small pilot in the bud, don't it (i.e. no need to brainstorm 45 rules if every DM says "that ain't my ALFA").

[Mord]

[oldgrayrogue]

Well put Mord. With 56 Replies and 327 views over 4 pages I'd say this topic has run its course, and that everyone who has an opinion to offer has done so. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion. We all play this game together, and I think its important from time to time to kick around issues to see if things should be done differently.

Dan and Rorax made some very good points towards the end there: 1) If this were done how would it be implemented and affect existing PCs and 2) How many members of the community would actually want to see this changed.

Since I can't set up a poll, I am asking here that Rotku please do so with a simple for or against a higher than level 1 start. Based on the results of that poll I will start another thread where we can discuss Dan's very practical and important points of implementation, assuming there is a lot of support for this type of change. I ask that this thread be kept open for one more day for anyone to make a final comment then locked.

We all have diverse and sometimes deeply held opinions. That's a good thing, as is healthy debate among friendly members of a community.

[Rotku]

[cut]
PPS: I'm playing a bard, what do you expect? Just be glad I didn't produce a Homerian epic in metered verse... this time.

This has to be one of the funnier posts I've read in ages

Since I can't set up a poll, I am asking here that Rotku please do so with a simple for or against a higher than level 1 start. Based on the results of that poll I will start another thread where we can discuss Dan's very practical and important points of implementation, assuming there is a lot of support for this type of change. I ask that this thread be kept open for one more day for anyone to make a final comment then locked.

Sure. Was hoping no one would ask, but seeing as you did so nicely, how can I say no.

FWIW, I agree completely and utterly with Daniel. We should be focusing on the hows and whats rather than the whos.

[hollyfant]

If the poll fails, the "level 1 crit insurance" is still a good idea. It's unintrusive to the point of invisibility and while the effects may be minute compared to an extra hit-die, it should keep a few otherwise unlucky souls alive.