Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[Dragonblade]

First, easiness is not always assumed for beginners in every game. In many cRPGs, especially relatively open-world games, one can spend much of the lower levels running away and reloading save games due to frequent death. If you go outside the rpg world, it's quite common for beginner athletes to be 'hazed' by having an experienced player school them on the court/field/etc. Neither would I expect to show up at a poker table and have my competitors let me win. Going back to the world of rpgs, low resources and high lethality have often been assumed for low-level characters.

Frequent reloading due to death isn't fun. Its why I prefer RPGs over videogames in the first place. Nor do I play RPGs to simulate being "hazed" by others. Since gaming is a hobby often taken to by those who have difficulty fitting into the social structure of say, high school, everything you describe sounds like a complete turn off and not a selling point of playing fragile beginner characters. I was a football player and track athelete in high school, but I grew up a geek and gamed with a lot of good friends who really struggled to fit in socially. Gaming was fun for me, but an important social escape for them.

But we both played RPGs to be a larger than life hero. And that should start from the moment one begins playing the game. At level 1.

Second, low-level D&D can be a great learning experience. Running out of spells and pulling out a crossbow teaches you the importance of resource management. Dying suddenly teaches you that your actions have consequences, that the world you're playing in is not built around you and can be arbitrary and capricious, and that character death is a natural and expected part of the game as it is of any adventure story. These are really important lessons for the players to learn, and it's best to learn them early before the players develop a sense of entitlement and start feeling like they're playing a game and not roleplaying.

I want to play a wizard. A WIZARD who uses MAGIC. Not a guy who uses CROSSBOWS.

Again, I don't want to play an RPG to experience a fantasy simulation of a cruel and unjust world. I want to be a hero who saves princess, battles dragons, and does other cool cinematic things. Getting stabbed by a kobold and dying in the first encounter is none of those things. Its frustrating and absurd.

I'm not saying you share this attitude, but generally speaking, I find this whole notion that you have to "manage" the expectations of beginners, to teach them their place and know that the DM and the dice are cruel merciless gods that can snuff their PC's short brutal life at any time is patronizing and condescending.

"Sorry new player, you thought you could be like Harry Potter and do all sorts of cool things? Guess again. You get one spell and a crossbow and you better learn to run away and hide anytime you get into combat with anything tougher than a house cat."

Third, since D&D has no clear endpoint and there is no way of winning, it's important to reward players. While there is a need to move on to new challenges, players of high-level characters should feel rewarded for having got there. The investment of time and energy they put into a high-level character should also be protected. Thus the game should be easier and less lethal to them than it was at 1st level. The converse can be very discouraging. If players gain a level only to have every challenge they might face grow correspondingly more difficult, what did they gain?

Advanced players are rewarded by gaining newer options and being able to overcome the story goals before them. This is where the "role" in role-playing comes in. As I posted in my other thread, the idea that the game should start out hard and get easier is completely backward to how most games work.

Sure, in some open world CRPGs you can make a beeline for the harder areas and die instantly. But if you explore the world in measured steps, that shouldn't happen. It also gets more into the concept of status quo vs. tailered encounters and while sort of related, I think that is really a tangential discussion to this one.

I'm all for 0 level, but why is it wrong for people who want competent, resilient characters to have to start at a high level? I do it all the time. It's fun. I don't think playing at level 1 is at all mandatory.

Because the game assumes you start at level 1 and new players would naturally start at the beginning of the game. The default should assume that 1st level PCs are capable and competent and not fragile. There should of course be dials in place for those that want more lethality.

Or like one brilliant suggestion I read before from someone else, simply create different modular tiers of play, each with their own level 1 starting point. The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. For those that want true zero to hero, they can have the Apprentice Tier which runs from level 1 to say 5. At 5th level you can then go into the beginner or heroic tier which also starts at level 1 but you are far more capable.

 

[amerigoV]

There is a problem with weak 1st-level characters: the game will not last very long if the first challenges you face are 1st-level raging barbarians with greataxes. The game needs extremely watered down encounters at those early levels. Animals with d3s for claws. Common thieves, brigands, and orcs with rusty weapons made of alternate materials (the 3E DMG had rules for bone weapons). Orcs fighting in daylight penalties.

When 3.0 came out, my buddy rolled up a Ranger and I threw some Orcs at the PC - Orcs being what we always crushed in the past. It was all fun and games until an Orc crit'd with that GreatAxe!

He still liked the character, so the PC started the real game missing an ear (the Orc left him for dead, but collected the ears of his kills) and eventually got to kill that particular Orc later in the campaign (appropriately leveled, of course).

Lesson learned - that's what Goblins are for!

 

[OnlineDM]

I just wanted to point out that zero-level rules for 4th Edition were introduced a couple of months ago in Dragon Magazine in an article by Phil "ChattyDM" Menard.

However, even in that article level 0 characters aren't as fragile as they would have been in earlier editions, simply because they're going to be fighting 4e monsters that deal more than 2 or 3 damage on a hit. They get hit points equal to their Constitution score (not modifier) plus 6, and surges equal to the Con modifier plus 4.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Or like one brilliant suggestion I read before from someone else, simply create different modular tiers of play, each with their own level 1 starting point. The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. For those that want true zero to hero, they can have the Apprentice Tier which runs from level 1 to say 5. At 5th level you can then go into the beginner or heroic tier which also starts at level 1 but you are far more capable.

What you've just described is functionally identical to the players who enjoy "weak" play starting at level 1, and the players who hate "weak" play starting at level 6 - and I think codified as level 1 to level 6 would be substantially less confusing!

 

[Deadboy]

I'm all for 0 level, but why is it wrong for people who want competent, resilient characters to have to start at a high level? I do it all the time. It's fun. I don't think playing at level 1 is at all mandatory.

I think lots of people SEE playing at level 1 as mandatory... And newer players who should be eased into the system but shouldn't necessarily be slaughtered wholesale while they're learning the ropes, as Keterys is speaking to, are likely to start at level 1 without understanding that maybe they ought to be starting at level 5.

Making the zero part of "zero-to-hero" a level 0 thing makes it purely optional for those who want that sort of thing without telling players who don't want to be zeroes that they're missing part of the base game by starting at level 5. It also fits thematically, "zeroes" are level 0.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Since gaming is a hobby often taken to by those who have difficulty fitting into the social structure of say, high school, everything you describe sounds like a complete turn off and not a selling point of playing fragile beginner characters...Gaming was fun for me, but an important social escape for them.

But we both played RPGs to be a larger than life hero. And that should start from the moment one begins playing the game. At level 1.

I think that your characterization of D&D players as being socially limited is unfortunate but not entirely untrue. However, I think the idea of a larger than life hero is not a universal one. I certainly have no interest in playing that. I use gaming to explore a wide range of dramatic ideas and character archetypes.

My players often want to play modestly successful, peaceful characters. Or conflicted, nonheroic, or downright evil characters. I had one whose goal in life was to open a magic shop (which his adventuring really screwed up). Another wanted to play a warlock and explore how dark magic tempted him to evil. Another was a cleric who just wanted to serve his god. Another was a ranger who was biding his time as a messanger while trying to find his way in life. Another just wanted to participate in the game in any capacity possible.

Larger than life heroes are perfectly fine, but I wholly reject the idea that D&D requires you to play one or assumes that you do. I also don't see why beginners should be forced into that role. Many players have no interest in it. Even for those that are truly playing the game as a form of wish fulfilment because they are unsatisfied with other aspects of life, I prefer to let them struggle to earn success. They may even exorcise some personal demons in the process. D&D is very much the American Dream in this way; anyone can strive for anything, but not everyone succeeds.

I want to play a wizard. A WIZARD who uses MAGIC. Not a guy who uses CROSSBOWS.

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want. My perspective is that getting everything you want tends to make the game pretty unsatisfying. I also think that the general conception of a fantasy wizard is not someone who has magic at his fingertips at all times, but studies and works very hard to learn it and thinks carefully before using it. After all, MAGIC is no joking matter.

Again, I don't want to play an RPG to experience a fantasy simulation of a cruel and unjust world. I want to be a hero who saves princess, battles dragons, and does other cool cinematic things. Getting stabbed by a kobold and dying in the first encounter is none of those things. Its frustrating and absurd.

One could argue that a beginning adventurer being killed is perfectly just at not at all cruel. I don't think the idea of someone being stabbed by a seemingly inferior opponent and dying is absurd at all.

I'm not saying you share this attitude, but generally speaking, I find this whole notion that you have to "manage" the expectations of beginners, to teach them their place and know that the DM and the dice are cruel merciless gods that can snuff their PC's short brutal life at any time is patronizing and condescending.

That's a very draconian way of putting it. I'm not advocating teaching beginners that they are inferiors. I'm advocating teaching them that they are part of a dynamic story and that anything can happen, including but not limited to failure and death. I suggesting that they need to be taught that they cannot rampage around killing everything in sight without consequences. I am suggesting that they should learn to value their achievements and not take anything for granted. A lot of beginners don't take this game seriously.

That said, I would categorize the life of the typical adventurer as short and brutal. This is generally true of any group of people whose lives revolve around violence; gangsters, soldiers, and so on. I do not, even in a game, advocate that killing other living things is a risk-free, carefree endeavor.

the idea that the game should start out hard and get easier is completely backward to how most games work.

D&D isn't most games. In any case, I think that's not true. Many games become easier the longer one participates in them. Many non-D&D rpgs-tabletop and otherwise-become easier in the late stages.

Because the game assumes you start at level 1 and new players would naturally start at the beginning of the game.

I don't think the game assumes that. I definitely don't think it needs to assume that.

Or like one brilliant suggestion I read before from someone else, simply create different modular tiers of play, each with their own level 1 starting point. The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. For those that want true zero to hero, they can have the Apprentice Tier which runs from level 1 to say 5. At 5th level you can then go into the beginner or heroic tier which also starts at level 1 but you are far more capable.

That's not a bad idea, but I doubt it'll happen just because the traditional D&D level structure is so...traditional.

 

[howandwhy99]

What if levels still scaled ordinally, but their numbering was determined by the campaign?

To explain, the game would still have a bottom level. Something is going to be 1 HP, AC 1, power +0, etc., but the campaign starting level determines what level = #1.

So the game may have levels like this: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R... etc. Every specific game played, however, would assign Class Levels as was desired. For example, 1=C, 2=D, 3=E, 4=F, etc.

What's really cool about this is that level bumps do not have to be as granular as the initial game is designed for. They can be increased for those who like that. For example, 1=C, 2=E, 3=G, 4=I, etc.

This would allow gamers who like higher numbers in their games, with accordingly higher arithmetic, greater granularity, and added complexity to have them at start. But it would also allow gamers who wanted those things low and/or slow to increase at their own rate. Maybe it takes @ 20 hours of play for you and yours to advance out of 1st level? And that level is all about numbers 1-8? HP totals may be a little more, but not much. And, of course, for those who don't want advancement at all, they could pick their sweet spot and stay there indefinitely. Say, P for everything.

 

[SKyOdin]

I could get behind the idea of level-0 characters, particularly if they are not fully members of any one class yet. It would be much better suited to the "farmboy who is just setting out" archetype than being level 1. Let a character optionally start out at level 0, then after a few sessions go up to level 1 and properly choose a class. It would give players who like this kind of thing more leeway to choose their class for story reasons.

For my part, I prefer level-1 characters to already be fairly well-trained and reliable.

 

[Mark CMG]

Stretching a game that uses a d20 for conflict resolution beyond 10 levels has created a situation whereby corrective rules and formulas are needed to make the extremes fall within the sweet spots of various playstyles, sometimes the full ruleset will veer toward one extreme or another. Ultimately fixing one aspect that has fallen victim to the stretching tends to break one or more other aspects or, worse, severely inhibits one style of play or another.

 

[Nebulous]

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want. My perspective is that getting everything you want tends to make the game pretty unsatisfying. I also think that the general conception of a fantasy wizard is not someone who has magic at his fingertips at all times, but studies and works very hard to learn it and thinks carefully before using it. After all, MAGIC is no joking matter.

I totally understand your point, and agree, but i also think a wizard would be crap at using a crossbow or throwing daggers. i don't mind this "gamey" wizard having WEAK at-will spells to fall back on, so long as they are not overpowering. And i don't mind uber-powerful wizards, but not at the expense of stealing the thunder from other classes. They can replicate it SOME, but not wholesale replace a fighter or thief. Heck, a wizard was NEVER meant to replace a cleric.

Which brings up the whole issue of how 5e will handle healing surges. If at all. I have no idea.