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

Seramus said:

Lanefan is probably a wonderful person. But being 'a little pestered' that another player is his equal in a cooperative social game is not an admirable trait in my book, whatever his other outstanding qualities.

Click to expand...

You're somewhat misreading me.

There's a big difference between another *player* being equal and another *character* being equal. And yes, I'm sometimes a bit more competitive in how I play than your group is, depending on the character I'm running at the time: some of them flat-out DO want to be bigger badder and better than the rest of the schlubs they adventure with. Others don't care at all about such things.

As a player I don't see it as "suffering" if the new character I'm bringing in to an established party is a level or two below the average. I'm the new recruit, after all; the rookie on the team who while having some experience and training still has some ropes to learn, and so I'd better get on with learning them. Using someone's football analogy for a moment, if my team is losing Peyton Manning as its QB (let's say for these purposes I don't have a backup ready to jump into the starting role) I'm going to be replacing him with either a draft pick right out of college or some other team's cast-off. Either way it's almost certainly going to be a downgrade for a few years until and unless the new guy learns the game and becomes the next Peyton.

I don't see this as unfair in the slightest.

Nytmare said:

He said that in the games he runs, the setup is that every player has a stable of characters that start somewhere between the average level of the existing party and an arbitrary floor (that appears to be somewhere near average party level minus 3.5). Over the course of the campaign, players swap characters in and out as the game/story dictates.

Click to expand...

Well, not exactly right but close enough for these purposes. Whoever it was who accused me of always wanting new characters to come in at raw 1st level is, however, in error. Once the party average gets to around 4th the floor goes to 2nd (though if the party is all 4th a new one would come in at 3rd anyway); right now in the party I DM with a 6-9 level range the floor is 5th.

Lan-"thanks for the support, [MENTION=55178]Nytmare[/MENTION]"-efan

Seramus said:

But you would be wrong if you think a 'Yes' from your player is always consent without duress.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'consent without duress'. It almost sounds like a legal term. I trust my players; they're friends. I respect them. Therefore, I take them at their word when they answer questions. Perhaps I should second-guess them more? Maybe toss in a bit of infantalization to boot?

I've seen players say 'Yes' for all kinds of terrible reasons, twice from women who thought they would be ostracized if they said no, more than a dozen times where players after the game talked about how much they hated it behind the back of others even though they gave a clear 'Yes' when asked, and once with an underaged girl who had no business being anywhere close to mature subject matter and said 'Yes' because she had no other friends.

Click to expand...

My question to you is: now what? You've described socializing with people who cannot be trusted when they give consent. How do you move forward? How do you hang out with them and resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise from conflicting wants? You've described a situation where agreements can't be reached.

edit: as to why someone would enjoy a players suffering - Because they're a DM! We have to ride that fine line between 'generous party host' and 'sadist'.

Lanefan said:

There's a big difference between another *player* being equal and another *character* being equal. And yes, I'm sometimes a bit more competitive in how I play than your group is, depending on the character I'm running at the time: some of them flat-out DO want to be bigger badder and better than the rest of the schlubs they adventure with. Others don't care at all about such things.

As a player I don't see it as "suffering" if the new character I'm bringing in to an established party is a level or two below the average. I'm the new recruit, after all; the rookie on the team who while having some experience and training still has some ropes to learn, and so I'd better get on with learning them. Using someone's football analogy for a moment, if my team is losing Peyton Manning as its QB (let's say for these purposes I don't have a backup ready to jump into the starting role) I'm going to be replacing him with either a draft pick right out of college or some other team's cast-off. Either way it's almost certainly going to be a downgrade for a few years until and unless the new guy learns the game and becomes the next Peyton.

I don't see this as unfair in the slightest.

Click to expand...

I want to wander down this tangent a little bit because it's interesting. Since roleplaying generally does not involve a resume, you are creating a situation where you are 'paying' two different players a different amount of experience points for the same work. Unless your group is mono-ethnicity and mono-gender, that's an awkward situation almost immediately. The Peyton analogy also does not really hold up, since that person could be the star player from someone else's table.

Now, if you were talking specifically about a brand new player things get a little more nebulous. You could make a very reasonable case that you want to start a brand new player at a lower level so that they can learn the mechanics of the game more easily. I can get behind that. Many games live or die based around how easy it is for new players to grok the system. But I also think that should be something you leave up to the player to decide.

Mallus said:

My question to you is: now what? You've described socializing with people who cannot be trusted when they give consent. How do you move forward? How do you hang out with them and resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise from conflicting wants? You've described a situation where agreements can't be reached.

Click to expand...

Hard to say. In my particular case, myself and a friend banded together and got that girl out of the squicky situation. I started running games instead and she is now a player in those games. I always make an effort to be certain that she (and all my players) are comfortable. I have a large enough roster of friends now that I advertise the game I want to run and any house rules, and every player joining the game comes in understanding the situation (I can run some weird games).

I cannot ever be sure that some of them are not merely agreeing because they are desperate for a game. I suspect that is the case with a different girl, because I've had to sit down with her and give her the talk about removing her from the game if a certain behavior continued. She got downright frantic about that, but has been pretty good since. I will never really know for sure. I just cross my fingers and try to make everything as reasonably equal as I can. I have no good answer.

Seramus said:

I want to wander down this tangent a little bit because it's interesting. Since roleplaying generally does not involve a resume, you are creating a situation where you are 'paying' two different players a different amount of experience points for the same work. Unless your group is mono-ethnicity and mono-gender, that's an awkward situation almost immediately. The Peyton analogy also does not really hold up, since that person could be the star player from someone else's table.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to draw a connection between ES@1 and current popular social "pay gap" talking points?

Are you doing this because you're trying to be divisive and polarizing? Or are you oblivious to how incredibly ridiculous and insulting your comparison is?

Gender and ethnicity have nothing to do with this, but it's really telling that you feel the need to bring them up.

Seramus said:

I cannot ever be sure that some of them are not merely agreeing because they are desperate for a game. I suspect that is the case with a different girl, because I've had to sit down with her and give her the talk about removing her from the game if a certain behavior continued. She got downright frantic about that, but has been pretty good since. I will never really know for sure. I just cross my fingers and try to make everything as reasonably equal as I can. I have no good answer.

Click to expand...

It's really simple: whatever secret problems they are hiding from you are not your problem.

You can only address that which has been communicated to you. Trying to mind read and make assumptions about what your players are *really thinking* as opposed to what they state is a fool's errand. It's also more likely to result in even worse miscommunication.

These people are ostensibly your friends. Take them at their word. Trust that they can take the initiative to bring it up if they have problems. Don't infantilize them. That's far worse than any possible problem that could arise due to them lying about their comfort level.

As far as the original question: I like ES@1, but I've also done "come in at the same level."

My current favorite is "come in at the level that makes sense for the character." If you have a logical background of achievement, get a level commensurate with that achievement.

So when players were making villain characters to terrorize their main PCs, they came in several levels higher than party average and managed to wreak holy hell upon the PC's plans.

Conversely, when a player wanted to make an adolescent, gimp-legged, peasant crap-shoveler that ran away to join the PC's mercenary company, that character had some work to do before he even qualified as level 1.

And plenty of in-between.

MostlyDm said:

It's really simple: whatever secret problems they are hiding from you are not your problem.

You can only address that which has been communicated to you. Trying to mind read and make assumptions about what your players are *really thinking* as opposed to what they state is a fool's errand. It's also more likely to result in even worse miscommunication.

Click to expand...

No? Half my players are South Korean and I've spent some time gaming in Japan in the past. It is a pretty huge cultural point that they do not tell you what their secret problems are. Nobody expects miracles, but you are pretty much required to have proficiency in Insight. =P

Seramus said:

I want to wander down this tangent a little bit because it's interesting. Since roleplaying generally does not involve a resume, you are creating a situation where you are 'paying' two different players a different amount of experience points for the same work. Unless your group is mono-ethnicity and mono-gender, that's an awkward situation almost immediately.

Click to expand...

You who the what? Starting a character at a lower experience point total because that's where people have decided that new characters start has absolutely n o t h i n g to do with the player's gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, hair color, or preferred breakfast cereal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Nytmare said:

You who the what? Starting a character at a lower experience point total because that's where people have decided that new characters start has absolutely n o t h i n g to do with the player's gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, hair color, or preferred breakfast cereal.

Click to expand...

I think we are still working from the assumption that the players have not agreed to it. If they have, the entire thing is a moot point.

Seramus said:

I think we are still working from the assumption that the players have not agreed to it. If they have, the entire thing is a moot point.

Click to expand...

The only thing that makes this about age, race, or sexual preference would be if the DM is deciding to give players less XP because of their age, race, or sexual preference. Since I don't see "o - Start them at first level because they are a woman!" as a choice in the poll, it's safe to say that none of the participants chose that option.

Seramus said:

No? Half my players are South Korean and I've spent some time gaming in Japan in the past. It is a pretty huge cultural point that they do not tell you what their secret problems are. Nobody expects miracles, but you are pretty much required to have proficiency in Insight. =P

Click to expand...

Sounds agonizing.

But also...If that's a huge cultural point, aren't they used to the consequences by now?

What's the point of not talking about your problems if people are going to read between the lines and try to talk about your problems anyway?

If it's important to my friend to be stoic and not tell me what's bothering them, then as their friend why wouldn't I let them do as they wish and be stoic?

Nytmare said:

The only thing that makes this about age, race, or sexual preference would be if the DM is deciding to give players less XP because of their age, race, or sexual preference. Since I don't see "o - Start them at first level because they are a woman!" as a choice in the poll, it's safe to say that none of the participants chose that option.

Click to expand...

The situation was one where the existing players were Level X, and the new player just joining the game would be Level X - Y. The dubiousness of age, race, or sexual preference was not a suggestion that the DM may actually be doing so. He probably has the best of intentions. But the new player walking into that situation might question if age, race, or sexual preference is the reason why she is being treated "differently".

In this case, "differently" is just the perception of the new player. The existing players have probably been using the rule for a long time.