How do you deal with edgy shitspergs...

How do you deal with edgy shitspergs? Do you just kick them out of your table or do you fudge rolls until they die or give up?

How does your group normally deal with you, OP?

Call him out on being a misanthropic nihilst wallowing in the capricious nature of man like a pig in mud.

I don't understand what he's trying to get at.

He is failing to understand D&D organized play I think. The guy from riot games that is.

DM Lesson #3

Never deal with an out-of-character problem in-character.

The chance of them not getting the message at all, or worse, reveling in your IC 'solution' is quite high and never addresses the core of the problem.

Tell him to shut up or get out.

That said, as someone who was in actual public play, if Carson tried any of that horseshit at my table, I'd kick him out within seconds.

If anything it's a demonstration that organized play is fucking retarded.

Hows it going Carson?

>fpbp
Also, just call them out on being a tard, then focus individual hard enemy aggro on them (have assassins get the jump on them when they're surprised, berserker makes a beeline for them, etc)

Not necessarily true, imo. If the character is legit edgy, try to put them into situations that by no possible means can be edgy or cool. Aspies will very likely quit if they roll Ubercock mc Deathpunch and you have them get beaten into next week by children or ash rats.

That is, of course, only if you're beta enough to not call them out to their face.

Trying in-game fuckery not only leads to a weaker overall story (which players will intuitively notice, even if they don't say anything), there is still a higher risk chance of them not getting the message.

Plus, why would you even suggest that if you admit it's the "beta" method? Isn't that the same as saying "This is the objectively wrong method"?

Some GMs are legit beta, not much they can do about it. Story strength doesn't matter much when the campaign has devolved into Monty Python and the Holy Grail anyways.

I find the argument of "Well you're weak so use weak techniques to get you through it instead of rising to the challenge and doing the correct thing" particularly dangerous and unhealthy. Monty Python not withstanding.

He's fucking retarded and I don't agree with him, but there are problems in the game and as the GM you already have some control over fixing those and changing the game as you please. No one can say your skill checks to open doors are too low DC, so why can they decide exactly how you treat chargen? Basically if they're already trusted to GM it doesn't make much sense to then limit something that is directly related to it. I'd ban Aarakocra and Yuan-Ti for example, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

>playing D&D professionally
>playing D&D tournament-ladder style
>playing D&D (like seriously)

Treating role-playing like a video game system is the problem. I love you, Carson, even if you're a bit of a shit-starting s-lord.

man, take your pathetic personal facebook squabbles to your tumblr.

literally no one gives a fuck about you or that guy you had an online dick wagging contest with.

>pic
>"they can just sell it"
>characters are starting out in a trading district with wealthy traders who can afford to pay that much gp for gear they can't confirm to be legit and not stolen
What's with people assuming that every shitpeddler in D&D has a massive warehouse emporium and infinite money, and even buys stuff in the first place?

It's not explicitly forbidden, so it's allowed.

>implying most GMs would let that fly

>party goes graverobbing
>finds a ton of +X gear on cryptkeeper liches and their servants
>return to nearest city
>try to sell the sacred ceremonial armor and weaponry you could've only gotten by desecrating the ancient burial mounds of the local people's ancestors
>will happily buy that shit off your hands and not call the guard or something
You've gotta understand, these people have only played Skyrim and The Witcher.

That reply doesn't make sense in regards to my comment. I didn't say that the players should be unable to sell the stuff, I'm saying that most of the time the players won't start in a commercial hub with very gullible/trusting merchants, that also incidentally buy these kinds of wares. 75 gp is a lot.

Am I in the wrong side if I think Carson first post is right?

That's not the thing that makes him a sperg, it's the shitfit tantrum he threw after being told no.

AFAIK Unless your party is starting in Elemental Evil or running Princes of the Apocalypse, you can't play an Aarakocra in AL.

OP is your pic related to spergs? Because all I see in it is more proof that D&D 5e is broken (which it is)

Tantrum? He was making a fucking joke, you autist.

>What's with people assuming that every shitpeddler in D&D has a massive warehouse emporium and infinite money, and even buys stuff in the first place?

Most of the stuff in the PHB is broadly assumed to be generally available, depending on where you start. If the campaign begins in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere, then of course it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that I can sell stuff easily and that there's not a lot of money around. But just as many campaigns begin in Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate or similar places - major trading centers that, for the purposes of a 1st level character, might as well have both infinite supplies and infinite money. Even a more modest place like Brynn Shander or Daggerford is still gonna have merchants that can easily afford to buy and sell anything that a 1st-level character starts with - yes, that includes hand crossbows. 150 gp isn't a lot of money in D&D mercantile terms, after all. For example, it's only 10 pounds of saffron.

>I'm saying that most of the time

Speak for yourself. I've DM'd three D&D campaigns so far, and in each of them I started the characters in a major city.

And no, 75 gp isn't a lot. It's seven and a half cows, or five oxen. Again, Joe Commoner is doing pretty well for himself with that, but a merchant who can only boast having the equivalent liquid assets of seven and a half cows, isn't a very good merchant.

I'm with you, the first post sounds pretty reasonable, though his subsequent posts are obviously less so. I don't play AL though, so I don't know if I'm missing any relevant information.

Doing some damage control there, Mr Hannibal?

Addendum:

Basically, my point is that as a player, I'm going to go in with certain a priori assumptions about what the start of the game looks like. Part of that assumption is that the equipment in the PHB is all available if I can afford it, and that I will be able to buy goods at their listed price and sell them at half their listed price as per standard.

If the DM wants to change that - that's fine! That's his prerogative. In a few months I'm going to be running Out of the Abyss, wherein my players will start off with only the clothes on their backs (and maybe not even that), and the prices in the PHB have been completely thrown out the window since resources are much scarcer - and weirder - in the Underdark.

The trick is that I'm telling my players both of these facts full well at the beginning of the game, so they know what they're getting into. But if I hadn't done that, and one of my players said at the start of the game "I want to sell my hand crossbow, so I find the nearest merchant", that would be 100% on me for not alerting the player to the change ahead of time.

In practice it's not different from, say, not telling players until the game begins something like "my world doesn't have dwarves" or "humans are all slaves of the goblinoids".

5e Adventurer's League is like 4e Encounters. It's organized play, DM's are supposed to adhere to guidelines to make sure everyone's on the same page.

One of those guidelines is that you can sell your starting gear to get other gear. It's not the same as a home table.

We are all warhammer players. Being assholes and edgy is a common behaivour. Even Tau players are deceptive and calculating. You wont see us saving any princess in the modern fairy tale way.

I agree with Carson completely. Also I found the corn futures comment hilarious. Playing AL is a fucking torment.

this. it was actually pretty funny.

Okay, this is simple.

If a player attempts to exploit this, they have to realize something: this is STARTING EQUIPMENT. It's something you beg, borrow, or steal for. Or find. Whatever. You don't buy it and sell it and buy it again before the game. If you could do that, you could start with infinite gold. That's not RAW. RAW tells you to choose a martial weapon and a shield, or two martial weapons. Not that you can do anything else except choose them.

I don't even know why people who think otherwise exist. It's like they just make shit up in their heads that they ardently believe is right even though the rules are plain as day.

Yeah, but...once the game starts, they can sell their hand crossbows, can they not? They don't get infinite money, but they do get a rather hefty sum to stack on top of their starting equipment.

Depends on the game, of course, but if the game starts in Waterdeep or Baldur's Gate or something, there's no real reason why this wouldn't work, at least for one iteration.

>allowing players to sell used items at full market value
That's not how that works either. The shit they have isn't new, and it isn't implied to be. They are not merchants, unless they take a background that specifies they are, or start as Guild Artisans that make the weapon in question. Then, maybe, sure. Because they built for it. They can say "oh, I selected this Hand Crossbow but I don't plan to use it; I am going to sell it during the first session as the first production-grade Hand Crossbow my crafter ever made." That's fine. Assuming they can get the full value from it, which wouldn't be too hard.

That's good RPing AND some RAW, all rolled into one.

>The shit they have isn't new, and it isn't implied to be

That doesn't mean it's not in good condition, however. The PHB specifically notes that it could be a family heirloom, military equipment, or really anything else. You're also free to decide its condition, as long as that condition doesn't alter its stats (including price).

They also don't have to be merchants to sell Thing X for half its cost. That's just a baseline assumption of the game (PHB, pg. 144: "as a general rule, undamaged weapons, armor, and other equipment fetch half their cost when sold in a market").

You wanna change that, fine - again, you're the DM so you can do that. But it's going against a baseline assumption that a player has no innate reason to suspect you apparently hate. So before they start making their character, you better look your player n the eye and tell them, "unless you have a background in mercantalism, you will only be able to sell things when I say you can, and for prices that I set for you. And also all your starting equipment is assumed to be pieces of shit that no one wants to buy."

Bingo

and even in Skyrim they had limits to a merchants money+Wouldnt buy stolen stuff

Its more like Diablo syndrome

>do you fudge rolls until they die or give up?
That GM detected.

Selling at half is fine, and it always is; I was going off the notion that the player would try to get the full 75g for said hand crossbow, which is a no-go unless they build for that. Standard fair value for resale of used/fair condition goods is always fine, so sure, sell your hand crossbow if you can find a buyer who has the cash. I don't mind any player doing this for an extra 37g 5s. Rock on.

Sorry for the need to clarify, but I was reading upthread about people selling it for 75g, and just ran with that notion.

As an addendum, if one of my players started as a "battle merchant" or something related to a mercantile background, I might even allow them to use that money to get goods at "merchant price" for resale, so they can haggle and ply wares as they play. That'd be fun too. It all depends on how they approach the concept.

>I was going off the notion that the player would try to get the full 75g for said hand crossbow.

The original point is that a Fighter can, with his starting equipment, start with two hand crossbows, in addition to everything else (chain mail, etc.). So he can start with his background equipment and gold plus his class equipment (which can include two martial weapons, i.e., two hand crossbows), when the game actually begins sell his two hand crossbows in the market for a total of 75 gp (two hand crossbows sold = the price of 1 hand crossbow), which is enough for a longsword (15 gp), a shield (10 gp), and having 50 gp left over for whatever he pleases.

The point being that there is no real reason NOT to do this, as it is essentially free extra starting money; not infinite money, but still a pretty hefty bonus for a 0 XP 1st-level character (it is, for example, exactly the cost of a potion of healing). And by RAW, it's completely legal in Adventurer's League play.

Ohhh. Well I guess I should read better. My apologies. Carry on.

I mean it comes off as odd to me, but hey, whatever. Each table is different.

>We are all warhammer players. Being assholes and edgy is a common behaivour. Even Tau players are deceptive and calculating. You wont see us saving any princess in the modern fairy tale way.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironically edgy, or this is actually something you think makes you sound cool.

This is really all coming down to being against the spirit of the game now.

Sure you can do it by RAW, but it's not the intention for this to happen or you to do it. This is your starting gear for your adventure, not some shit you picked up to sell right away.

If you're not going to respect the spirit of the game, you don't get to play.

>"You're not allowed to restrict character creation in any way"
If you're running the game, you can restrict whatever you want, however you want. The rules are just words in a book. They have no authority unless supported by the GM. What a spergy beta attitude.

Maybe they should have made rules of the game to be in accordance with the spirit of the game then.

This is Adventurer's League rules.

You'd know this if you bothered to read the cap, instead of posting about how offended you are by the beta-ness.

People who roleplay "competitively" are as baffling to me as people who play Nintendo party games competitively.

>Adventurer's League
Just... why?

>itt: autists can't hyperbole

The only appeal I can imagine in it is that you either don't know where to start as a player, or you're such a bad player that all you have left are people who literally can't say no

Yeah, the rules should reflect the spirit. Now, mind, the flipside to this is that 75 bonus gp at the game start, while reasonably hefty, is hardly game-breaking. If that's the worst thing you do at the table, you're better than 99.99% of That Guys out there.

This isn't untrue in all case, but neither is it true for all cases.

Last year, I helped run AL for my local game store. A vast majority of the players ALSO had home games (I was invited to two, and played in one); the appeal of AL was that we had access to a gamestore's resources of minis, nice tables etc.

That it was also drop-in meant that players whose schedules would otherwise make it difficult to join a regular game could get some D&D in.

Our AL organizer also held DM-classes. He would run us through some of the material we'd be running, if there were problems with material or players we'd discuss that, and generally be open to shop-talk. We tried to coordinate it such that, for example, inexperienced players were funneled to the experienced DM's tables.

I ended up having to drop AL because of grad school, but I had a lovely time.

I honestly kind of agree with him that it is a good idea to make people roleplay rather than just munchkining the shit out of the character creation process, but he made his argument in poor taste.

This is why I don't do organized play. None of this would fly in a regular group, but it is mandatory to put up with this in a public one.

That Carson guy's shitfit and slippery slope argument are stupid, but he's right. No one should defend a retarded exploit.

>hurr, I'll make a new PC, give his gear to the party, commit suicide, repeat

If it's dumb the GM gets to say no. That's all there is to say on the matter.

I'm with Carson on this.

How the fuck do you sell something during character creation? You aren't in-game then. No time is passing. Selling and buying weapons is an "action" you do in-game.

Why would you let someone exploit poorly written rules (going against how the rules were intended) to get free gold? The best solution is to just say "no, you're a fucking moron". But if you're a "yes, but..." sort of DM, you salvage the situation by getting the player to RP the eventual sale of the weapons, which will wrestle some semblance of a cool story out of your moronic, sperglord player.

It's always neckbearded "experienced" players that can't play RPGs properly, and end up ruining them as a result. Only play games with normal people.

>How the fuck do you sell something during character creation?

Shithead, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. When the game starts, provided it isn't in media res and you all meet in a tavern or something, there is no reason why you can't walk out the door and sell your hand crossbows for a total of 75 gp, use it to buy a shield and longsword, and pocket the remaining 50 gp, while still having all your other starting equipment.

This really goes against the spirit of it, in my opinion.

I usually let my players start with whatever equipment makes sense for them, obviously without overdoing it, and some pocket change.

This isn't a videogame. Immediately selling your "starting gear" as soon as you get control of your character is never an in-character action. It's annoying.

THERE ARE NO EXPLOITS IN TTRPGS

THIS SHIT ONLY HAPPENS BECAUSE A DM ALLOWS IT

A DM DOESN'T HAVE TO ALLOW THE PEASANT RAILGUN, EVEN THOUGH IT TECHNICALLY FOLLOWS THE RULEBOOK

IT'S NOT A VIDEOGAME, AN UNTHINKING SYSTEM THAT JUST RESPONDS TO YOUR INPUT WITH ITS RIGID PROGRAMMING

The very first James Bond movie had his favorite gun being replaced, under orders from M, by a Walther PPK. It's not unprecedented in fiction, and can easily be justified.

You know that it's not the same thing.

I'm talking about starting a character in an Elder Scrolls game for a speedrun. You're talking about inverting an expectation for story reasons.

If the player plans on trying to run some "exploit" and to get rid of his starting equipment, just cut the shit and reevaluate the type of players you want in your game, and at the very least, just give the player starting equipment they'd be happy with

>"Lol I can just sell my incompatible gear during session 1."

I'll just tell him no, he can't pick starting gear with the intent of immediately selling it. Nor can he sell his character's equipment before the game begins. If he wants to keep being a cock-trumpet, then he can do that in someone else's game, not mine. Boom, problem solved.

My issue here is that there's no way to justify this in-universe. If you want to fix the problem, fix it before it begins on the DM's side of the screen, rather than on the player's.

>letting players waste time shopping during your session
>letting players sell random weapons at market rate on short notice
>putting master swordsmiths in every random hamlet
>never starting a session on a ship, or on a caravan, or in the wilderness, or in the middle of a dungeon, or in a prison, or during a siege, or any fucking location that's not "friendly peaceful MMO themepark city with no weapon laws".

Where do you think you are? There are only 3 things allowed on this board:

1. Pathetic personal squabbles (optionally, you can pretend that it's actually a argument about fiction, history, or game rules).

2. Complaining about games that you've never played.

3. Pinup drawings of fantasy races.

Coincidentally, Tumblr also loves all of those things.

And as the DM it's your job to tell the player that. But the default assumption is that players in a town can sell equipment at half price, and buy goods listed in the PHB at PHB listed price. Again, PHB pg. 144.

And before anyone starts going on about 75 gp being a fortune, I'd like to remind you, again, that it's the cost of seven and a half cows, or five oxen. That is way less liquid cash than any merchant worthy of the job description is going to be able to muster up. 75 gp is a fortune to Joe Farmer, not to Ben Shekelstein.

You wanna change that, go ahead, but understand you're going against the core, printed general assumptions of the game, so your players are perfectly justified in calling you out on it if you don't warn them ahead of time.

Also,
>putting master swordsmiths in every random hamlet

I don't think you need to be a master swordsmith to make a standard longsword. In fact, the ability to create a longsword is probably your entry-level requirement to even call yourself a swordsmith.

I don't expect the village BLACKsmith to be able to bang one out, but any SWORDsmith should be perfectly capable of making one.

And again anyway, if longswords aren't available in the starting village, that's on you to tell the players, not on the players to just assume that the basic equipment listed in the PHB isn't available.

The book says "as a general rule, stuff will fetch half its cost when you sell it in a marketplace".

In the paragraph literally right above that, it says "Normally, you can sell your treasures and trinkets when you return to a town or settlement, provided that you can find buyers or merchants interested in your loot".

Nowhere in the PHB did I find text that says "any merchant you meet is required to buy anything you want to sell", or "the DM always has to start the game near a marketplace" or "every town will always have a merchant who will sell every object listed in the equipment page".

If the book says "you can start with a crossbow" and crossbows haven't been invented in my setting then yeah, it's my job to tell the players. But it's not my job to give you a fucking Prima Stragey Guide with maps of every town and notes about where you can buy and sell each object for any kind of useful gear that you want to buy.

You read the book and assumed something. That's your fault, you can't blame the book. And it's not the DM's job to know about all of your assumptions before the game starts.

>you are not allowed to restrict character creation in any way

Rule 0, suck my cock.

>My issue here is that there's no way to justify this in-universe.

We don't have to. They're not "in-universe". Player character creation rules are metagame constructs that help the game work as intended. Like any game rule, the GM is free to modify them or make exceptions as he sees fit. Likewise, players are free to attempt to negotiate with the GM or leave if they don't like the way he does things.

>If you want to fix the problem, fix it before it begins on the DM's side of the screen, rather than on the player's.
I don't have time to make dnd 5e a perfect game system. Thankfully I am a thinking human and not a video game engine, so I can just ask players to stop doing things that are abusive. It's a much better solution than bending over backwards to account for every possible loophole in an imperfect set of rules.

This.
He's not throwing a tantrum, he's pointing out how ridiculous it is not to implement some form of GM Control.

He's talking about Adventurer's League. The point is not 'nobody can restrict character creation' but 'You can't run an Adventurer's League game and restrict character creation.'

Start the game in the middle of a job, or with an exciting attack. Surprise, Mr. Buy-Low Sells-High Fighter is up shit creek because he doesn't have a melee weapon that he is specialized in because he wanted some extra gold.

It'd be easy to justify why Buys-Low has the odd weapons - he mustered out of the army, and they took his issued equipment and offered him some of the surplus. He took the most expensive shit because he knew he could sell it. He lost his original equipment and has had to make do with this stuff, he'd like to swap back when he's able.

So long as you are able to work it into the character rather than making it a pure metagame trick, I don't see a problem with it.

I think some of the people ITT are so autistic that they don't understand Carson's sarcasm in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th comments.

>Nowhere in the PHB did I find text that says "any merchant you meet is required to buy anything you want to sell"

You're right, but if I'm in a village, and they won't buy my hand crossbow, but then a session later they're willing to buy my ruby or looted fine longsword or whatever other treasure I took from yon dungeon, I'm going to be looking my DM in the eye with a rather pointed "the fuck" expression.

To say nothing if the campaign starts in a major trading center like Baldur's Gate, or even an average one like Brynn Shander or Daggerford.

>Player character creation rules

Fuck me sideways I'm dealing with morons.

Once again, the issue isn't the character creation part. The issue is that, having created a character with two hand crossbows as per PHB rules, there is nothing stopping a character from then walking out the YouAllStartInATavern Inn's door, heading over to the local trading post, and selling those two hand crossbows for a total of 75 gp.

Obviously this is prevented if the campaign's opening precludes this - like, starting in the middle of a battle, or having been captured by the drow, or something. But not every campaign starts like that. Most that I've been in start in reasonably sized towns where selling a hand crossbow shouldn't be hard.

>Start the game in the middle of a job, or with an exciting attack

Sure, that's good.

>you enter the local trading post
>the proprietor greets you cheerfully
>he reacts favorable to offer to sell
>his jubilation evaporates once he sees that you're selling crossbows
>"Uh, sorry, friend, but crossbows are the one thing we ain't looking to buy. Seems like we've had a guy come in every two days selling 'em. We bought so many that we won't have to buy any more of 'em for years . . . that's how long it'll take us to clear out the stocks if our luck holds."

>there is nothing stopping a character from selling the crossbows after chargen

The GM is right there where he can pause the session briefly, ask the player why he intends to sell off starting equipment at the very beginning of the game, and retcon the equipment selection if needed.

And he also should be there during chargen to ask "why does your character have a pair of hand crossbows? It looks like he won't use them very much".

Honestly this thread needs no other posts

This thread has proven several things to me. First, players who try exploits like these are jerks and I am glad that my players are better than this. Second, weapons of the same classification (Simple or Martial) really should cost about the same in D&D. Not to remove this exploit, no, but because they really represent 'Cheap Common Crap That's Everywhere And Any Idiot Can Probably Swing It' and 'Pricey Uncommon Stuff Only Soldiers Really Know How To use Without Hurting Themselves'. I don't exactly see why a scimitar costs five times as much as a war pick, they're pretty much the same size and use about the same amount of materials. A Greatsword weighs 6 pounds and costs 50 gold while a Maul weighs 10 pounds and costs 10 gold, and a Pike is 18 pounds and costs 5 gold. Most of the cost should come from the labour, really. It would be pretty easy to just make Simple weapons cost 1 or 2 gold and Martial weapons cost 5 or 10 gold.

A thing costs the skill required to make it, not the raw materials that went into it. A maul is basically a large block of metal with a stick rammed through it; it's much easier to make, and requires less skill, than a greatsword.

The prices are all kind of self-derived from earlier editions of D&D. I believe the 1st edition prices were roughly derived from the cost of replicas of the items in the 1970s, based on the premise that 1 sp = $1.

It sounds like you just started to notice one apparent inconsistency in D&D price tables.

There are many more. You could choose to give yourself some real headaches going further down the rabbit-hole.

Let them take the useless gear, then make sure there's no one around that's interested in buying their shit. If the tank wants to dual wield hand-crossbows, that's his funeral.

>do you fudge rolls until they die or give up?
Pro-tip: This makes YOU the "that guy."

>Where's John?
Oh, we stopped hanging out
>Why?
I was unpleasant to him over a long period of time.
>...

>What's with people assuming that every shitpeddler in D&D has a massive warehouse emporium and infinite money, and even buys stuff in the first place?

The rules, user. The rules.

5E basic rules pdf:
>Arms, Armor, and Other Equipment.
>As a general rule, undamaged weapons, armor, and other equipment fetch half their cost when sold in a market. Weapons and armor used by monsters are rarely in good enough condition to sell.

>How the fuck do you sell something during character creation? You aren't in-game then. No time is passing. Selling and buying weapons is an "action" you do in-game.

>How the fuck do you buy something with your starting gold during character creation? You aren't in-game then. No time is passing. Buying weapons is an "action" you do in-game. All characters start with 100 GP in their hands which they must carry naked to the nearest market, where they are not guaranteed to find any equipment.

During character creation, you buy and sell according to the rules.

The peasant railgun doesn't even follow the rules

>How do you deal with edgy shitspergs?
Patiently.

>Do you just kick them out of your table?
No, I talk to them like an adult.

>Do you fudge rolls until they die or give up?
No, because then I'd be an asshole.

Nope, you buy with the rules, but there isn't selling during character creation. You start with the gear that is provided.

If you want to sell that gear, that's to be done in game.

This is fucking stupid.

Ell points out a rule inconsistency.
C presents a possible solution. when confronted for his solution C apply that run away logic as a joke.
Fred doesn't understand it's taken in jest, and not an actual intent.
Then continues the joke into hyperbole. To better get at it's a joke
C didn't even fucking do it yet. Saying something and Actually doing something are different things.

We don't have enough context. Someone hated C and this isn't the reason he got kicked

This.

Starting gear is just that: the equipment your character possesses at the beginning of the first session. There is no getting around that simple fact.

Once the game begins, he may attempt to sell his equipment or dispose of it as he wishes. But not a second sooner: your character starts with his starting equipment and nothing else.