Here we are:

Quote from: DMG p. 111, 3rd paragraphExperienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an "average" die or d4+1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles else-where, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent Characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with - 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance.

Quote from: Arduin;703425REALLY?  I just read pg. 110-11 where this topic is covered.  It doesn't say that.  What are you talking about?

Page 111,  paragraph 3. "Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."

aha! simultaneous!

Quote from: Phillip;703429In 1977, "AD&D" consisted only of a book of monsters written up in OD&D terms. The Players Handbook came out in 1978, the Dungeon Masters Guide not until 1979 (and months overdue, IIRC).

Yeah, in terms of D&D as a big popular thing with widespread penetration, it was only when AD&D became available in the three hardbacks 1979+, and especially when Moldvay gave an easy access point in 1981.
However it's certainly possible that in terms of annual % increase in sales the biggest relative growth was in the mid to late '70s, but the absolute numbers buying and playing were far fewer.

Quote from: Phillip;703432Here we are:

FWIW, my experience has been that after everyone has been playing awhile, for pre-3e it works best to have a set XP tally for all new PCs. Eg in my Yggsburgh AD&D game which has had 45 online sessions of about 3 hours, I've used 5,001 starting XP for a long time. It's just enough to just hit 3rd level as an M-U. The actual PC level range is 3rd to 5th.

Most new PCs are replacements for dead or lost characters, something which EGG doesn't seem to address. An alternative I used to use for replacement PCs is to give them half the XP of the character they're replacing, which equates to -1 level in the same class, if below Name level. I think for long term play I like the single tally better, though. Basically I look at the XP spread in the party, and when every current PC hits a milestone I'll raise the starting XP tally, the exact level set according to the campaign power level. A high powered dungeon crawl game might encourage a high tally, whereas one with a lower threat level might work best with lower level starting PCs.

Quote from: Phillip;703430Read it again, Sam.

I just read it again.  It doesn't say that.  Nice try but, that is why you can't quote it.  It doesn't exist.  (And NO, it isn't my duty to prove a NEGATIVE!)

Quote from: Phillip;703432Here we are:

Quote from: DMG p. 111, 3rd paragraphExperienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an "average" die or d4+1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles else-where, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent Characters in your campaign, as you give them a substantial level to begin with - 4th, 5th, or 6th for instance.

Yup. The reason - as you noted - is that 4th level is heroic (most primary heroes you'd read about in fantasy novels) and 8th level is superheroic (Conan, John Carter and other absolute paragons in their respective settings).

The experience of the first levels in the game is important. It is advised people who start playing the game for the first time shouldn't be robbed of this experience (because it matters a lot, in a formative way, to actually play the game with skill later on).

If the players are experimented, then you ought to consider having new characters start in the ballpark of the group's average capabilities. I like the average die method quite a bit, actually.

For parties beyond superheroic capabilities, then new characters should at least start at heroic levels. It doesn't mean they are started at superheroic levels themselves, mind you. Just that they are started at heroic levels, or higher, to skip the rookie stage of the game and have a chance to kick ass and catch up with the rest of the group through play.

Quote from: S'mon;703400AFAICT the most explosive market growth was 1981-83 or 84; with mostly people buying Moldvay or Mentzer Basic and upgrading to AD&D, or straight to AD&D. I don't know to what extent they were running 'die like flies' games, though, at that time. My first AD&D games were I think 1985, maybe late 84. As far as I can recall the PCs were pretty high powered; though they did die frequently, they also killed huge numbers of monsters. It wasn't very "Fantasy Fuckin Vietnam".

I think Fantasy Fucking Vietnam, like most expressions born in the last few years on blogs and/or message boards (*cough* OSR *cough*) are next to meaningless if you don't define them in the context you're using them. Here's a discussion about it on this board, though you're right that the original, derisive use of the phrase was directly correlated to [low level] "4 HP mooks".

For me, level is pretty much irrelevant to a FFV feel. Sure, it's going to be more marked at low levels, simply because if you play TSR D&D rules and actually explore dungeons and wilderness and don't fudge dice all the time and whatnot it's a lethal game and you are going to play in that range for a while, in the first place, unless the players are skilled and have been through the meat grinder a few times and learned previously with another FFV type DM.

But things like save or die and level drain and the like really hurt you all the more when you reach heroic and superheroic levels. These elements help retain a part of that lethal, dangerous feel of the game up there at high level play. It means that you will very much have occasions to kick ass like John Carter once you've reached superheroic levels in my AD&D games, but in others you better watch out or it's going to be your ass that's handed out to you.

I for one very much like the game that way.

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be  brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of  that of the other player characters."

Right. So if the average player is 1st level, you come in at 1st level.  NOT 4th level.  Like I said, you were wrong.

QuoteThe ist edition Dungeon Masters Guide recommends  that experienced players should have experienced characters, even if  they aren't bringing those in from another campaign. They should get  figures of around the average level among PCs in the campaign, and  generally at least 4th."

Quote from: RPGPundit;703333In my Albion game part of what I did was to allow everyone to have two PCs, and choose which one they play at the start of each adventure.  At least that way, the ones who choose to always play the same guy can't complain that they have to "start again at level 1" if he dies; because its their own damn fault for min-maxing who got all the XP.

In a broader sense, I think that its certainly understandable that someone wouldn't want their character that they like to die, whatever the system or game.  I don't think the "answer" to that is to not have characters die, but to give the players a clear sense of how mortality levels work in a game from the get-go.

RPGPundit

We used to do the same thing with 1e and 2E D&D.

Each player would maintain a "character stable" of three characters, and Experience Points were placed into a shared bin per player. That player would then make the decision to assign EXP to whichever character they had favored at the time. Some players fully vested all of their EXP into one character, whereas others would spread it evenly across all three. Fortunately, it kept the player characters within 3 levels of one another.

One thing that the "low level meatgrinder" used to do was make players more competitive with each other. Survival and advancement depend on the rest of the group, but resources are scarce and one less party member is one less person to include in the split.

(We tried just giving xp to the person who gave the killing blow for a while. Yikes)

One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.

First character could be well thought out and presented... dead
Second could be well thought out... dead
Fifth could be down to just rolling dice and counting the seconds untill dead.

Others never invest anything in the character in the first place so the impact might be nil. Or just mild annoyance at having to trot out another replacement. Pre-rolled or on the spot.

Too much PC death can kill the threat impact of potential death. Or lead to possible detatchment from the character.

Others of course get off on the dead dead dead cycle.

Quote from: Omega;703785One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.

First character could be well thought out and presented... dead
Second could be well thought out... dead
Fifth could be down to just rolling dice and counting the seconds untill dead.

Others never invest anything in the character in the first place so the impact might be nil. Or just mild annoyance at having to trot out another replacement. Pre-rolled or on the spot.

Too much PC death can kill the threat impact of potential death. Or lead to possible detatchment from the character.

Others of course get off on the dead dead dead cycle.

Agreed.

I want my players to care about their PCs I want them to get pissed off when they die and to be invested in them. Loosing 4 PCs in a single session becuase of bad luck, bad tactics or an impossible DM railroad just dilutes the investment.

I much prefer to kill a PC after its been played for a few months and risen to mid level and really been invested in by the player. It's a bit like making NPCs rounded and believable and trying to find a way they can engage with the players so when they die the player experiences some of that loss.

Quote from: Omega;703785One of the problems with frequent mortality at the start is it can lead to a gradually or even rapidly diminishing investment in the character and the game.

Not really, in my experience. Investment in the character takes but a split second to happen. What matters is some key element that helps that happen. It could be the likeness of your PC, the shield and arms he's holding, the name, anything like this. Then actual role playing works its magic.

And if you get invested in your character early on - as is the norm by my count, and I do mean within a few hours of the first game sessions, not several sessions - it sucks to lose and get your character killed. Then there are two basic responses: you give up, in which case you aren't made for the D&D game, better play FATE or whatnot, OR you DON'T give up and learn, in which case you will become a valuable D&D player, sooner rather than later.

There's always some moron that cries for "elitism" when such a thing is formulated. It's a dumb argument, between, "either you are not elitist and you let whatever bad player level up just because they sit at the table and demand you level them up" and "this is a meat grinder that only the precious few who are sucking the DM's cock get to get past off."

Such bullshit reeks of so much dysfunctional players-DM relationship I'd just advise people singing that tune to just, you know, play games with some friends they can trust for a while, and see how that goes.

I've always thought that a good player was one that was fun to have at the table, not the one who can solve the dungeon the best.

Maybe that is why I don't see killing characters until they "learn" or quit to be an ideal.

That does bring up the issue of NPC mortality.

Sometimes its not the characters death that hits the players best. It is the NPC henchmen, that one barkeep, or someone else the PCs deal with and happen to become attatched to. Those losses can have defining impacts.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;703791I've always thought that a good player was one that was fun to have at the table, not the one who can solve the dungeon the best.

Maybe that is why I don't see killing characters until they "learn" or quit to be an ideal.

A good player is different than a player who makes the team of adventurers survive and win the day. The D&D game is partly predicated on the latter, while the former might not mean that at all, we do agree.