Topic: Best starting PC level?

[Bearclaw]

  Hi folks
  Just thought I would get a consensus on what the majority find is a good starting level for new players.  I sometimes like starting at first, but since these are entirely new to RM.  They are <hangs head> D&D players so expect things to be a little over the top.
  I am going to have to build a few sample characters to give them the gist and was thinking a good balanced starting point might be fifth level.
  Any and all input will be appreciated.

BC

[RandalThor]

I would say, that you should start them at 1st level - unless you are going to make their characters for them, or you have a very good chargen program. For new players, the chargen process is the most difficult & confusing, so adding in the extra levels is just adding in more complication. Not to mention that it can take a long time.

[Thom @ ICE]

If you are trying to sell them on the coolness of the game system in play - create 5th level characters for them and then give them guidance during the game session (remind them to parry!).

If you are trying to sell them on the creative options available during character creation - create 1st level characters with them and walk them through the process.

Either way, make sure the initial adventures are forgiving enough to absorb some stupid moves.  Any newcomer to a gaming system will make blunders during the first experiences with it, and if they survive those experiences (use fate points if necessary!) then they're more likely to enjoy the system and play again.

[Arioch]

If you are trying to sell them on the coolness of the game system in play - create 5th level characters for them and then give them guidance during the game session (remind them to parry!).

I agree with TJones67, 5th level characters are competent yet not too powerful so imho it's a good starting level.

[ictus]

depends on the game, for me I like starting at 0 for a gritty adventure. There is an optimum level for play, at least within games I run which is 4th/5th and works well.

[Right Wing Wacko]

The best starting PC level is the one which is actually, really supposed to be the starting level... that is, level 1.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I think that it depends on which rules/options you are using. For example, if using RMX, then level 1 is a good starting level because it incorporates one or two options that make first level characters more survivable in the long run.

If using the core RMC rules, I would suggest, level 2 or 3 might be more appropriate.

[dutch206]

The "Dungeon Crawl Classics" adventures have always made me wonder what a zero-level RMC adventure would be like.  Just adolescence development points, background options, and some secondary skills. 

It would definitely be TPK if the players are thud-and-blunder types.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Then why even have levels 1-3?
Why not have created PC's be as powerful as 5th level PC's from the start? (Actually making level 1 really level 5)?

*shrugs*
No skin off my back, but if PC's are having trouble surviving level 1 or players are not enjoying low levels because "the PC's aren't powerful enough", that may be a GM problem more than a game problem.

[pastaav]

I use lvl 2 as start level, but allow very rapid level up after that so that they are typically around lvl 5 when things start to heat up. I can easily see the argument why a higher starting level than 2 is desirable.

The point with having lvl 1-3 is mostly that some NPC and characters should be starting as newbees that just left home and you need levels for those. The problem is that very few stories fit this mold. All the good books out there has a majority of characters that are not newbees. There is the occasional young farmer boy, but the farm boy is the exception and would never survive on their own.

It also worth to remember that in many other game system the capability of the entry level character is closer to RM lvl 5. If you give the players lvl 1 characters and they risk  hating the game because their characters are simply not able to average tasks they expect to succeed with.

[Right Wing Wacko]

The point with having lvl 1-3 is mostly that some NPC and characters should be starting as newbees that just left home and you need levels for those. The problem is that very few stories fit this mold. All the good books out there has a majority of characters that are not newbees. There is the occasional young farmer boy, but the farm boy is the exception and would never survive on their own.

Then the GM should make up his own stories that can handle that level of play instead of stories from books and movies.
Or the entire game system should be re-done so that 1st level is really 5th level.

It also worth to remember that in many other game system the capability of the entry level character is closer to RM lvl 5.

I am not at all concerned or interested in what "other games do"...

If you give the players lvl 1 characters and they risk  hating the game because their characters are simply not able to average tasks they expect to succeed with.

Then that sounds like a problem with the game system.... if a 1st level PC consistently fails at average tasks.
Or it could be that the GM made the tasks too hard for the PC's level.

[Thom @ ICE]

I'm in agreement with RWW except if you are demo'ing a game the idea of using level 5 just because it offers more options for greater challenges, maneuvers, spells, etc.

For a regular game - always start at 1 (or even Ictus' 0) to develop the character.

As for the comments about RMX or RMC...
IMO that just suggests a game preference/prejudice as RMC (RM2) - and also RMSSGFRP - have been around long enough to know that starting power levels are not issues.  Each works for different GMs and Players based upon either minor differences.

[Marc R]

IMO the GM sets the power level, so no level is too weak to play, it depends thematically if you want to start off PCs at the very start of their careers, or farther along. (If the PCs are overwhelmed by the scenario, that's the GM overpowering the scenario, not a system issue).

For one-shots, like tournament play, often 5-10th is picked, but I was once a player in a one shot that took place in a village where something (that turned out to be a werewolf) was killing people one by one. We were all first level, and that eliminated direct confrontation as a choice as the monster was way out of our league, but put guile, planning and social skills (organizing the villagers and keeping them from panic) at the forefront.

We did a lot of screaming and running away, in the end we killed it (it killed more than half of us too) and I still remember it fondly as one of the best one shots ever.

[Gunnar Greybeard]

I agree with the posts about the GM setting the proper balance. As long as the GM designs the campaign around lower level PC's it should be fine. The key is to challenge the group so that play is exciting as that is what keeps player involvement and interest high.

[Right Wing Wacko]

The key is to challenge the group so that play is exciting as that is what keeps player involvement and interest high.

And it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.
I always start my games at level 1 and we always have fun.
A decent GM is very important.

[Marc R]

It's very true, if anything, a decent GM is Critical.

On the previous point of "Why not up the 1st level characters to 5th level power" and "Why bother having 1-3rd level characters".

Is quickly answered when your party of 10th level characters get beaten to death by a surly pack of hungry 12 year old street kids. . . .RM assumes NPCs will be built like PCs, even if abstracted to less detail. . .and if you lift the bar to 1st level = able to casually survive a dangerous environment instead of 1st level = noob who can handle danger as long as they have backup and are careful. . .then the pack of 12 year old street kids is dangerous indeed, since you can't downgrade them far below 1st level.

RM already does a good job of jacking threat levels, to where in RM2 or RMSS I wouldn't be casual about taking a 10th level party down into a warren of alleys and rubble tunnels held by scores of hostile 1st level 12 year old street urchins. . .but if you culled the bottom off the power scale to make them 5th level equivalent, that would be a really scary slum indeed. I'd likely call for the corporal hicks solution and burn it down from a distance.

1st level lets you play characters as noobs, the 16 year old kid who just joined the watch, the magician's apprentice who can barely spell cast, or the thief who calls it a good day when he steals two apples and gets away with it.

If you want to play the hardened veteran, the journeyman mage just going out on his own after leaving his master, or the burglar who steals rare jewelry on commission, you're better off bumping it to a higher level to start, but that's an indication that as GM you want to start off with established, experienced characters, not noobs, which is fine, but isn't a system defect. If anything, excessive competence at 1st level leaves the question open as to if something is defective, ala "But then what level/profession are the surly 12 year old street urchins?".

[thrud]

I like starting at lv1. It will let you get to kow the character before things start to get rough.

Otoh, in this particular case when the GM want to introduce new players with an easy to run 1st adventure I'd say go for lv5. If they like it you can roll up serious characters for them to play.

[RandalThor]

My opinion is more like Pastaavs. I believe that the lower levels (1-3) are the apprenticeship levels. So if you want to play the teenager just starting out, cool begin at 1st level, but realize you are likely 13-14 years old, not 17-19 like our modern sensibilities think is appropriate.

Just because a game has 1st level, doesn't mean you have to start at first level - it doesn't even mean that you should start at first level. Especially a game that effectively has unlimited levels.

One catch phrase the ICE used was "Get real, get Rolemaster." Well, I feel it is unusual that a game that prides itself with realism in gaming, doesn't have a very realistic view on the characters/levels/abiliies concept. But it is likely my idea of what constitutes a professional / adult that really is at play here. I don't think that an individual who fails at an average task 50% of the time (even 40%) should be classified as a professional. I would get fired real quick if that were the case (and so would the vast majority of everyone). In fact, professionals are supposed to handle the more difficult situations with a better than 50% success rating.

[vroomfogle]

Definitely 1st level does not have to be starting level, but it is very important for 1st level to be weak.   I also think the "Adolescence" and "Apprenticeship" titles are misnomers, since a 1st level RM character should still be an apprentice, especially if a caster ("ok, you learned Projected Light, off you go")

Think of levels like ages. There really isn't a strict "starting" age in RM, nor should there be.   You want and need those younger ages to be there otherwise how do you represent them in the game?  If you bump it up so that the starting age is now 20 where does that leave the kids?  But if the GM decides he wants a few more years under the belt before they run off so be it.   

Making the starting level, in any game system, to be the minimum competent adventurer age, is completely arbitrary since people come in a wide range of experience that you need to represent in-game.

[RandalThor]

I think that this is just one of those occasions where the numbers and practicality dominate over realism, and they have to sometimes. For me, I don't like playing the teenager just setting off - not in a wide range game like RM (as opposed to a narrow range game like Shadowrun where the difference between the weak and powerful isn't quite so wide). It comes from many sources, but mainly because I haven't been in a game that has lasted even a single full year of play, our time. The vast majority end in a couple of months, so I never get to see the higher levels because everyone is so caught up in the "we must start at 1st level" gunk. But also, because it has gotten boring to be a teen dealing with goblins and kobolds and giant rats. Plus, when you start with a character with actual history, there are many more possibilities in character background.