D&D 5E My New Players Have Quit 5th Edition

[KarinsDad]

Luxury!

My first RoleMaster Mage rolled a 99 on his spell list skill and had no spells at all. The first encounter the party crossbow man used him as a sandbag for cover. Out of combat he was forced into the role as the part mule. Eventually he was eaten by a hungry troll. And because it was RoleMaster, character generation took several hours just to work out skill bonuses.


And if you tell kids that today, they don't believe you.

Rolemaster could be nasty.

First time I introduced RM to a group of GURP players about a dozen years ago. First encounter, first round, low level, one player's elven archer critical fumble wraps down and takes his own ear off. So, here is this pointy ear lying on the ground. LMAO, but what an introduction to the game system. How the heck do you reattach an ear at low level RM? This player was NOT happy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sincere question: do we have any evidence that TTRPGs with somewhat weaker first level characters (relative to the monsters) suffer a drop off of new players sticking with the game?

We'd need to have a control group that didn't start with such games. Since D&D is virtually the only TTRPG with mainstream name recognition, the vast majority of gamers start with it. And, the game has always featured 1st level characters that are much weaker than high level ones, and almost always quite fragile in comparison to monsters they might face at that level.

Thus, with D&D acting as the gateway to the broader hobby, you couldn't really make a valid comparison of how gamers react to a cross-section of TTRPGs, because those trying non-D&D games that don't feature very fragile starting characters (or don't even feature levels), would have already been 'screened' by their introduction through D&D, with any who didn't stick with the game because of bad experiences with 1st level characters already selected out of the sample.

Now, if it were a serious problem, you would expect the hobby to be small, and slow-growing, as a result (and it's small and possibly even shrinking). But, a lot of other things about D&D (and it's fans) could result in the hobby being small and not growing as much as could be hoped.

 

[Kraztur]

Still: that as you advance in level, facing greater and greater threats... that it gets _easier_ feels backwards.

I'd not have minded if D&D made both a nod to escalating stakes _and_ attracting new players by patching the whole "wow first level sucks" phenomenon. So it goes, though. It's certainly D&D-like not to do so.

I always assumed that it emulated the genre trope that the most powerful heroes are the most robust. (Aside from the intent of the positive incentive reward system for the player investing the time and energy in their PC).

If Hollywood had instead pumped out sci-fi/fantasy films where epic heroes usually suffered tragic endings (like some of the great Greek tragedies) and the overall D&D experience made it feel like it was getting easier, only then it would feel backwards to me.

I assumed low-level PCs were not intended to be Star Trek redshirts (that was chalked up to misfortune or ToH-style game) but to emulate the farmer boy hero who hasn't yet come into his own and still scared of goblins. That playstyle definitely has its rewards (I'm sure there was an L&L article addressing how you could start a campaign at level 3).

I assumed that if low-level heroes have it easy like in the movies (ie., the Nazgul would never directly attack a young hero), that was a function of the adventure/DM's setup, not a function of the PC rules reflecting inherent robustness at low levels. This is in a "traditional" RPG of course. I think it was stated by the designers that 5E was leaning towards a traditional experience.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Sadly, the edition war seems to have had a strong influence on the shape of 5e, and I don't think it would be constructive to the context that has led to them.

Tony, since you appear to have missed Umbrans point, I'll spell it out. Using terminology like h4ters again will earn you a suspension. If you can participate without choosing emotive language like that, fine. Otherwise you'll get suspended.

Thanks

 

[Plane Sailing]

Sincere question: do we have any evidence that TTRPGs with somewhat weaker first level characters (relative to the monsters) suffer a drop off of new players sticking with the game?

Arguably some evidence that it doesn't matter comes from OD&D were it was the norm and D&D grew very well. This was when your 1d4 hp, single spell wizard had to earn 2500xp for second level and an Orc was only 25xp! We kept those guys going for weeks and weeks somehow

Agreed that there is a time to create / time to live trade off going on here that might not have existed before. Also it is possible that new players might come in with different expectations now.

But we know tfatvtgecexperiment was tried "for real" in the 70's and here we are

Cheers

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you for clarifying that. I did, indeed, interpret his message too broadly, thinking he meant any mention of the edition war, at all. I'll endeavor to use more emotionally neutral language when specifying either side of that unfortunate conflict.

(Hmmm... I better hop over to another thread and edit, I don't think having "so-called..." in front of it will be enough....).

... OK, I think we're good. Apologies for anything else I may have posted before seeing your message.

 

[jgsugden]

Nothing will please everyone. So far, I love what I see. The system seems to be in a nice zone between 3.5 and 4E. I think some more playtesting by people will change a lot of opinions.

 

[Emerikol]

Tony, since you appear to have missed Umbrans point, I'll spell it out. Using terminology like h4ters again will earn you a suspension. If you can participate without choosing emotive language like that, fine. Otherwise you'll get suspended.

Thanks

Maybe I'm oblivious to the real meaning but what name is appropriate for the group of people that really hate 4e or really love 4e. I've never really cared about that name and it is short. I'm definitely the target. I've also never though much about the various vengers monikers.

I fear that any name chosen would eventually get banned with repeated usage.

This is a sincere question and I'm not disagreeing that Tony perhaps broke the existing rules. Tony would agree that the likelihood of my defending him is probably not very high.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Thank you for clarifying that. I did, indeed, interpret his message too broadly, thinking he meant any mention of the edition war, at all. I'll endeavor to use more emotionally neutral language when specifying either side of that unfortunate conflict.

(Hmmm... I better hop over to another thread and edit, I don't think having "so-called..." in front of it will be enough....).

... OK, I think we're good. Apologies for anything else I may have posted before seeing your message.

Thanks Tony, 'ppreciate it!

Cheers

 

[Lalato]

Maybe I'm oblivious to the real meaning but what name is appropriate for the group of people that really hate 4e or really love 4e. I've never really cared about that name and it is short. I'm definitely the target. I've also never though much about the various vengers monikers.

I fear that any name chosen would eventually get banned with repeated usage.

This is a sincere question and I'm not disagreeing that Tony perhaps broke the existing rules. Tony would agree that the likelihood of my defending him is probably not very high.

How about not talking about people... and just talking about the game. That should be enough. And please do NOT derail this thread with some side discussion on what to call people. If you feel the need to discuss something like that... start another thread... preferably on a different forum.