D&D is not a supers game.

[TrippyHippy]

As someone else said, I don't see how one is harder then the other.

But I think it's a serious design flaw from the point of teachability to have the game start at a 1st level that will provide an unsatisfying play experience. Because every new player is going to begin at level 1. It's a natural and default starting point - if you weren't meant to start there, why would it be labelled "first"?

Its not unsatisfying to me. And I'm not the only one who feels like this.

This is a red herring in my view. 4e PCs are highly vulnerable in fights at low levels - it's just that it will take multiple blows to drop them from full to zero hp. (Thereby reducing the Russian roulette factor.)

If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly
damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable. Certainly not as vulnerable as in previous editions. That's not Russian roulette, that is gritty, realistic fantasy.

I would strongly encourage the designers to avoid building a game which will repicate classic 1st level D&d play as the default.

I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.

 

[herrozerro]

Two points:

If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly
damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable. Certainly not as vulnerable as in previous editions. That's not Russian roulette, that is gritty, realistic fantasy.

The PC isnt taking a broadsword to the face... at least not until the blow that drops him or her to 0 or less.
Being able to be dropped in a single blow is indeed russian roulette, it discourages ever entering combat, to take the path of least heroics.

I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.

So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?

 

[Steely_Dan]

!

So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?

And some people want to argue in the face of logic and options, it would seem - my way - wah-wah!

I may want to start my campaign at all characters roll their HD for 1st level (you rolled a 1, tough), or Con + X, or, or, or etc, what's the problem?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Don Turnbull has a dungeon where there is an "immovable" statue, and underneath the statue a dial marked from 120 to 400. The numbers represent total STR points required to move the statue, and the design intention is that when the players work this out, and move the dial down to 120, they will be able to get enough STR together to move the statue (a party size of 8+ is assumed).

That's highly gamist, but it's not remotely gritty!

That's a great example of non-simulationist play.

 

[B.T.]

What I believe Li Shenron is saying is that he's sick of people coming to the table with eight pages of backstory about how their character is a disowned prince from a forgotten kingdom who was raised by wolves and who possesses dichromatic eyes and a mysterious scar across the cheek.

Personally, I am in agreement.

 

[Dannager]

Its not unsatisfying to me. And I'm not the only one who feels like this.

You are not a new player.

 

[pemerton]

If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable.

What makes you think that 1st level PCs in any edition of the game can take full strength blows from broadswords and come out smiling? Given that there are no hit location rules in any core version of D&D, a blow to the face with a broadsword would be a matter of free narration. And who would narrate that if the blow didn't knock the PC unconscious?

 

[pemerton]

On backgrounds: I want my players to provide their PCs with backgrounds that give them a place in the world and give me something to hook onto. In my previous (Rolemaster) campaign, the PCs included two samurai from a family down on its luck, their retainer from a middle class family hoping to move up in the world, an animal spirit banished from the heavens, and a couple of monks with mysterious pasts. These backgrounds weren't everything in the game - a lot of relevant material was generated, and came out, during play. But they certainly helped push the game.

In my current (4e) campaign, I gave instructions at the beginning that every PC must (i) have a loyalty to someone/something, and (ii) must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins. Once again, those backstories have played an important role in driving the game forward.

When PCs don't have backstories, or some other way for the player to run up a flag for the GM, I find the game tends to default to GM-dominated and driven plotting. Which is not what I'm really interested in.

 

[Fifth Element]

And I've played cards with people who would barely know what to bid even if they picked up a single-suit, Ace-high hand.

One no-trump?

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually I am. I am arguing that I want to start with very little and then earn more power as I gain levels.

All D&D characters earn more power as they gain levels. The starting point has no effect on that.

The point is, you're only arguing for an arbitrary starting point, not for being able to "earn" anything, since characters of any power level can earn more.