So I started a group of players on a new campaign. One player in particular griped about starting at level 1. He wanted to go straight for his Archetype. Another said, "We aren't heroes, we're level 1." I was all, "I'm setting the stage, getting quests and storylines set up. Introducing you to NPCs that will set the stage for the next 4 or 5 levels. You'll level probably once a session until around level 5."
Another player said, "You're offering too many quests that we can do, feels like a video game. I don't want to have to pick which one is the main storyline". Me, "Well....they're all tied into the main storyline. You can't pick wrong, you're not in a sandbox. I'm just railroading you in a subtle fashion. Kobolds ambushed a delivery of silver ingots from the nearby dwarf mine, that's relevant."
TBH, the current DM of our group runs a set campaign and railroads a lot. Because, he's running a printed campaign from a book he didn't make...he really can't let players run "off-script".
Have other DMs run into the idea that level 1 players aren't "heroes"? Wanting to start at a higher level to bypass feeling "weak", even though a level 1 player is usually miles and miles above a level 1 NPC? It was the distinct impression that because there were NPCs more powerful than them, that they couldn't possible be heroic.
The 2nd half of my question is how much control do you give players about their actions and the setting. Soon as I gave my players a few options, they got upset about how there was too much going on and could I just "point them in the right direction".
To set the stage, 3 different NPCs gave 3 different quests. So it was up to the players to decide which to do first. All were tied to the campaign, there was no "wrong" choice. Players could attack the kobolds to the west of town and try to retrieve the stolen silver shipment from the dwarves, investigate rumors of problems in the sewers and waterways in town or go for a problem at a farm SE of town where murder and befouled nature were running wild. None of the quests were required, all were part of the same story. Not to mention quests, clues and such in town.
"Too sandboxy!" was my player's lament. I think they just wanted one quest, do that and then move on from there so they didn't have to make a choice.
Have other DMs run into the idea that level 1 players aren't "heroes"? Wanting to start at a higher level to bypass feeling "weak", even though a level 1 player is usually miles and miles above a level 1 NPC?
Yes, absolutely. In most editions of D&D, level 1 is explicitly not where characters are "heroic" in proportion, regardless of how they might compare to whatever a "level 1 NPC" is (since most editions of D&D don't assign levels to NPCs that aren't meant to be equals to level 1 or higher characters).
In 5th edition, the entire first tier of play (levels 1-4), are described as "characters are effectively apprentice adventurers." And as a result of that declaration made by the game itself, I see no issue at all with a player saying they want to start out higher level. In fact, my group starts all of our campaigns at level 4 as a minimum - except on the rare cases where we are telling a story that is specifically about characters that aren't even on their first "real adventure" yet.
The 2nd half of my question is how much control do you give players about their actions and the setting. Soon as I gave my players a few options, they got upset about how there was too much going on and could I just "point them in the right direction".
I give my players absolute control over their character's actions, and the setting reacts to, rather than defines, them.
But the delivery of that freedom is still not presenting what looks like a great big list of options. It's more of a blank slate and me asking "What do you do?" and if they say what they do is go looking for a lead on some adventure, I present them leads one by one until they stop looking for leads and start doing something else, so their perception is never that there is a big list or that they are choosing what is the "main storyline" - but that last part is mostly a result of us realizing that the storyline is what happens as a result of playing, not the thing that is planned out before play starts or is chosen as a result of any single choice.
"Too sandboxy!" was my player's lament.
The phrase "Play to your audience" comes to mind. Different players want different things, and the job of the DM is made much easier by knowing that going in, so you can figure out what your players are into without just guessing and hoping you get it right - but for some reason people often complete overlook the "just sit and have a chat about what kind of campaign they want to play, then put your campaign plan together" option.
I would tend to agree with your players that a level 1 character is not a hero, and doesn't even feel much like a hero... so much so that character levels 1-4 don't really even compare to "midgame" or later levels. I don't agree with your players that low levels aren't worth playing, low levels are some of the most fun, to me. Constant progress, that feeling like you need to actually be a little strategic, that other feeling when your character starts to "come online..."
But I understand that there is a difference between low-levels and mid game... and it is totally believable that someone could possibly not like/not want low level play.
_____________
My read is that you are frustrated because your players aren't giving you the latitude and the trust to run a good low-level campaign. I wouldn't be happy either.
Its one thing to express a desire to play a campaign that starts at (level 6), but it's another thing entirely to actually be negative at the table and complain about the campaign you are building for them.
The phrase "Play to your audience" comes to mind.
So does the phrase "eat what's on your plate." Not that I disagree entirely with your advice.
So does the phrase "eat what's on your plate." Not that I disagree entirely with your advice.
Oh yeah, totally. The group has to meet in the middle on most things like this - not completely caving to the whims of the players, but also not having the DM give the "my way or the highway" type of ultimatum about anything.
There's nothing I can think of that says you couldn't do both. Let the player who wants to start at (assuming) level 3, if s/he can justify it. Let those who don't mind, start lower. The lower level people will level up sooner and even IF (it's your decision how to award XP and levels) they never catch up to the guy who started higher, they don't have to always be 2 full levels behind them either and that difference probably won't upset too much balance further along. Any greater a difference at start might be tough, but I don't think that would be too difficult to work with in my opinion.
How their individual stories intertwine could lend to this.
Seems you do not particularly enjoy Aaron's replies, given your "K." replies to them...
Anyway, I believe the whole problem here is the way your players are used to play. You do, imho, no wrong in wanting to start a campaign from level 1 and presenting them with several interconnected but seemingly separate quests (LMoP does pretty much the same once the characters get to Phandalin), and I actually enjoy this type of set-up myself.
The real question here, imho, is: are these the right people to play with? Are you the right master for them?
Answering truthfully to those questions is not a matter of failing, is a matter of admitting when something cannot work with the currently available resources and decide what to do about it: changing the way you meant to run the story will negatively affect your enjoyment of it? Would trying to find other players more in line with your desires for this campaign ruin possible already existing friendships? Could the players give you some sessions (2-3) to see if they actually might get into it and start liking/loving it?
The real question here, imho, is: are these the right people to play with? Are you the right master for them?
Answering truthfully to those questions is not a matter of failing, is a matter of admitting when something cannot work with the currently available resources and decide what to do about it: changing the way you meant to run the story will negatively affect your enjoyment of it? Would trying to find other players more in line with your desires for this campaign ruin possible already existing friendships? Could the players give you some sessions (2-3) to see if they actually might get into it and start liking/loving it?
That's a good point.
Even a gaming experience that is fun overall, that you'd say "Yeah, it's pretty good." about, is something that you can improve - and in my experience, if the few issues (how ever minor they feel) that your gaming experience has are the result of mismatched expectations and preferences of players and DM, finding a group that actually fully aligns in expectations and preferences will feel like a massive improvement. I've seen people find the right group, and their opinion of how good their prior experiences were went from feeling "yeah, it's pretty good" to "actually, compared to this new group/game, my old group/game doesn't seem good enough any more."
Of course, I'm also of the opinion that when it comes to the gaming experience, nobody should ever settle - never say "eh, good enough," and stop seeing if you can improve something in some way. Keep trying new ideas, exploring new methods, experimenting with new tricks or tools, since the worst thing that will happen is you become absolutely certain of what works best for you/your group.
A large part of the enjoyment for players is player progression and having abilities to fulfilling the vision of their character. As the DM you don't really have a connection to this, and to you are much more invested in your world building, storytelling etc that you want to share. Also, regarding your comment on it, I think the introduction to your world has nearly nothing to do with player levels. At least in the 1-5 range.
5e is actually lacking high level play to a great degree because every damn official module starts at level 1 because god forbid a new player didn't get drip-fed their abilities and could get confused. At the detriment to more experienced players. There is soo much low level play compared to 9+, combined with that it takes months to reach those levels. I think whenever you have the opportunity to start at a higher level, you should. Players are fed up with low level play imo. When you have played a couple of campaigns, you can handle starting at level 3 or 5.
In my experience, players complain about low-level play mostly due to the low hitpoints, high-risk nature of the game. A poor strategic decision could easily lead to a character death when everyone's got less than 10hp, which, obviously tends to not be too much fun.
I also get the lack of feeling heroic. Your players won't be cutting swaths through hordes of orcs for awhile, and if that's what they want to be doing, then playing a session at level 1 is going to feel like a waste of time to them.
Establishing expectations before a campaign are crucial. If we're already started (and it sounds like you are), maybe find a way to cut forward in time to boost them? E.g., "it's six months in the future, and now you're all level 4."
Since it sounds like you are lamenting their lamenting of low-level play, maybe discuss with them why you feel the low-level play is valuable; your aide deserves to be heard as well as theirs.
As for their expressed concern about it being too sandboxy, perhaps stick with a more straightforward, limited path until the players grow accustomed to how this is different from their previous video game experience. Find a way to show the players that the world turns without respect to them; not everything that happens is a quest, and the players don't always have control. Perhaps an NPC they know gets robbed while the group is off on an adventure. The guard have already caught the thief, so there's nothing for the players to do, but perhaps hint that maybe they could have done more if they were involved. Maybe that will give them a spark in the future, when opportunity presents itself.
As a DM I only start a campaign at Level 1 if there are new people in the game who haven't played D&D (5E) before. I find the first couple levels are the 'tutorial' leading up to everyone having archetypes at level 3. The classes are mostly built to teach you the mechanics over the first three levels IMO. Plus, I find that when you build a character it's more exciting to get to choose your archetype and have that be a solid piece instead of later adding it on and figuring out why only now you have this xyz defining characteristic.
Now, you're not wrong for running the game you want to run, and I think if you explained to your players what you said here: You'll level once a session for a while, this is the setup, and they are still whining that they are being unreasonable. But the above is just my motivation for skipping over the first couple of levels, should I not have any new players to teach the game to.
There's nothing I can think of that says you couldn't do both. Let the player who wants to start at (assuming) level 3, if s/he can justify it. Let those who don't mind, start lower. The lower level people will level up sooner and even IF (it's your decision how to award XP and levels) they never catch up to the guy who started higher, they don't have to always be 2 full levels behind them either and that difference probably won't upset too much balance further along. Any greater a difference at start might be tough, but I don't think that would be too difficult to work with in my opinion.
How their individual stories intertwine could lend to this.
And in campaigns I run they will eventually catch up (well within less than 100 experience).
I grant more experience to a lower level... If one exists.
Next game have them all at level 20. Have them teleport to tiamat right away but they suddenly have possesion of all their dieties too. Let then blow up tiamat as she forgot to use her legendary actions. Proceed to getting the whole world to bow and celebrate their victory. Applaud them and finish up. Game over and they didnt have to work at it. No level one. No choices.
Start another game with another group that enjoys the Journey.
I tend to make the first three sessions levels 1-3 so my players can get a feel for their character without the sparkle gimics, it lets them see how they play without getting wedded to a path. If their character turns out different than they imagine I give them the option to reroll a fresh level 3 to take their place. The first three sessions are all inconsequential events to my main story and act as a self contained plot, if a player gives up a character in this time I turn them into a NPC who does their own thing and can interact with the party. Otherwise the people who keep their characters usually get a bonus of either a found stash of gold, or a magic item that will aid one of their main skills.
I understand the complaint about first level; especially in 5e, a lot of things for many classes are locked behind level 2/3 (the most notable exceptions being cleric domains and warlock pacts, which are fairly significant and granted at level 1), so at level 1 all characters feel relatively generic. I usually start at level 3 for anything, but with absolute beginners I do start at level 1 and build up. I don't like wasting the time of veteran players at level 1. As for the branching options, that sounds like a player group perspective; are all of the players unanimous on this point or is it really just one loud member who wants railroad tracks to follow? There's always a fine line between offering direction and providing players with choice, and that is the one thing that I think all DMs, regardless of experience level, struggle with when starting a new group. Part of it is a matter of personal preference too; I do improvisation heavy games with prep mostly around worldbuilding and NPC creation, and only really do strictly structured sessions for newbies or one shots. I don't like railroading as a player, and so I try very hard to avoid it as a DM, even though the last group I ran a game for basically followed the proposed quests every time without much force required. Basically, if your group wants direction, give it to them. If it's one whiner and everyone else loves the freedom, just tell them to follow the party and treat what they agree on as important. The only really bad way to do choice is to burn bridges after a choice is made in ways that make it feel arbitrary; I had a GM who, after we would do one of three options, basically annihilated the entire civilizations of the two options we didn't pick because... well, there were a lot of things wrong with that campaign. Not only were each of those options supposed to be tied to a character's backstory (and the one we chose was... not really done well), meaning that one character got all the attention basically, there were super special items in each so only one of our characters got one... until he just gave another item to one of the players because of... reasons? Again, there were problems with the campaign, but basically the railroading negatively impacted the play experience for multiple players to the point where one player was actively trying to get his character killed because he was too polite to just quit but didn't want to play in the campaign anymore.
I don't mind what level the players want to start. As a player I personally find the most enjoyable part of the game level 1-4. I understand though that my group dislikes playing in a low level game. Generally I ask them what level they want to start at. They usually say 3-5ish, but I've started games at 7 before. In fact I played a game once where we started as level 20
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey,
So I started a group of players on a new campaign. One player in particular griped about starting at level 1. He wanted to go straight for his Archetype. Another said, "We aren't heroes, we're level 1." I was all, "I'm setting the stage, getting quests and storylines set up. Introducing you to NPCs that will set the stage for the next 4 or 5 levels. You'll level probably once a session until around level 5."
Another player said, "You're offering too many quests that we can do, feels like a video game. I don't want to have to pick which one is the main storyline". Me, "Well....they're all tied into the main storyline. You can't pick wrong, you're not in a sandbox. I'm just railroading you in a subtle fashion. Kobolds ambushed a delivery of silver ingots from the nearby dwarf mine, that's relevant."
TBH, the current DM of our group runs a set campaign and railroads a lot. Because, he's running a printed campaign from a book he didn't make...he really can't let players run "off-script".
...so what's your question, or the topic of the discussion you are meaning to start?
Have other DMs run into the idea that level 1 players aren't "heroes"? Wanting to start at a higher level to bypass feeling "weak", even though a level 1 player is usually miles and miles above a level 1 NPC? It was the distinct impression that because there were NPCs more powerful than them, that they couldn't possible be heroic.
The 2nd half of my question is how much control do you give players about their actions and the setting. Soon as I gave my players a few options, they got upset about how there was too much going on and could I just "point them in the right direction".
To set the stage, 3 different NPCs gave 3 different quests. So it was up to the players to decide which to do first. All were tied to the campaign, there was no "wrong" choice. Players could attack the kobolds to the west of town and try to retrieve the stolen silver shipment from the dwarves, investigate rumors of problems in the sewers and waterways in town or go for a problem at a farm SE of town where murder and befouled nature were running wild. None of the quests were required, all were part of the same story. Not to mention quests, clues and such in town.
"Too sandboxy!" was my player's lament. I think they just wanted one quest, do that and then move on from there so they didn't have to make a choice.
Yes, absolutely. In most editions of D&D, level 1 is explicitly not where characters are "heroic" in proportion, regardless of how they might compare to whatever a "level 1 NPC" is (since most editions of D&D don't assign levels to NPCs that aren't meant to be equals to level 1 or higher characters).
In 5th edition, the entire first tier of play (levels 1-4), are described as "characters are effectively apprentice adventurers." And as a result of that declaration made by the game itself, I see no issue at all with a player saying they want to start out higher level. In fact, my group starts all of our campaigns at level 4 as a minimum - except on the rare cases where we are telling a story that is specifically about characters that aren't even on their first "real adventure" yet.
I give my players absolute control over their character's actions, and the setting reacts to, rather than defines, them.But the delivery of that freedom is still not presenting what looks like a great big list of options. It's more of a blank slate and me asking "What do you do?" and if they say what they do is go looking for a lead on some adventure, I present them leads one by one until they stop looking for leads and start doing something else, so their perception is never that there is a big list or that they are choosing what is the "main storyline" - but that last part is mostly a result of us realizing that the storyline is what happens as a result of playing, not the thing that is planned out before play starts or is chosen as a result of any single choice.
The phrase "Play to your audience" comes to mind. Different players want different things, and the job of the DM is made much easier by knowing that going in, so you can figure out what your players are into without just guessing and hoping you get it right - but for some reason people often complete overlook the "just sit and have a chat about what kind of campaign they want to play, then put your campaign plan together" option.K.
Low levels are interesting.
I would tend to agree with your players that a level 1 character is not a hero, and doesn't even feel much like a hero... so much so that character levels 1-4 don't really even compare to "midgame" or later levels. I don't agree with your players that low levels aren't worth playing, low levels are some of the most fun, to me. Constant progress, that feeling like you need to actually be a little strategic, that other feeling when your character starts to "come online..."
But I understand that there is a difference between low-levels and mid game... and it is totally believable that someone could possibly not like/not want low level play.
_____________
My read is that you are frustrated because your players aren't giving you the latitude and the trust to run a good low-level campaign. I wouldn't be happy either.
Its one thing to express a desire to play a campaign that starts at (level 6), but it's another thing entirely to actually be negative at the table and complain about the campaign you are building for them.
So does the phrase "eat what's on your plate." Not that I disagree entirely with your advice.
I'm just thinking that low levels should be about introduction to the world, building up your character, setting a base for the character.
Play a session, make a level. Play another session, make another level. Nobody wants to dwell forever in the lower levels....
K.
There's nothing I can think of that says you couldn't do both. Let the player who wants to start at (assuming) level 3, if s/he can justify it. Let those who don't mind, start lower. The lower level people will level up sooner and even IF (it's your decision how to award XP and levels) they never catch up to the guy who started higher, they don't have to always be 2 full levels behind them either and that difference probably won't upset too much balance further along. Any greater a difference at start might be tough, but I don't think that would be too difficult to work with in my opinion.
How their individual stories intertwine could lend to this.
Seems you do not particularly enjoy Aaron's replies, given your "K." replies to them...
Anyway, I believe the whole problem here is the way your players are used to play. You do, imho, no wrong in wanting to start a campaign from level 1 and presenting them with several interconnected but seemingly separate quests (LMoP does pretty much the same once the characters get to Phandalin), and I actually enjoy this type of set-up myself.
The real question here, imho, is: are these the right people to play with? Are you the right master for them?
Answering truthfully to those questions is not a matter of failing, is a matter of admitting when something cannot work with the currently available resources and decide what to do about it: changing the way you meant to run the story will negatively affect your enjoyment of it? Would trying to find other players more in line with your desires for this campaign ruin possible already existing friendships? Could the players give you some sessions (2-3) to see if they actually might get into it and start liking/loving it?
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
A large part of the enjoyment for players is player progression and having abilities to fulfilling the vision of their character. As the DM you don't really have a connection to this, and to you are much more invested in your world building, storytelling etc that you want to share. Also, regarding your comment on it, I think the introduction to your world has nearly nothing to do with player levels. At least in the 1-5 range.
5e is actually lacking high level play to a great degree because every damn official module starts at level 1 because god forbid a new player didn't get drip-fed their abilities and could get confused. At the detriment to more experienced players. There is soo much low level play compared to 9+, combined with that it takes months to reach those levels. I think whenever you have the opportunity to start at a higher level, you should. Players are fed up with low level play imo. When you have played a couple of campaigns, you can handle starting at level 3 or 5.
I recommend this Nerdarchy video on low level vs high level games.
DnDBeyond Tooltip Syntax
In my experience, players complain about low-level play mostly due to the low hitpoints, high-risk nature of the game. A poor strategic decision could easily lead to a character death when everyone's got less than 10hp, which, obviously tends to not be too much fun.
I also get the lack of feeling heroic. Your players won't be cutting swaths through hordes of orcs for awhile, and if that's what they want to be doing, then playing a session at level 1 is going to feel like a waste of time to them.
Establishing expectations before a campaign are crucial. If we're already started (and it sounds like you are), maybe find a way to cut forward in time to boost them? E.g., "it's six months in the future, and now you're all level 4."
Since it sounds like you are lamenting their lamenting of low-level play, maybe discuss with them why you feel the low-level play is valuable; your aide deserves to be heard as well as theirs.
As for their expressed concern about it being too sandboxy, perhaps stick with a more straightforward, limited path until the players grow accustomed to how this is different from their previous video game experience. Find a way to show the players that the world turns without respect to them; not everything that happens is a quest, and the players don't always have control. Perhaps an NPC they know gets robbed while the group is off on an adventure. The guard have already caught the thief, so there's nothing for the players to do, but perhaps hint that maybe they could have done more if they were involved. Maybe that will give them a spark in the future, when opportunity presents itself.
As a DM I only start a campaign at Level 1 if there are new people in the game who haven't played D&D (5E) before. I find the first couple levels are the 'tutorial' leading up to everyone having archetypes at level 3. The classes are mostly built to teach you the mechanics over the first three levels IMO. Plus, I find that when you build a character it's more exciting to get to choose your archetype and have that be a solid piece instead of later adding it on and figuring out why only now you have this xyz defining characteristic.
Now, you're not wrong for running the game you want to run, and I think if you explained to your players what you said here: You'll level once a session for a while, this is the setup, and they are still whining that they are being unreasonable. But the above is just my motivation for skipping over the first couple of levels, should I not have any new players to teach the game to.
Next game have them all at level 20. Have them teleport to tiamat right away but they suddenly have possesion of all their dieties too. Let then blow up tiamat as she forgot to use her legendary actions. Proceed to getting the whole world to bow and celebrate their victory. Applaud them and finish up. Game over and they didnt have to work at it. No level one. No choices.
Start another game with another group that enjoys the Journey.
I tend to make the first three sessions levels 1-3 so my players can get a feel for their character without the sparkle gimics, it lets them see how they play without getting wedded to a path. If their character turns out different than they imagine I give them the option to reroll a fresh level 3 to take their place. The first three sessions are all inconsequential events to my main story and act as a self contained plot, if a player gives up a character in this time I turn them into a NPC who does their own thing and can interact with the party. Otherwise the people who keep their characters usually get a bonus of either a found stash of gold, or a magic item that will aid one of their main skills.
I understand the complaint about first level; especially in 5e, a lot of things for many classes are locked behind level 2/3 (the most notable exceptions being cleric domains and warlock pacts, which are fairly significant and granted at level 1), so at level 1 all characters feel relatively generic. I usually start at level 3 for anything, but with absolute beginners I do start at level 1 and build up. I don't like wasting the time of veteran players at level 1. As for the branching options, that sounds like a player group perspective; are all of the players unanimous on this point or is it really just one loud member who wants railroad tracks to follow? There's always a fine line between offering direction and providing players with choice, and that is the one thing that I think all DMs, regardless of experience level, struggle with when starting a new group. Part of it is a matter of personal preference too; I do improvisation heavy games with prep mostly around worldbuilding and NPC creation, and only really do strictly structured sessions for newbies or one shots. I don't like railroading as a player, and so I try very hard to avoid it as a DM, even though the last group I ran a game for basically followed the proposed quests every time without much force required. Basically, if your group wants direction, give it to them. If it's one whiner and everyone else loves the freedom, just tell them to follow the party and treat what they agree on as important. The only really bad way to do choice is to burn bridges after a choice is made in ways that make it feel arbitrary; I had a GM who, after we would do one of three options, basically annihilated the entire civilizations of the two options we didn't pick because... well, there were a lot of things wrong with that campaign. Not only were each of those options supposed to be tied to a character's backstory (and the one we chose was... not really done well), meaning that one character got all the attention basically, there were super special items in each so only one of our characters got one... until he just gave another item to one of the players because of... reasons? Again, there were problems with the campaign, but basically the railroading negatively impacted the play experience for multiple players to the point where one player was actively trying to get his character killed because he was too polite to just quit but didn't want to play in the campaign anymore.
I don't mind what level the players want to start. As a player I personally find the most enjoyable part of the game level 1-4. I understand though that my group dislikes playing in a low level game. Generally I ask them what level they want to start at. They usually say 3-5ish, but I've started games at 7 before. In fact I played a game once where we started as level 20