Topic: Are first level characters too weak?

[Hurin]

Am I the only one in the world who enjoys the challenge of playing low level characters?

No, you're definitely not the only one: I love playing the lower levels.

Characters SHOULD start out very weak, as they are just green recruits. If they don't start out weak, they have less of a sense of advancement and the campaign looses much of the 'arc' of its story arc.

So no, I personally don't think characters start out too weak. Things are just fine as it is.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I see 1st level characters still as Apprentices still, especially with casters.    Casters aren't going to study magic to years to learn a few spells and then take off.   For one, where are they going to learn their spells after that?    Apprenticeship lasts to level 3-5.

At the end of the apprenticeship (for any profession/craft), the character should know the basics of his profession. Not necessarily every every aspect, but at least the basics.

I think that this equates well with first level.

Now, the first 3-5 levels could be termed as being more of the "Journeyman" years of training (i.e. Advanced Apprenticeship??). Where the character goes out, practices his craft, and returns for further and more advanced training.

For non-adventuring crafts/professions, these Journeyman year are likely spent with their teacher/master, but with ever greater amounts of responsibility.

In the game, Harn, one of the aspects that I always found interesting was that once apprenticeship was complete, those young mages were forced to leave the chantry (i.e. the guild) to travel the world for a year and a day. Once that time was up, they had to return, and present the chantry with a new spell and a magic item that they had crafted. A way of showing that they were ready to move on to the next level of advancement (i.e. access to the guild's libraries, etc.. allowing them to study and learn more spells)

In RM, both as a player and a GM, I always did something similar. RM doesn't have spell books, not in the way that D&D does. I always had spell users keep spell books, but their books are essentially all of the notes and things that they learned during their apprenticeship. This way, these "spell books" become their study guides" for further development of their base lists as they travel and progress. As they travel and visit other places, they can visit other mage guilds, and if given access to their libraries, glean new information to add to their spell books (i.e. the stuff needed to advance in other spell lists that they had learned.).

In other words, the spell books contained the notes for base lists and any other lists that the character learned so that they could advance in those spell lists whenever they went up levels. Base lists were the only lists that did not have to be known to be entered in the book. (i.e. a Magician would have the notes needed to learn Ice Law even if he waited until he was 5th level before learning it).


As for making 1st level characters stronger, the only thing really needed is basically what we did for RMX, up hits a little bit, and up Power Points a little bit. (and perhaps get rid of multipliers, and intro a way of recovering PP faster than sleeping 8 hours).

Anything else added should be balanced through removing DPs...


Just a few thoughts...

[RandalThor]

The problem with boosting up the 1st level characters is that it's raising the bar and removing less powerful, less skilled, and younger people from your game world entirely!    With weak 1st level characters you have a continuum where the range of levels accurately reflects the wide range in competence (and ages) of the general populace.  If instead you boost 1st level you've compressed the range of youths and unskilled into "Adolescence" and "Apprenticeship".

No it's not. It is just saying that those individuals that are 1st level are the younger folk, not those that go adventuring (usually). As it is though of now, the vast majority of the population is 1st level, say 90+ percent. That is overwhelmingly on the low end, and tells me that those people wouldn't likely survive as a species.

At the end of the apprenticeship (for any profession/craft), the character should know the basics of his profession. Not necessarily every every aspect, but at least the basics.

Actually, didn't they have to be able to set up their own shop and survive entirely off of their learned skills? That, to me, says more than "basic" knowledge/ability. Defineately higher than 1st level.

In the game, Harn, one of the aspects that I always found interesting was that once apprenticeship was complete, those young mages were forced to leave the chantry (i.e. the guild) to travel the world for a year and a day. Once that time was up, they had to return, and present the chantry with a new spell and a magic item that they had crafted. A way of showing that they were ready to move on to the next level of advancement (i.e. access to the guild's libraries, etc.. allowing them to study and learn more spells)

Good luck trying that in RM. "Hey! What do you mean I accidentally destroyed the whole village trying to make Boots of Walking (+5)?!?" I would imagine, in RM the young mages would just come back with something they found (both spell and item) and pass them off as their creations. And as the higher mages did the same, they just say, "Very good initiate. Welcome." Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. "Y'know what I mean? Say no-more, say no-more." Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. (Hey, if going for a joke you gotta sell it!  )

[RandalThor]

I dunno, I get this silly idea because it's called First level, so I thought that PC should start first from there... 

I was waiting for this.... 

Jokes a part, it's an interesting point of view, and you're right: higher level PCs are perfectly playable. Maybe including a power scale like this:
1st-3rd level: newbie
4th-7th: expert
etc
in the main book could help...

I would go even further:

1-3: Apprenticeship
4-7: Low-Professional
8-12: Mid-Professional
13-20: High-Professional
20-30: Expert Level
30+: Oh, yeah. That's what I'm talkin' about!!

We need to stop being scared of these levels. A 10th level farmer or craftsman doesn't mean he is a kick-buttay individual - in anything other than his chosen profession. You don't get automatic bonuses like in DnD, and with the limited amount of DPs per level, they likely have very limited combat abilities, compared to a fighter half their level.

I too like RMs "realism" which is why I believe so strongly about this subject. What works and makes sense for another game, doesn't for RM. Even when DnD 3.X gave us the non-adventuring professions, I increased the average level of NPC farmers, craftsmen, town guards, etc. It just doesn't make sense to say that 1st level is the first level of professional ability. They are far too under skilled.

[markc]

 Lower the required exp required to go up a level for levels 1-5. This will allow PC's to learn faster from there experiences.

MDC

[Skarsgard]

I would go even further:

1-3: Apprenticeship
4-7: Low-Professional
8-12: Mid-Professional
13-20: High-Professional
20-30: Expert Level
30+: Oh, yeah. That's what I'm talkin' about!!

We need to stop being scared of these levels. A 10th level farmer or craftsman doesn't mean he is a kick-buttay individual - in anything other than his chosen profession. You don't get automatic bonuses like in DnD, and with the limited amount of DPs per level, they likely have very limited combat abilities, compared to a fighter half their level.

Pretty much sums up the way I look at it. Just because an NPC or PC is level 10, does not mean that their HP and OB will increase. The level 10 farmer will be slightly more durable than a level 1 farmer (due to stat raises from level - ups), they wont necessarily put DP into body dev (although they may).

Like some people have said, it's not the combat side of level 1's that is annoying it is the basic skills being beyond the reach of the character.

[rdanhenry]

A group of 1st level characters, if considered as apprentices, could be involved in adventures, but would be under some supervision of their mentors. In some cases, the apprentices will be running errands which just happen to prove more challenging than they'd thought. In other cases, they may be sent on missions to "test them". They may be assigned to deal with some zombies or "get those prisoners to safety!" while the experienced guys go at it with the big bad. Now, if you're a young Ranger, you need to be allowed to experience real danger to ensure you're up to the job, but you are much more likely to survive if after combat, your 12th level Ranger mentor is applying First Aid than if it is the job of Bob the 1st Level Magician, who has one little rank in First Aid (because "it's better than nothing") or even Vonda Sharpaxe, the Dwarven Fighter, who has a decent First Aid bonus for 1st level, but who also went down in the fight against the luckiest little goblin ever.

Spell-casters retain access to spell lists this way (except those you just don't want them to have, at least yet). Other skills also remain easily accessible for training. Risks are managed and you create ties to NPCs who may continue to appear long after the characters "graduate" to completely independent functioning. Set them loose at 3rd level, be generous with the experience multipliers, and the mentors should be gone before this setup gets tired.

[Elton Robb]

You know, it was interesting playing Icewind Dale.  The first level adventures advanced the story and helped the group prepare for the big exploration push.  You gathered supplies, weapons, killed rats and insects, helped two lovers reunite, and so forth.  There was an altercation with goblins, but if you did the non-lethal adventures first, you had enough experience and skill to take them out.

[yammahoper]

RMFRP really up'ed the over all all starting skill totals for 1st level PC's.  So, my answer is "no, 1st level PC's are not too weak...IF you are playing RMFRP/SS."

We rarely start with 1st level PC's anymore.  Our games are as conception driven as the PC's.  If we want to run a group of elite space marines, then level 6-8 will be the starting level, not level one.  My last SM game involved PC's that were all rich and successful, known experts in whatever field they had pursued.  I gave no level restrictions or limitations to the players.  My favorite PC was a cybernetist that had invented artificial organs and hardware advances that made him the worlds richest man; he was an android, and level 16.

I think the previous posters hit the nail dead center with their observations about the GM.  It IS about what the GM is looking for and prepares.  I wanted a game were i could throw anything I wanted to at the party and knew a group of level one PC's would never handle it.  If a GM desires to run a low level game, then he will deliver an enjoyable low level adventure.  If he doesn't, well, in RM, players can count the seconds they have left to live.

Far worse imo than being over powered by challenges is being under powered.  Nothing loses my interest faster than a cake walk, albeit consistent overwhelming foes will bring great frustration.

[damilano]

Got to have Level One.

Yes, level one characters are generally weak.  We GMs can beef 'em up a bit with a background option or two (shame on you GMs who haven't written your own BO tables!), but the CHARACTERS should be relatively inept.  This is where the PLAYER shines.

Which quest to choose from?  Stealing a sacred statue for a mysterious art collector?  Going into some abandoned mines looking for goblins?  Taking on the Witch-King and an assortment of Balrogs and Dragons?  Job one for the player is figuring out which quest -- which way INTO the story -- is the best for his overall survival chances.

Once that choice is made, they should NEED to play intelligently and creatively to survive.  Otherwise it's just Ned Nerdlinger's GM giveaway show.

"But my guy almost got killed climbing a wall!"
Maybe there was another way up.

"Those orcs ambushed us and almost killed us!"
Yeah, orcs'll do that.  Next time scout the way ahead first.

"Dude, like there's only a few coins and a rusty dagger in this chest!"
Yes, and you earned it.

"Man, I can't wait until I go up a few levels!"
Nor can I.

GMs, always make sure there's a path of less resistance available to the lower level characters.  It doesn't have to be an obvious one, in fact, it shouldn't be.  But there should be hints and clues that will lead to the easier way.

And at low level, be sure to let them power up relatively quickly.  Did they survive those mines, and even kill a few goblins?  Level 'em up! 

The reward that isn't earned is scorned.  I can't tell you how it used to make me feel to hear my players tell members of another group,

"Yes, he's a 19th level Archaeologist.  Brought him all the way up from Level 1." That statement, my friends, smacks of intelligence and dedication, two player characteristics beloved of GMs all over.

And what stories are better than the ones that start with "Remember that time you almost got killed..."?

This is adventure, lads.  Where there is no risk, there is no reward. 

CMC

[dutch206]

As for making 1st level characters stronger, the only thing really needed is basically what we did for RMX, up hits a little bit, and up Power Points a little bit. (and perhaps get rid of multipliers, and intro a way of recovering PP faster than sleeping 8 hours).

You can have my power point multiplier when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

As for faster recovery of PP's you could use mana potions, but this would seriously unbalance the game IMO.

[Marc R]

I'm not the toughest tough guy in the real world, I've been in a few fights, but nothing more serious than friendly wrestling in the last decade. . . .perhaps, on one hand, the inclination is a bit to inclined to resort to violence to easily? You don't pull a sword or gun to fix most problems in real life, why so in RPG? You won't get killed if you're not fighting. . .plenty of things to do in any game world other than fighting.

It's possible to run, or play, multiple sessions in a row without a combat. . .and have fun.

As to balancing things out, it is somewhat within the GMs mandate to either balance the encounters so that the party can overcome them, or to inform the players that it's a dangerous world and to watch their butts.

Consider, that in any game where the combats are exactly "Even" and "Balanced" exactly 1/2 the party will die each combat. . .so often the PCs are often only fighting unfair, unbalanced fights (or fighting smart, and never giving the other guy a fair chance).

It's RM, you have an average of a 10% of being mortally wounded every time you take a critical short of near immediate magical healing, and a 2-3% chance of just being flat out killed each time you take a crit.

As a result of the above, in my experience, when playing in a "no fudging" RM game without fate points, PCs tend to;

Roleplay
Use trickery
run from fights
ambush
attack with missile weapons from cover
etc.

I've played in a game of PCs who were 9" tall faries, and the character with the most hits had 22. . .admitedly that game didn't last long, but it combusted for reasons other than combat balance/imbalance. If you're a 9" fairy with 10 hits, you find it a lot easier and more logical to hide or flee for some reason. . .if that game could balance out, then perhaps GMs are either overdoing the threat levels, or the PCs are eager to die and refuse to run, hide or back down when threatened? RM is really dangerous at any level, if you actively seek out danger, at any level, you will die when the cumulative odds catch up with you.

All too many PCs act like they're 10-15th level at chargen, regardless of if they're 1st or 3rd or 5th level. . .take a good look at their character background. . . for a 1st level character the phrase "Most promising student at the fencing school" makes sense "greatest swordsman in the west". . . .um. . .no.

[kevinmccollum]

I'm not trying to cause problems but to me, this is a silly question.

first level characters are supposed to be weak. they are young beings who have just finished apprenticeship. they could gain levels by joining the military/militia or gain employment as guards etc but the fact is, they are starting careers as soldiers of fortune.

In my opinion, the training packages that exist make characters higher than first level. I play RM2 exclusively, I tried RMSS/RMFRP but couldn't stomach it. RMSS/RMFRP first level characters are much tougher than RM2 first level characters and there is still questions of them being too weak?

First level characters shouldn't be fighting greater orcs, ogres, etc. they should be (if fighting) going against minor or lesser skeletons, kobolds, maybe a couple of lesser orcs, etc. There are whole hosts of things they can do. And when they succeed? they get more levels and get much tougher much quicker.

I think first level/low level characters have to use their head more than higher level ones do. And the GM should foster this.

Anyway, that is my two cents.

[Arioch]

I'm not trying to cause problems but to me, this is a silly question.

No problem, I've opened the topic to hear people's opinion about the matter! 

[rdanhenry]

Depending on the options used, RM2 characters could start with OBs above 100, just like a RMSS character. If you are talking just the core rules (which few people stuck to), yes, 1st level characters are weak. So, as other have said, one needs to provide them with easier challenges. Another important thing to do is have multiple ways of achieving a goal, so that if one skill roll is failed, the party can still succeed by attempting another method of meeting the challenge.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I'm not the toughest tough guy in the real world, I've been in a few fights, but nothing more serious than friendly wrestling in the last decade. . . .perhaps, on one hand, the inclination is a bit to inclined to resort to violence to easily? You don't pull a sword or gun to fix most problems in real life, why so in RPG?

Because fantasy RPGs happen in medieval times? You know, when life was cheap, dying was easy, force or social status meant justice in many cases, and people were summarily executed rather than judged in most cases?

[providence13]

LordMiller makes a good point.
Play dumb and roll up new characters.
Play like a fox could kill and your chances are greater that eventually, you can take that darn fox!
(I know that he's laughing at me somewhere!)

[Marc R]

I suspect that even your average medieval soldier couldn't come close to the body counts many average PCs have on them. . . . .harkening back to the early days, even split between 5-6 PCs the keep on the borderlands would give you a kill count in excess of any known serial killer. . . .

I'll bet that if you check history, the kill counts of soldiers and the like wouldn't be anywhere close to PCs most of the time. . . .and in almost every instance where it is, said soldiers were running about killing unarmed people, or running down routed armies (most casualties happening after a battle is already won or lost, in how aggressively you persue the beaten side.)

in RM, like in real life, if you play the odds, eventually you lose, it's essentially statistically unlikely you'll survive 100 fights that are even remotely fair. . . .so if you kill 100 beings, you're either taking total advantage (like attacking from behind, or dropping rocks on them from off a wall) or executing them when they're unarmed, asleep or otherwise not in combat. . . .and PCs often kill hundreds or thousands of opponants in their careers. . . .the number of people who've personally killed thousands of people in the real world in fights, not executions, in any era, is vanishingly small if they exist at all.

RPGs are a bit more bloodthirsty than any parallell you can make to the real world.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Are 1st level PC's too weak?...

Man... that depends on a whole lot of things.

Yes, they are weak... comparatively.
Aren't they suppose to be? After all, level 1 is where you start from...

Like I said, this is rather subjective and everybody has differing tastes...

[kevinmccollum]

Depending on the options used, RM2 characters could start with OBs above 100, just like a RMSS character

Yeah, much of the additional material in RM2 caused huge power creep. I never liked anything above RMCII and actually ratched everything back down to the core material except for the additional skills, smoothed stats and a couple of races. That makes it so a top OB was around 85 (that would be like a 101 ST and maybe max size with the character using four ranks of hobby in a primary weapon)