D&D 5E Have the level ranking of 5th ed made levels 1 and 2 pointless?

[Sacrosanct]

That makes it seem like 3 would be the last of the introductory levels then. However

That is much better evidence.



I wasn't around for the playtest, but I'm willing to take you word on it.

Well, I was there for the whole playtest as well (and still have all of the versions) Levels 1 and 2 were not designed specifically as introductory levels. Again, because they were part of the introductory phase does not mean they were designed specifically for to be introductory levels. We know this for several reasons:

1. They came right out and said they were designed for the playstyle of gamers who preferred a more zero to hero game
2. If they were meant specifically to be introductory, that means by inference that once you became familiar with the game, you wouldn't use them any longer, which is obviously false because many of established experienced gamers still do and prefer to do so
3. WoTC has put out an official introductory product. One that was meant to be introductory. It has PCs that go up to level 5. Not 3. If any selection of levels was meant to be introductory, then obviously it's levels 1-5, not 1-3, because the actual product has it that way, and not some random person's arbitrary interpretation based on when subclasses appear, which leads to...
4. Some subclasses are gained at level 2, so obviously level 3 isn't the magical level where introductory levels stop if that's your metric.

However, and it bears repeating, that just because levels 1-5 were in the official introductory product, does not mean that that levels 1-5 were specifically designed to be introductory. Those are two different things. No level was meant to be introductory as it's primary design goal, not only because they said that wasn't the reason, but because they are meant to still be played regardless of your experience playing the game.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Well, I was there for the whole playtest as well (and still have all of the versions) Levels 1 and 2 were not designed specifically as introductory levels. Again, because they were part of the introductory phase does not mean they were designed specifically for to be introductory levels. We know this for several reasons:

1. They came right out and said they were designed for the playstyle of gamers who preferred a more zero to hero game
2. If they were meant specifically to be introductory, that means by inference that once you became familiar with the game, you wouldn't use them any longer, which is obviously false because many of established experienced gamers still do and prefer to do so
3. WoTC has put out an official introductory product. One that was meant to be introductory. It has PCs that go up to level 5. Not 3. If any selection of levels was meant to be introductory, then obviously it's levels 1-5, not 1-3, because the actual product has it that way, and not some random person's arbitrary interpretation based on when subclasses appear, which leads to...
4. Some subclasses are gained at level 2, so obviously level 3 isn't the magical level where introductory levels stop if that's your metric.

However, and it bears repeating, that just because levels 1-5 were in the official introductory product, does not mean that that levels 1-5 were specifically designed to be introductory. Those are two different things. No level was meant to be introductory as it's primary design goal, not only because they said that wasn't the reason, but because they are meant to still be played regardless of your experience playing the game.

Also good points.

I'm going to pull out of here at this point and let you playtesters hash it out.

 

[Charlaquin]

1. They came right out and said they were designed for the playstyle of gamers who preferred a more zero to hero game

They also came right and said they were designed to ease new players into the game and introduce them to their class abilities a little at a time. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.

2. If they were meant specifically to be introductory, that means by inference that once you became familiar with the game, you wouldn't use them any longer, which is obviously false because many of established experienced gamers still do and prefer to do so

That’s just plain not true. Just because something is introductory doesn’t mean it can’t still be enjoyable to those with experience. I prefer skiing greens and blues over blacks. I enjoy the first half of Portal. I’ve played and run Lost Mine of Phandelver many times. Just because experienced players enjoy levels 1 and 2, that is not evidence that those levels are not meant to introduce new players to their classes.

3. WoTC has put out an official introductory product. One that was meant to be introductory. It has PCs that go up to level 5. Not 3. If any selection of levels was meant to be introductory, then obviously it's levels 1-5, not 1-3, because the actual product has it that way, and not some random person's arbitrary interpretation based on when subclasses appear, which leads to...

That introductory product was also designed to be a complete and satisfying adventure. A game that only introduced you to its concepts but didn’t give you an opportunity to test and enjoy what you had learned wouldn’t be much of an introductory product. You wouldn’t make a demo that only included the tutorial.

4. Some subclasses are gained at level 2, so obviously level 3 isn't the magical level where introductory levels stop if that's your metric.

That’s not the metric, so...

However, and it bears repeating, that just because levels 1-5 were in the official introductory product, does not mean that that levels 1-5 were specifically designed to be introductory. Those are two different things. No level was meant to be introductory as it's primary design goal, not only because they said that wasn't the reason, but because they are meant to still be played regardless of your experience playing the game.

Levels 1 and 2 were specifically designed to be introductory. WotC explicitly said as much during the playtest. They were also designed to accommodate players who enjoy the zero to hero style. They also said as much during the playtest. Shockingly, game designers are capable of designing to satisfy multiple goals.

 

[Sacrosanct]

They also came right and said they were designed to ease new players into the game and introduce them to their class abilities a little at a time. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.


That’s just plain not true. Just because something is introductory doesn’t mean it can’t still be enjoyable to those with experience. I prefer skiing greens and blues over blacks. I enjoy the first half of Portal. I’ve played and run Lost Mine of Phandelver many times. Just because experienced players enjoy levels 1 and 2, that is not evidence that those levels are not meant to introduce new players to their classes.


That introductory product was also designed to be a complete and satisfying adventure. A game that only introduced you to its concepts but didn’t give you an opportunity to test and enjoy what you had learned wouldn’t be much of an introductory product. You wouldn’t make a demo that only included the tutorial.


That’s not the metric, so...


Levels 1 and 2 were specifically designed to be introductory. WotC explicitly said as much during the playtest. They were also designed to accommodate players who enjoy the zero to hero style. They also said as much during the playtest. Shockingly, game designers are capable of designing to satisfy multiple goals.

As an award winning game designer for the past few decades myself, I'd like to think I know what game designers are capable of, thank you. My day job is also a systems analyst which is basically project management and design testing, so I'm intimately familiar with project scope, requirements, design goals, testing, etc. Which is why I stick by my statement that levels 1 and 2 were NOT specifically designed to be introductory. The created a specific product for that purpose. And in that product, "introductory" levels included 1 though 5. Not the arbitrary number you came up with. As a game designer, if I'm creating a product that specifically fulfills a design goal, I'm not going to repeat that same design goal in something else because it's redundant.

The purpose of the starter set was to introduce new players to the system. The purpose of having levels 1 and 2 the way they were (lacking features of higher levels) was because during the playtest, gamer feedback was overwhelming clear that many gamers preferred the zero to hero model. That's the reason Mearls stated why classes like the fighter in the first iterations of the playtest lost their features like expertise dice and maneuvers until higher levels. They literally said that was the reason, because a lot of gamers didn't want their level 1 PCs to feel like super heroes out of the gate (like in 4e). I don't recall them saying they removed those extra features at level 1 and 2 due to wanting them to be introductory. Not saying it didn't ever happen, but I recall many conversations about why they removed those features in regards to emulating the zero to hero style many of us were asking for.

So when you look at why they made the design decision to remove those extra features at level 1 and 2, along with their decision to create a stand alone introductory product, it's pretty clear that those levels were not designed specifically to be introductory as a primary design goal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And I'll add, there was a LOT of consternation about how levels 1 and 2 ended up in the final game compared to the playtest packets. There were many players who complained they were losing out of game time because to play how they wanted, they had to start at level 3 or higher (don't ask me how, but that was the argument). Every discussion about how and why level 1 and 2 lost many of their playtest features was based on the zero to hero model, and not because the design team wanted them to be introductory. Heck, there were many a flame war going on at the time on the topic.

 

[Jeff Neuhaus]

I like to have my character pretty firmly in mind by level 3 from a role-playing perspective. Before about level 3 or so I still feel free to change my character's voice, mannerisms, personality, etc. because what I had planned on character creation doesn't always feel right as I actually start to role-play those traits. I like having a couple of levels of malleability in my characters personality in order to find his/her voice. As far as mechanics, levels 1 and 2 only last a session or two so it's pretty inconsequential in my opinion.

 

[guachi]

I'm content with level 1-3 being the way they are. The game has A LOT going on for new players to keeps track of.