D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[Obryn]

Except that's not what he said at all.The "standard D&D experience" is levels 1-20. Adventurer tier (3-15) covers most of it.

That's a pretty weird way to interpret that statement in the context of the article. I don't know how you're reading...

"If the apprentice tier is the prologue to your adventuring career, then the adventurer tier is the meat of your character's story... Adventurer tier covers most of what we consider to be the standard D&D experience. Most experienced groups will simply jump straight to adventurer tier, and our rules for building such characters will include some simple story options (random tables and other idea generators) for setting down what happened to your character during his or her apprentice tier adventures..."

...and thinking the phrase is a kind of pedantic approach to the raw numbers involved in the 1-20 level range, in context. Or that he expects most experienced groups to start at Level 1 for the "default D&D experience" despite saying exactly the opposite.

Edit: And this is exactly the confusion I'm talking about when you don't make Level 1 the "default D&D experience." This whole conversation is an illustration of my point.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

That's a pretty weird way to interpret that statement in the context of the article. I don't know how you're reading...

"If the apprentice tier is the prologue to your adventuring career, then the adventurer tier is the meat of your character's story... Adventurer tier covers most of what we consider to be the standard D&D experience. Most experienced groups will simply jump straight to adventurer tier, and our rules for building such characters will include some simple story options (random tables and other idea generators) for setting down what happened to your character during his or her apprentice tier adventures..."

...and thinking the phrase is a kind of pedantic approach to the raw numbers involved in the 1-20 level range, in context. Or that he expects most experienced groups to start at Level 1 for the "default D&D experience" despite saying exactly the opposite.

-O

He never said level 3 was "default" in the article. "Default" means "what does someone see when they open the book for the first time, without tinkering with anything." Pretty much by definition, the default experience is for new players. That's the point of making apprentice levels default, even if that's not what most "standard" (experienced) players will start with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Gritty" is what happens when you put apprentice-level characters into an adventurer-level situation. I think that's what people are talking about when they say this allows gritty games.

That's kind of the idea, though. They're redefining the default D&D experience to start at a level where you're new to your class and aren't a fully-fledged hero yet.

(And when I say "re"defining--check out the Fighter level titles in 1e. You're not a hero until level 4.)

Meh, your average level 1 1e character is considerably more capable, relatively, than a 'towns person' than they would be in 4e where a level 1 stat block is marginally inferior to a level 1 PC. A level 0 human town guard in 1e is almost certainly not as well equipped as a PC, has a worse chance to hit, has about half the hit points, and probably wields a d6 weapon (spear, short sword, etc). In neither case is such an opponent totally outclassed, but the PC should probably win. 1e is less deterministic, but overall the situation is about the same. Admittedly, the 4e level 1 fighter has numerous options, but they're factored into his overall effectiveness.

IMHO gritty has to do with focusing on the small details and especially the small difficulties of a setting. In a 'gritty' game the DM carefully tracks supplies, inflicts difficulties like bad weather, etc on the PCs. This stuff will of course range all the way up to deadly (critical hits, infected wounds, highly realistic physical prowess where can't broad jump 20 feet in armor, etc). Such a game might or might not be especially deadly, though generally speaking a sense of the fickle arbitrariness of fate is present. In such games characters rarely advance in terms of personal power beyond human limits, etc. Low level D&D CAN be used to do a gritty game. You can even do it to some extent at higher levels, though it gets increasingly difficult to keep a consistent tone when PCs can have 50 hit points and high level spells.

So, IMHO starting weak doesn't really especially support a 'gritty' game. You'll soon pass those levels, anyway, and if you're achieving a gritty tone still at level 9 then you certainly didn't NEED to have a weak level 1 and 2 to achieve it.

 

[tuxgeo]

I do hope that Wizards will conduct random acceptability tests with potential new players (of many age groups?) to see whether the "Level 1 as Apprentice" design works well with people's expectations.

If new players have their PCs start at Level 1, but most of their PCs die horrible deaths early on, will those players stay with the game long enough to get accustomed to it?

If new players are told to start their PCs at Level 3, in order not to have their PCs die horrible deaths early on, will they understand the reasoning?

If other test-groups are given an alternate design to play with, that has the current Level 3 labelled as Level 1, will they be more likely to stay with the game?

Actual testing experience with people who didn't self-select by signing up for the official play-test could give Wizards some valuable marketing information. Perhaps it could even influence the design of the game.

 

[Rune]

"We just came off a farm. I am capable of casting magic spells with no chance of getting it wrong. He is capable of swinging an axe with no possibility of chopping his own foot off. She learnt how to pick locks from the chickens. He talks to his god, and the god answers back. Because people who come straight off the farm can do all these things."

The point of playing a "fresh off the farm" character is that, no, they can't do all those things yet, or, at least, not very well. There used to be a group dynamic that, for the most part, went away with 3e and 4e's unified XP charts--and wildly scaling attacks and defenses--where veterans in a party would kind of mentor the new recruits. Situations like that are where "fresh off the farm" characters would fit in. I'm excited that Next looks like it'll bring the option back. Of course, a whole party of total n00bs would be fun, too.

I'd suggest that people who have been trained for several years to be capable with weapons/magic/thievery/whatever are very likely to be considerably more capable at those things than someone who hasn't spent several years learning those things. And let's be frank, that's how apprenticeship worked in the Middle Ages, you spent several years working and learning in supervised conditions. Anyone who thinks it's possible to just pick up a weapon and start using it competently without training, please keep your distance from me and have an ambulance ready.

And I'd suggest that, in most cases, the first 2 levels proposed here aren't meant to reflect that kind of depth of education. At least, not at first. No, of course it isn't how real apprenticeships worked. Real real apprenticeships existed to train and provide labor for artisans, not heroes! Adding an element of urgency via the necessity of adventure is going to change things!

 

[Rune]

On the subject of the Apprentice tier levels being "gritty":

I doubt very much that this will necessarily be the case, but, for those who do want to run such a game, it will be a great place to start.

Personally, I'm looking for something else out of those lower levels. I'm looking for the characters to have limited resources (in the form of magic and technique, in particular), so that the first two levels train players to be resourceful.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If new players have their PCs start at Level 1, but most of their PCs die horrible deaths early on, will those players stay with the game long enough to get accustomed to it?

If new players are told to start their PCs at Level 3, in order not to have their PCs die horrible deaths early on, will they understand the reasoning?

I think the point is that level 1 characters will be very weak, and level 1 adventures will be very easy. The "grittiness" or lethality only comes into play if you put them into a situation that's too difficult for them (which surely is the case with all character levels).

 

[dnoonan]

I spend more of my time--as a DM and as a player--at the upper end of the spectrum, and I hope the finished D&DN has more than five levels at the legacy tier.

This isn't a critique of the pacing per se. As Mike points out in his column, changing the "sessions per level-up" is straightforward. I can stretch those five levels into as many sessions as I like.

I want more than five "ding!" moments as I leave my legacy, though, and i doubt I'm alone.

There's another, more mercenary, reason to have more than five levels in the legacy zone. Even if you never play at those high levels, there's an aspirational quality to those spells, magic items, and monsters. You think, "Oh, I can't wait until I get that sword" or "Imagine fighting one of those..." I want more than five level-bands of legacy awesomeness to drool over/dream about.

And yeah, I want all that in the core books, on day one.

--Dave.
nnnooner.blogspot.com
Twitter: @davidnoonan

 

[Obryn]

He never said level 3 was "default" in the article. "Default" means "what does someone see when they open the book for the first time, without tinkering with anything." Pretty much by definition, the default experience is for new players. That's the point of making apprentice levels default, even if that's not what most "standard" (experienced) players will start with.

I think this is just as pedantic as the previous statement, frankly.

I think you're reading your hopes for a specific playstyle into the article.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think this is just as pedantic as the previous statement, frankly.

I think you're reading your hopes for a specific playstyle into the article.

-O

I feel the same way about your argument. We should probably stop.