D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[Iry]

Is this fair?

• Is Eeyore an incredibly shy player who you are trying to slowly coax out of his shell to become an awesome roleplayer sometime in the future?
• Is Eeyore a brand new player who is paralyzed with indecision about how they should be playing the game and it is a learning process for them -- they promise they will try to do better next time?
• Did Eeyore just get fired from his job and turned inward this game, but you know he's made a good showing during most other games?
• Is Eeyore someone who need to have 'The Talk' with later in the week, but you absolutely don't want to start any drama tonight?

 

[ad_hoc]

For those who insist on having all characters be the same level, do you also use a non-random stat generation method like the standard array or point buy?

Why or why not?

 

[Iry]

For those who insist on having all characters be the same level, do you also use a non-random stat generation method like the standard array or point buy?

When I run games, it is always point buy. I am willing to play in games that use almost any kind of stat generation method, but I feel intensely guilty when I have much better stats than someone else in the group.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

For those who insist on having all characters be the same level, do you also use a non-random stat generation method like the standard array or point buy?

Why or why not?

Yes, usually. Because when push comes to shove, the baseline I want is for the players to be on equal footing from a raw mechanical perspective. Same reason I generally prefer point-based systems, because everyone comes in to the system simply having X points. The end. How they spend them is up to them.

Been in many a campaign where one person rolls high stats across the board, most people are average, and one has absolutely garbage stats. Yes, I've heard the arguments ad nauseum about using it as a learning experience and roleplaying what you rolled. Which can be fine now and then as a corner case. But by and large? When one character is simply good across the board at most everything by simple virtue of their raw stat bonuses padding every skill check? Having the ability to multiclass into literally anything they want, including splashing everything at once? Where the fighter who happened to roll amazing stats across the board is better at many of the defining skills of characters who are supposed to be specialized at that stuff? That gets very old, very quickly.

The repercussions of the stat array in particular is one of the furthest reaching in the game from beginning to end of a campaign. Having a lucky (or unlucky) roll decide the fate of a single dramatic outcome here and there one thing. Having a handful of (un)lucky rolls in character creation determine the aggregate success or failure of potentially hundreds to thousands of rolls over the course of an entire campaign well above or below everyone else in the campaign? No thanks.

In my experience, it (far) more often than not leads to players having those gimped characters take enormous risks over and over, until they are killed off, so they can roll again and play what they actually wanted to bring to the table to begin with.

So I nip that in the bud to begin with. I want my players to actually play what they want to play, and have them determine their own strengths and weaknesses from an even baseline. It's about player control. It's their story, too, and they deserve that level of control, in my opinion.

 

[Lanefan]

To take these one at a time...

Is Eeyore an incredibly shy player who you are trying to slowly coax out of his shell to become an awesome roleplayer sometime in the future?

An incredibly shy player most likely would not have done what Eeyore did here; he'd instead have not wanted to make waves and gone along with the plan - and by his shyness possibly saved some characters' lives!

Is Eeyore a brand new player who is paralyzed with indecision about how they should be playing the game and it is a learning process for them -- they promise they will try to do better next time?

Eeyore might be a brand new player (for my example I was assuming all the players had been around a while but I don't think I mentioned it) but certainly in my example isn't paralyzed by indecision; he instead made a series of clear decisions - to go for the princess instead of help with the dragon, to lie about failing his attempt at the lock, etc. - on the fly. That said, if Eeyore *was* being run by a brand new player I'd probably cut more slack for him, in full knowledge the other players would probably sort him out over time.

Did Eeyore just get fired from his job and turned inward this game, but you know he's made a good showing during most other games?

I put my example probably in too much isolation. Fred, the same player's last character, was - let's say for these purposes - a fine contributor to the party; but Fred's death put the player into survival mode as evidenced by what Eeyore did here.

Is Eeyore someone who need to have 'The Talk' with later in the week, but you absolutely don't want to start any drama tonight?

Depends on my role. If I'm the DM it's flat-out not my place to tell Eeyore's player how to play his character; my role is to remain neutral and referee what's put in front of me. If I'm Bjarnni's player I've already said my piece in character, I probably don't trust Eeyore much any more and will proceed on that basis, but I'm otherwise set. If I'm one of the players who just lost a character I'm either going to bitch now or hold my tongue and see what Eeyore does next - is this a pattern or a one-off. I-as-player also have to keep in mind that whatever I roll up next is probably going to have to be acceptable to Bjarnni and Eeyore, as they're doing the recruiting, unless the DM drops the new characters in their laps somehow. But if Eeyore hangs me out to dry...

That said, if I'm the DM and Eeyore intentionally maintains this pattern I realistically have to be ready for some in-character retribution against him later; for example if in the next adventure he hangs Bjarnni out to dry and Bjarnni survives I can't as DM tell Bjarnni's player he's not allowed to have Bjarnni run Eeyore through. In fact, if I-as-DM have rules against PvP I'm actually enabling Eeyore to do what he does as I've arbitrarily neutered his greatest deterrent.

Lan-"I also forgot in my earlier example to note that Bjarnni and Eeyore gained even more wealth via looting their ex-comrades"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Same for all, including the captives.

The captives as well? Their contribution was...what, exactly? To get themselves captured and thus force others to put themselves in danger to recover them? (the captives have already been given such xp as they had coming for events leading up to their capture, and have been imprisoned for a few months).

then you just miss an opportunity to play D&D

Hey, if I'm playing a survival-first character and I know I'll get the xp no matter what, spectating for a while is a small price to pay to ensure my character's ongoing safety...and if the away mission fails my choice is vindicated. It's a horrible way to play but I've seen it done.

Lanefan

 

[MostlyDm]

Lanefan's style of play really ought to be familiar with anyone who has read through all of the old rule books, supplements, modules, etc for BECM or 1e AD&D. It's consistent with the examples of play given and the assumptions of play most of the authors make.

Character death is common. Most players probably have a stable of characters. They likely make extensive use of hirelings. They delve ruins for loot and glory.

They are not a small, cohesive band of intrepid heroes on an epic quest to save the world.

They do not fit most of the examples of play and assumptions of play that you would find in 3e and 4e material. They aren't consistent with the overwhelming majority of RPG video games (even D&D based ones), or most fantasy fiction novels.

I'm convinced you guys are never going to reach common ground when your approaches are coming from such disparate locations.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

Lanefan's style of play really ought to be familiar with anyone who has read through all of the old rule books, supplements, modules, etc for BECM or 1e AD&D. It's consistent with the examples of play given and the assumptions of play most of the authors make.

Character death is common. Most players probably have a stable of characters. They likely make extensive use of hirelings. They delve ruins for loot and glory.

They are not a small, cohesive band of intrepid heroes on an epic quest to save the world.

They do not fit most of the examples of play and assumptions of play that you would find in 3e and 4e material. They aren't consistent with the overwhelming majority of RPG video games (even D&D based ones), or most fantasy fiction novels.

I'm convinced you guys are never going to reach common ground when your approaches are coming from such disparate locations.

I do actually agree with this. The style of play you mention has a much more difficult time meshing with more cinematic styles, where you are all trying to tell some sort of story together. A story you all write as a group, and allow luck and skill to determine the eventual outcome. A story where you are taking the journey together to tell it. It doesn't even have to be any sort of epic quest to save the world.

BECM and 1e have deep roots in wargaming, not in roleplaying. Sure, it explores roleplaying as well. But it is also, as you intimate, very clear that the authors are approaching even roleplaying itself from the perspective of series of wargaming scenarios with a rough storyline tying a specific module or set of modules together.

 

[S'mon]

Our 4-man party makes it to 15th, and then the tank buys the farm. No problem, I'll create another tank. After all, with Bounded Accuracy, 3rd level PCs can do the job just as well as 15th level PCs, right?

Okay, my new tank is very happy with his AC 19 (best armour he can afford, shield, and +1 from fighting style). Not so happy with my 31 hit points though. The tank I replaced had 169.

Play a Barbarian, his 35 hp > 70 in Rage. He'll need more healer support than the previous
guy and initially he won't be as good, and if there are defensive magic items from the old
guy then give them to the new guy. But IME he can actually do the job and he'll soon level
up. It's nothing like 3e/4e where he'd be totally non-viable.

 

[Arial Black]

Play a Barbarian, his 35 hp > 70 in Rage. He'll need more healer support than the previous
guy and initially he won't be as good, and if there are defensive magic items from the old
guy then give them to the new guy. But IME he can actually do the job and he'll soon level
up. It's nothing like 3e/4e where he'd be totally non-viable.

Having Damage Resistance for 1 minute 2/day does not turn the Bar 3's 35 hp into the Bar 15's 185 hp, and that's before the Bar 15's more and better rages factor in.