Starting Level?

[Lord Kilgore]

Personally, I like to start characters off at 3rd level but with 0 XP. This means they stay at 3rd for a while before they get to advance, but they get the advantage of not being near-death from the onset.

New plan for when we play LL next. THIS is what we'll do. Nice mix of "start at 3rd" and "start from square one."

Great idea.

[kaomera]

So I've been thinking about this some more lately, spurred on by the fact that I've finally gotten a hold of a copy of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and there's some really thought-provoking stuff (for me, at least) in the Referee book. And also by some conversations I've had with some friends about starting up a LL game, and talking through some of the preconceptions they have of old-school gaming.

I think an important part of why I'd want to "go back" to old-school play would be the idea that it's what happens at the table that's important. I think that when I'm playing 4e (or previously 3.x) there's a lot of cool things that the players can say about their characters (mechanically, which tends to lead to more story concerned stuff, IME) just by how they "build" them. But actually getting that information off of the character sheet and out into the open, as it where, can be a stumbling block.

I rolled up a quick LL character with one of these guys, and he got: Str 11, Int 9, Wis 12, Dex 11, Con 4, Cha 14 (3d6, in order). And the first thing that this player asked me was "How is a character like that supposed to survive?" I think that, first of all, a 1st-level LL character isn't "supposed to survive". It's not supposed to not survive, either; but I think part of the lure for me of playing LL is removing the PCs from the role of anything more than playing pieces. And that brings up the second point - that the majority of how a character survives has little to do with ability scores.

Of course, at the same time, I don't want to "waste play" constantly having to re-roll characters, especially given that I don't expect to run a really epic campaign at this point. I think that part of that just isn't an issue - I think that the perception that a lot of players have of old-school gaming is that it was "worse than Paranoia" (actual quote, that...), when Paranoia is (sometimes, if I'm to be fair) specifically designed to chew through 6 characters per player per session. I know that there was a point early in my AD&D play where we had up to about 80% casualty rates from 1st level to 3rd or so, but that was again (at least in part) a deliberate attempt to chew a possible 30+ characters (3 per player) down to a "manageable party" of 8-12.

[Rogahn's Bluff]

Personally, I like to start characters off at 3rd level but with 0 XP. This means they stay at 3rd for a while before they get to advance, but they get the advantage of not being near-death from the onset.

New plan for when we play LL next. THIS is what we'll do. Nice mix of "start at 3rd" and "start from square one."

Great idea.

Indeed. Thanks, finarvyn!

[mystaros]

When a player makes a new character, I have them roll a d6: 1 = 1st level, 2-5 = 2nd level, 6 = 3rd level. Then they roll a d20x5% to determine where they stand in XP in their level (a Nat 20 meaning you are at exactly the XP needed for the next level up).

This is boosted by all characters getting a HP kicker equal to their Constitution score at 1st level. So the average 1st level magic-user has 10+1d4 hit points or thereabouts. This slightly balances out my use of the "Good Hits and Bad Misses" chart from Dragon #39.

I also use a variant Death & Dismemberment table when characters reach zero hit points, rather than instant death. Altogether it leads to better survivability at lower levels, but there is a great chance for maiming and retirement rather than outright death.

[finarvyn]

Personally, I like to start characters off at 3rd level but with 0 XP. This means they stay at 3rd for a while before they get to advance, but they get the advantage of not being near-death from the onset.

New plan for when we play LL next. THIS is what we'll do. Nice mix of "start at 3rd" and "start from square one."Great idea.

Indeed. Thanks, finarvyn!

No thanks are needed. Just send cash.

Seriously, I find that 1st level characters are a bit fragile for my group. Back in high school we played a really cut-throat game and had TPK's all the time. My current group is more of a "role" group and they really get into their characters, so death is more traumatic to them. Of course, the fact that they are 50% female may account for this effect.

Anyway, this has been successful for me and glad to share.

[bighara]

Seriously, I find that 1st level characters are a bit fragile for my group. Back in high school we played a really cut-throat game and had TPK's all the time. My current group is more of a "role" group and they really get into their characters, so death is more traumatic to them. Of course, the fact that they are 50% female may account for this effect.

(emphasis mine)

Huh. Seems an odd statement, IMO.

I've gamed with many girls/women, I wouldn't classify them in general as any more sensitive to PC death than guys. Less so than some of the y-chromosome whiners I've sat at the table with.

[Lord Kilgore]

Huh. Seems an odd statement, IMO.

I've gamed with many girls/women, I wouldn't classify them in general as any more sensitive to PC death than guys. Less so than some of the y-chromosome whiners I've sat at the table with.

I haven't gamed with too many girls/women, but the few that I have seem FAR MORE SENSITIVE than guys. Just my experience.

It seems kinda cliche, but in general the girls are disturbed by losing the character that they spent time developing and growing, while the guys seem mad about losing the levels they gained and the stuff they accumulated. Not sure how much of that is accurate and how much is me projecting my male chauvinism into it, but that's what it seems like. (Small sample, though.)

[Mr.Joel]

does this mean I'm a girl?

Seriously, PC mortality rates so sometimes bother me as player and referee alike. When running, I often fudge the dice just a little to keep a PC from dying at total random. When playing, I play scared and super-cautious, and I get ticked when all my carefulness can't keep my character alive.

It may help somewhat that we generously use all the chargen options from the LL book: discard roll-ups with an average under 11, then move points from STR, INT, or WIS to STR, INT, WIS, DEX, or CON at 2:1. The example character above wouldn't make it into the dungeon in our game.

Still: When you have a d6 hit die, and enemy weapons do 1d6 damage... Statistics are against you.

[Aplus]

We tried our first session using the guidelines in Hill Cantons Compendium
http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/

Each character starts with 2,800 XP and a henchman that doubles as a backup character. Our first session had one death, but it wasn't a true death since we used death and dismemberment table as well.

It seems like a good system and you don't end up with the disparity of a 3rd level mage (10,000xp) next to a 3rd level cleric (6,000xp). Just starting everyone at 3rd level makes M-Us and elves too attractive, at least for my one super-meta-gaming player that would recognize and exploit this disparity.