D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[timASW]

I'm working up modified NPC rules for my pathfinder game and agree with your wanting some way of measuring the skills of the background characters that keeps everything on the same scale. But I also like the 4e-ish idea of letting the behind the scenes rules differ from the PC ones whenever its helpful.

So, I'm putting the rules together so that run of the mill NPCs don't get more hit-points or bonuses to hit as they gain non-adventuring/not-combat levels. (Wow! did you see how the full professor, partner at the law firm, master jeweler, and excecutive chef beat up those four trained first level fighters at the bar last night!)

The biggest issue i have with the behind the scenes style of 4e is that its such an invitation to railroading. If you want the players to know something you set the DC at something easy and if you dont want them to know then you set it to something hard.

whereas with NPC levels you set them up ahead of time (usually) and have an objective skill rank or DC based on the image of that NPC's character rather then on the desired outcome.

Which is to me a preferable way of doing things.

 

[Obryn]

That's a result of bad DMing, not a bad game. If the game's expectations are high lethality / low survival, then the DM should have the players roll up backup characters and plan accordingly. (DCC's "funnel" comes to mind.)

Right.

And I'm arguing that "high lethality / low survival" is a poor way to draw new players into the hobby. However, it should be a module for those who prefer that sort of play. Challenge is good, but we shouldn't conflate "challenging" with "high lethality" - the two overlap, but character death isn't the only way to make for a challenging game.

-O

 

[timASW]

I don't find any of these at all persuasive.

Unified mechanics aren't a benefit here - they're a hindrance to world-building. If you tie skill in mercantilism, farming, and smithing to combat skill, something's seriously wrong with your world-building.

As for the rest - I am still completely puzzled by how a class/level system helps here in any way. If a DM is going to be cheesy and throw a mithril-smith in a tiny village or give Joe Town Guard serious Bluff defenses, they can assign a crazy level to that NPC just as easily as they can assign a crazy DC or bonus.

If you really need stats, I think the 0-level AD&D ones work just dandy. Don't tie skill bonuses to levels; just give the DM a set of guidelines for NPCs.

-O

I you dont understand it then theres no way i can explain it to you. Its intuitive. You either get it or you dont.

 

[Obryn]

The biggest issue i have with the behind the scenes style of 4e is that its such an invitation to railroading. If you want the players to know something you set the DC at something easy and if you dont want them to know then you set it to something hard.

whereas with NPC levels you set them up ahead of time (usually) and have an objective skill rank or DC based on the image of that NPC's character rather then on the desired outcome.

Which is to me a preferable way of doing things.

That's not objective. It's fake objective. It's adding a layer of process and obfuscation, nothing more. You're still setting the DC or the skill bonus - only now you're using a process with a lot of unnecessary steps (ability scores, skill points, feats, etc.) to end up at the result.

And in the process of doing those extra steps, you are also giving the NPC more hit points, better attack bonuses, more feats, and more skill points in superfluous tasks. In other words, the best eggplant farmer in the country is necessarily also a fearsome warrior, able to defeat kobolds (and hordes of lesser 1st-level peasants!) by the dozens.

I can't see how this is a positive for any kind of world-building. You'd get the same or better results with less DM labor involved by printing a simple DC table in the DMG ... and not trying use D&D rules as an eggplant-farming simulator.

Edit:

I you dont understand it then theres no way i can explain it to you. Its intuitive. You either get it or you dont.

I do understand it. I ran 3e and 3.5 for their entire lifespan. I loved them at first, but I soured on them fairly quickly when I realized that not everything in the game-world needs stats. I disagree with your conclusions.

-O

 

[Jester David]

The problem was only partly your choice of poll responses. Predominantly, the problem was in the explanation and idea you posited in your post, specifically the claim that you were looking for "where the majority falls on this".

No "might" about it, your question and poll choices do not determine an answer to what you stated you were seeking.

All you've gathered data on is where a majority of gamers that have a single preference lean...and that's far from the majority of gamers you were hoping to poll, or even the majority of gamers here at ENWorld, let alone any kind of diverse sampling. The only thing that's easy to see is that, the self-selecting group that has a single preference, are leaning predominantly in a specific direction. Making a poll that is only designed to reinforce what you already believe, doesn't confirm anything other than you know how to engineer a poll for the result you want...

No one is entirely neutral. All things being equal, people tends to have a personal preference. The undecided are likely a minority. If someone likes different play styles equally they might have another game system that favours one, freeing them up to choose one side in this poll.

I've quickly gotten 200 people to give me an answer and more information than I had before. And the winner of the poll is pretty decisive. By almost a fifth of the total respondents.

I don't know how this thread could have attracted a much broader and reflective audience. It's not on the WotC forums that would slant to 4e, or Paizo that would slant to the assumptions of PF. This is the broadest and largest audience I could hope for.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think we should work hard to ensure new players a fun experience, but I don't think having a character die is anathema to that experience, either.

I'll drink to that.

Right.

And I'm arguing that "high lethality / low survival" is a poor way to draw new players into the hobby. However, it should be a module for those who prefer that sort of play. Challenge is good, but we shouldn't conflate "challenging" with "high lethality" - the two overlap, but character death isn't the only way to make for a challenging game.

-O

This on the other hand I disagree with. I think that pawn-stance taking something like Descent or a tabletop wargame to the next level by allowing them to interact directly with the fiction rather than running of a "that which is not permitted is denied" system is an excellent way to draw in a certain subset of players. You just need to be really clear that this is what you are doing in this specific game and why.

It's not the only possible on-ramp and would be anathema to a different subset of players, but is one possible one.

 

[Obryn]

I don't know how this thread could have attracted a much broader and reflective audience. It's not on the WotC forums that would slant to 4e, or Paizo that would slant to the assumptions of PF. This is the broadest and largest audience I could hope for.

I think the poll is fine, as far as it goes.

I think your interpretations may be iffy. For example, I chose the majority opinion. I run 4e. I chose that option because that's how 4e actually works, IME.

-O

 

[Obryn]

This on the other hand I disagree with. I think that pawn-stance taking something like Descent or a tabletop wargame to the next level by allowing them to interact directly with the fiction rather than running of a "that which is not permitted is denied" system is an excellent way to draw in a certain subset of players. You just need to be really clear that this is what you are doing in this specific game and why.

It's not the only possible on-ramp and would be anathema to a different subset of players, but is one possible one.

Oh, there's no doubt that a certain subset of players will find that appealing. (I mean, Dark Souls has a player-base, after all! ) I disagree that it should be the default, but I think it should be an optional module.

-O

 

[Hussar]

I couldnt disagree more. NPC classes are a positive to the game and to world building IMO and losing them would be losing an extremely valuable tool for fleshing out your game world.

Why? Why does an NPC need a full mechanical class? Why does a blacksmith, to use the example, need a full stat block? What does this add to the game?

 

[Hussar]

That's a result of bad DMing, not a bad game. If the game's expectations are high lethality / low survival, then the DM should have the players roll up backup characters and plan accordingly. (DCC's "funnel" comes to mind.)

That presumes that the DM is on the ball and realizes what's going on. Not always true with new and newer DM's. (And a rather discouraging number of experienced DM's as well.)

----------

I'm curious though. What exactly does it mean for someone to be a third level commoner farmer? How did he gain those levels, for one thing, and for the other, what does it mean? Hours of backbreaking labour under the hot sun with a complete lack of medical facilities and I get tougher and stronger? Hoeing potatoes means I can swing a sword better? A better climber?

Very, very few of the elements of level actually apply to regular people in any meaningful fashion. As a "world building" mechanic, levels leave a lot to be desired.