To begin with, every 9th or 12th or 15th level character in my world remembers when they were 1st level ... because they all were, once. Secondly, because of the game tables I build, where players see each other as allies and not as competition, the upper level characters immediately take it upon themselves to protect the new character. I have no problem with the new character being boosted with spells, being handed an extra +1 sword and fitted with magic armor, given a potion or two and so on ... all of which must come from the stores of the higher level characters, because I absolutely do not allow the purchase of magic items in my world. However, my characters typically have a few bits and pieces of minor equipment they've kept, since their once precious +1 sword was upgraded when they stormed that castle at 8th level.
The new character gets a bit of a head start. If the new character dies, the 9th level cleric can raise or use death's door. If the new character takes a single hit and has to retreat, the 9th level paladin can step in as a shield or the mage can whisk the 1st level out of the way. There's always a chance of permanent death, but the 1st level is often quite safe in a lot of ways.
Additionally, because of my experience distribution rules, if the 1st level participates in and survives a single no-holds-barred blood match, that is almost certainly going to mean 2nd level. And 3rd or 4th within a two to three runnings. With so much experience raining from the sky, all the low level character has to do is be brave. Others will help the noobie not die.
So much of the game is based on thinking, discussion, planning and innovation, things that don't require raw combat ability. I've had many new players jump into a game and quickly get to the heart of something, where the older players were confounded. New players may have skills in role-play, may show unqualified bravery in desperate situations and may boost a team's spirit with good humor and enthusiasm. None of these things require the player's character to be 10th level.
Most important, the new player entering the campaign starts from a position of humility. If the other players behaved like a closed fraternity, treating the new player like a menial, this wouldn't work ~ but in my game, it is almost always the players who are asking me to let their friend play. Their "friend," I said. None of my players want to treat their friend, or my friend, like a menial.
I'm sorry that we feel that we have to give new players a free ride to the place so they can enjoy what others have sacrificed and struggled to achieve. I'm equally sorry that DM's feel they have to begin parties at level 5 because they can't figure out how to run a good game with lower level players. I often hear this chatter about "goblins" being boring. Well, yes, they can be. But why in the hell is it presumed that we can't be more imaginative than throwing goblins as a DM? There's intrigue, mystery and the building of friendships in the game that can be exploited and devised until such time as the players become 5th level. By which time, they appreciate those first five levels, and run characters, not free puppets who mean no more to them than a teddy bear we roast on an open fire for the lols.
When it is your teddy bear, from your childhood, it isn't funny any more.
If you want to appreciate anything, start with nothing. Then all those first things you have, those first things you collect, those first things that keep you alive, will always mean more to you than the common riches you will eventually find mean almost nothing to you.
For you Conan fans, I'll remind you how Conan felt about wealth and plunder once he became the King of Aquilonia.
In the past, I have indeed allowed players to enter existing campaigns with characters higher than level one, always with the idea that NOT doing so would quickly lead to the character's death. With hindsight, I can see this was a slap in the face to my veteran players:
ReplyDelete- I never expected any largesse or generosity from the vets; it never crossed my mind that they would "gift" newbs with equipment/cash, let alone actually help or shepherd the new characters. I certainly didn't encourage such behavior.
- I may well have created resentment in my experienced players by creating these "parvenue" PCs of advanced level and throwing them into the campaign. Why SHOULD they feel like helping someone who's already been helped so generously by the DM?
In retrospect, it seems clear that I did little to foster a spirit of cooperation, and probably helped set up the rivalries and irritations that directly encouraged player versus player conflict. I know that more than one PC looked at such a new character (especially one sporting a coveted new magic item...unearned) with envy, looking for reasons to allow such characters to die (or reasons to slay them themselves) in order to both "haze" the newbie and claim their gear.
Ugh. I feel awful!
Fortunately (??) I haven't run a campaign like this for many years. My most recent games (all B/X and all fading quickly into the past) have all required characters to start at 1st level (unless they were "one-off" games...those generally use pre-generated characters). But this is definitely something I'll be wary of in the future. Sheesh!
Side question for a future post maybe (apologies if you've already developed your views about it) : how do you justify the impossibility to buy magic items in a realistic gameworld ? However rare a magic item is, it makes sense that there will always be someone who attributes it a monetary value superior to the use value perceived by its current owner, ergo there will be trade. Playing mainly in Mystara, I was always a little embarassed by this fact, but I never saw a clear-cut way around it (except maybe in a magiocracy like Glantri, where such trade exists but is controlled by a few powerful magic-users).
ReplyDeleteFair question, ViP, since I mentioned it first.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, gamability. Sometimes, things just have to be a certain way because the alternative makes the game suck ~ like player vs. player. The intensification of the value of magic items is extremely important as a reward mechanism; if that's compromised, magic items become common, then expected, and finally players cease to appreciate that they're perfectly capable of functioning without them.
That is key for me. A character is not ENTITLED to magic, nor should a PC's abilities and power hinge on the magic a PC owns. When the power of the PC's magic outweighs the power of the PC's person, the game is weakened and the player's self-image (whatever the player says or does) is broken. The excess of super-powerful character's is emblematic of players needing to feel SOMETHING, when they know they're just a collection of gadgets.
Everything else about buying magic would be a justification of the gamability component. How would a common trader know it was magic, why would a rational state permit the free distribution of items that would clearly endanger the state (like allowing people to sell h-bombs over the counter), merchants who had invested great sums of money to create a stock of magic items for their store could be made destitute by competition using a simple rod of cancellation, why would anyone willingly sell a magic item if they had a trusted friend, servant or family member to give the item to instead (and I've never, ever seen a PC in my game who was remotely willing to part with such items, even as they upgrade, as I maintain their rarity), how could you be sure the item you're buying didn't have an enormous ego, wasn't seriously cursed or even functioned as a magic item? Such things could be faked, and not everyone has an identify magic spell. If I were a merchant selling magic items, you can bet there'd be a glyph on the wall that automatically deactivated any attempt to use identify.
I've seen games carry out some notion that a magic item shop would work just like a gun store. That makes no sense to me. You can check a gun and make sure that it works. How do you check a giant control potion without drinking it, and without an available giant? Add to this the fact that ILLUSION is a thing and just forget it. Yeah, I've got this rod of lordly might. It's got a nick in it. I can sell it to you for only 1,100 g.p. If you buy it, I'll throw in this bottle of sweet water for 25 more.
Gah.
I feel this topic is muddied for newer players (3rd and beyond) because rules for starting characters at higher level are considered core. When I played 3rd in college, we had many sessions where we ran characters above 1st.
ReplyDeleteOh, this is a hopeless subject now. It is so "canon" that it will be part of the bullshit in perpetuity. However, I've had so much success with building better groups by taking a hard line on this subject that I feel I must voice my position.
ReplyDeleteI have found it so hopeless that the higher level players are actively disinterested in allowing a new player to start at first level. They do not want to be 'burdened' with a character that they feel cannot contribute as well. Such is the toxicity of the current gaming culture.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the "I got mine, fuck you," philosophy. I'm sorry, Joey, that you have to play with such ungenerous, selfish people.
ReplyDeleteAlexis I agree emphatically with barring the trade of items. Campaigns that align with the "iron man" stance of a character's competence and relevance being mostly derived from the power suit being worn come to amount to very little.
ReplyDeleteThe moment your character's sum of growth is itemized as the gear he lugs around then you're not iron man, you're not even fucking war machine, you're an owner of a sports car.