If the player doesn't want to start at a lower level, or only consents under duress, then forcing the issue is a pretty shady thing to do no matter how diplomatically you phrase it.
D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?
It's not shady to set up a campaign with a specific set of goals or conditions, or a with specific style. An individual doesn't have the right to make demands, or even criticisms like 'shady', really, to a group that has decided to play in a manner not to their liking. Some games *are* competitions for levels/survival. It's traditional. Or, rather, one of many D&D different traditions.
It's not the way I run my campaigns. But god knows my group's style isn't for everyone. I'm sure it's anathema to some folks. Which is fine. Not every game a good fit for every player. No harm in simply moving on and finding a better-suited group. For the record, *I* probably wouldn't join a campaign with a mandatory 1st level start -- but that's no one's fault. No one's to blame. Just a case of wanting different things out of the game.
Nytmare
David Jose
No part of his story should have lead you to assume that a player was being forced, under duress, to do something they didn't want to do, or that he was deriving satisfaction from somebody else suffering.
Beyond that, there are agreed upon rules of the game, campaign, and table. There's nothing malicious or shady in expecting people to continue to play by those rules.
You would think so, but I know many players who are terrified of losing their local game or their social group and allow themselves to be subject to a considerable amount of abuse. You can rightfully say that it is their fault for not having the courage to go without a game or friends. This is a reasonable concern I have brought up to some of them before. But you would be wrong if you think a 'Yes' from your player is always consent without duress.
I've seen players say 'Yes' for all kinds of terrible reasons, twice from women who thought they would be ostracized if they said no, more than a dozen times where players after the game talked about how much they hated it behind the back of others even though they gave a clear 'Yes' when asked, and once with an underaged girl who had no business being anywhere close to mature subject matter and said 'Yes' because she had no other friends.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Those are very serious situations. Don't you think reading that kind of unhealthy social dynamic into a discussion about what number to write on a new character sheet might be just a little bit hasty?
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
To be fair, if the game's social setting has that amount of conflict, "what level do new PCs start on?" is the absolute least of anyone's problems.
Nytmare
David Jose
Your first hand experiences with people who were not nice, who make bad decisions, and who were not able to communicate properly with the people they decided to be friends with does not mean that you should assume that Lanefan is not nice, makes bad decisions, and is not able to communicate properly with his friends because he likes to play in D&D games where new characters start out at level 1.
The more that number is different, the more you are creating an unhealthy social dynamic, unless your players have been exceedingly clear that they are okay with this. And even then they might be uncomfortable with it and don't want to cause a stir.
Lanefan is probably a wonderful person. But being 'a little pestered' that another player is his equal in a cooperative social game is not an admirable trait in my book, whatever his other outstanding qualities.
Nytmare
David Jose
Other things Lanefan did not say: "Other players are not my equal." You keep on inventing imaginary baggage and forcing someone else to carry it.
He said that in the games he runs, the setup is that every player has a stable of characters that start somewhere between the average level of the existing party and an arbitrary floor (that appears to be somewhere near average party level minus 3.5). Over the course of the campaign, players swap characters in and out as the game/story dictates.
He also said
The kind of game he's talking about is one where a character's XP value is a kind of a score, but that doesn't mean that that having a score is an uncooperative weapon that you have to use to demean and belittle other players. It's more like a save point in an old school platform game. If you're playing an old Super Mario Brothers or Sonic the Hedgehog game, part of that mechanism for those games and part of the challenge is not being able to start off right where you were when you died. That's all he's talking about, an added mechanical challenge to one particular way of playing D&D.
Nyt-"I'm sorry I keep on answering for you, Lanefan"-mare
I established my position as not talking about situations where players make it exceedingly clear that they are alright with the situation (except where it may include consent under duress). If it was not his intent to argue that point, then I apologize to him.
Similar Threads
