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

[Arial Black]

Speaking only for myself, in the E6 game I ran the world DID only consist of 1st level people, and PCs were something special that were able to go above and beyond what normal people were capable of doing. The way we envisioned it was akin to how the ancient Greeks or Romans were normal, everyday people, but their legends were full of heroes who were decidedly not.

Were the only foes available to fight all 1st level? Or CR 1 and under?

Again, it is no different than having a rule saying that new characters can't play as a race that can fly. That's not saying that there are NO races in the world that can fly, or that it's stupid to think that a mercenary group wouldn't insist on only hiring someone who could. It's making a rule about what a new character can be and nothing more.

Not quite. If no-one in the party can fly, then letting the new PC have an ability that is unavailable to the other players' PCs could certainly be unbalancing as well as unfair. It would also be unfair and unbalancing if the new PC were 20th while the rest were 15th. But if the new PC were the same level as the rest, this literally cannot be unbalanced in and of itself, and the DM already runs a game where 15th level PCs are okay.

 

[Nytmare]

Were the only foes available to fight all 1st level? Or CR 1 and under?

The only foes were CR1 people and CR>1 monsters.

Not quite. If no-one in the party can fly, then letting the new PC have an ability that is unavailable to the other players' PCs could certainly be unbalancing as well as unfair. It would also be unfair and unbalancing if the new PC were 20th while the rest were 15th. But if the new PC were the same level as the rest, this literally cannot be unbalanced in and of itself, and the DM already runs a game where 15th level PCs are okay.

Fairness and balance have nothing to do with it, I'm talking about a rule that exists as an abstract. There is absolutely no reason that "new characters start at first level" has to dictate some kind of universal truth about the game world aside from the fact that a new player character starts the game at first level.

 

[TwoSix]

Not quite. If no-one in the party can fly, then letting the new PC have an ability that is unavailable to the other players' PCs could certainly be unbalancing as well as unfair. It would also be unfair and unbalancing if the new PC were 20th while the rest were 15th. But if the new PC were the same level as the rest, this literally cannot be unbalanced in and of itself, and the DM already runs a game where 15th level PCs are okay.

"All PCs are always the same level" is fair and balanced.

"Every PC must work their way up from level 1" is also fair and balanced.

It's just different measuring points for where balance is.

 

[the Jester]

This post created a strange disconnect for me.

Would any DM really restrict NON-player characters to only 1st level? That even your 15th level PCs can only face 1st level opponents on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair to give anybody unearned levels? Unless they'd somehow survived a previous encounter with these PCs, and even then they would only get the XPs from their PC fight, because we can't give them free XPs from stuff they didn't do 'on camera'.

I've never even heard of this possibility; I just made it up now. And yet, this is the reasoning behind forcing replacement PCs to be 1st level no matter the level of the party.

Huh?

I'll reiterate what I posted above: npcs and pcs work by different rules. They always have and they should continue to do so. The point of agreement I have with the "Npcs start at first level" is that, yes, npcs did start at first level, but unlike pcs, they did so off-camera.

If you accept the possibility that people in the game world exist even when the PCs aren't looking directly at them(!) and continue to live their lives and earn XPs even when 'off camera', then this also applies to the new guys, who weren't PCs when the party was being played for 15 levels. Now that the party need a replacement, those 'off camera' XPs don't just evaporate!

Except pcs-to-be don't earn xps off camera. In fact, most npcs are first level. The ones who aren't have histories- "this army captain is a veteran because he has done x, y and z and been involved in conflicts 1, 2 and 3." But that 60 year old shopkeeper, the 40 years old serving drinks, the guy the party buys rope and spikes from, the halflings selling tacos, the typical door guard, most bandits, etc- all of them are 1st level. Above first level is the exception, not the norm.

The world doesn't consist solely of 1st level people, or people who are 1st level only while the party looks for a replacement and then revert to their usual levels when the party aren't recruiting.

It is an unnecessary absurdity to only have 1st level people available to recruit in a world full of people with varying degrees of experience, and it would be totally surreal to have a game world that only had 1st level people in it apart from the PCs.

Of course. But when it comes to recruiting, if you want someone above 1st level, unless it is a pc that someone has already played, that character is an npc- and probably a very specific one that I already know about. In my campaign there is only one city that remains as a bastion of civilization after an overwhelming assault destroyed civilization some 48 years ago. There are virtually no npcs above 5th level. There simply is no high-level cleric or wizard for the party to recruit.

Here's another thing. How exactly is it that you think a party can tell by looking what level the new guy is? Does he have some kind of green glow around his head if he's high enough level? Does he carry a sign? Is the whole concept of "level" an in-game thing? Sure, you can spar or demand that the new guy cast his best spell. But that's not always a sure indicator of anything.

I'd also point out the long tradition in the real world of apprentices, youths and less skilled people working alongside more savvy individuals, learning from them and earning their stripes. ES@1 models this perfectly.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd also point out the long tradition in the real world of apprentices, youths and less skilled people working alongside more savvy individuals, learning from them and earning their stripes. ES@1 models this perfectly.

No, it really doesn't and that's actually rather insulting to both new and old players, their characters and real-world history. Apprentices were often little more than better-treated slaves. It was not Darth Bane's "rule of two". Masters of their craft often had many apprentices because A: they weren't morons and B: life had a generally high attrition rate. Apprentices were given little leway of their own, paid poorly, often treated poorly and often "fired" on a whim. So, I guess if that's how you treat new characters, with higher-level ones ordering them around, giving them a "level 1 share" of the loot instead of a fair party-member share, forcing them to perform menial tasks you don't want to do to "punish" them and then kicking them out of the group on a whim, well....okay then ES@1 models that perfectly. Otherwise well, no it doesn't, unless you wear some kind of rose-tinted glasses about mercantilism (which admittedly, many do).

While I could live with starting at level 1, if the party tried to treat me like their "apprentice" I'd probably tell them where they could stick it.

 

[Iry]

I feel like Batman would be an interesting example of ES@1.

He is the higher level character. Robins and Batgirls are the ES@1. But what if Batman wants to leave Robin at home and go adventure with Superman? How long does he grieve the death of one Robin before getting another?

 

[Nytmare]

No, it really doesn't and that's actually rather insulting to both new and old players, their characters and real-world history. Apprentices were often little more than better-treated slaves. It was not Darth Bane's "rule of two". Masters of their craft often had many apprentices because A: they weren't morons and B: life had a generally high attrition rate. Apprentices were given little leway of their own, paid poorly, often treated poorly and often "fired" on a whim. So, I guess if that's how you treat new characters, with higher-level ones ordering them around, giving them a "level 1 share" of the loot instead of a fair party-member share, forcing them to perform menial tasks you don't want to do to "punish" them and then kicking them out of the group on a whim, well....okay then ES@1 models that perfectly. Otherwise well, no it doesn't, unless you wear some kind of rose-tinted glasses about mercantilism (which admittedly, many do).

While I could live with starting at level 1, if the party tried to treat me like their "apprentice" I'd probably tell them where they could stick it.

It might be less insulting if you took it the way he probably meant for it to be taken. I don't think there's any need to assume that Jester's suggesting that new characters be treated as though they were enslaved, unpaid interns.

 

[the Jester]

No, it really doesn't and that's actually rather insulting to both new and old players, their characters and real-world history. Apprentices were often little more than better-treated slaves. It was not Darth Bane's "rule of two". Masters of their craft often had many apprentices because A: they weren't morons and B: life had a generally high attrition rate. Apprentices were given little leway of their own, paid poorly, often treated poorly and often "fired" on a whim.

I suppose I could have been more specific.

What you say is true of craftsmen and the like. But if you look at hunters, warriors, soldiers, sailors, explorers- basically, the types of lifestyles that are the closest model of an adventurer's life, and I think you'll find that my argument holds up. Even today, the young/novice hunter learns by accompanying the adult/experienced ones.

EDIT: As far as some pcs treating the others like crap, no, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I didn't think it was necessary to state this, but there you go.

 

[Arial Black]

Parties are much more like the Justice League than Batman and Robin.

If the Flash dies (again!), are the Justice League forced to replace him with a kid who learned some martial arts last week?

 

[Nytmare]

Parties are much more like the Justice League than Batman and Robin.

If the Flash dies (again!), are the Justice League forced to replace him with a kid who learned some martial arts last week?

Incorrect. Not every party is more like the Justice League. As evidence, I point you to pretty much every person who is disagreeing with you in this thread.