D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[Halivar]

That said, I think in this thread only [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] is advocating a true ES@1, which after about 4th level is quite different than starting a level or two below the party average.

Count me in for ES@1, as well; the only way to play(tm).

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Experience points are the reward a character gets for what it does; and they (one hopes) will eventually lead to an increase in level.

The risk - and I've had this debate before in here - with levelling everyone up arbitrarily at the same time is that you may well end up rewarding characters (and it *is* a reward, you can't frame it any other way) for doing nothing.

Some players are quite happy to keep their characters in the background and let others take the risks. They survive, while the risk-takers die. But if nobody took the risks nothing would get done. How fair is it that the passengers get the same rewards as the drivers?

Yes, that's right: it isn't.

See, I just don't understand this mentality, especially from the group that keeps trying to tell us that D&D is about more than combat. Reward them for doing nothing... You mean to tell me the player didn't come to those sessions and role play with everyone else? That they didn't take part in the story, just like everyone else, input their own ideas, just like everyone else?

How can it be a problem to level a character up alongside his fellow companions for being cautious and avoiding the frontline? Can't players make a character that contributes to the other pillars of play, and therefore perhaps less in the combat pillar? You yourself make it sound like combat contribution is all that matters. That risking your characters life in combat is the only way to earn those levels.

How can you accuse other posters of thinking about the game as all combat when you start stating that some characters don't earn their levels because they don't take risks. I mean, I'm assuming most of the characters who die in your games are deaths from combat and not an over abundance of traps or something.

There's no issue with levelling up the whole party at milestones, unless you're married to the playstyle that characters need to earn those levels through sweat and blood and life and death situations. AKA combat is the way to earn the right to be a higher level, and how dare a character level up without taking an axe to the face.

For a side of the argument that says combat isn't everything, that seems a really odd view to take in a game about creating fun and challenging stories with friends.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

In addition to that, I'd say that the following situations:



are not situations that a "new characters at first level" world would usually frame. Not every D&D group introduces new characters as new hires or employees, and not every group will weigh a characters' worth by how well they stand up in a fight.

Furthermore:



are probably not characters (or maybe even situations) that would be introduced in a game where fresh PCs start out at level one.

No, probably not. But you are removing a huge swathe of potential characters that make sense to be joining your party from a narrative perspective. Combat abilities or no. Even with bounded accuracy, some numbers just get out of hand such that the established PCs will so outclass the "newbies".

For example, one of the established PCs trained in Nature and Survival simply because they had the time to gain those skills over the course of the adventure. They are better at those skills than a druid of the Emerald Enclave who is joining your group because your path takes her where she needs to be to fulfill her order's goals, because of the significantly higher proficiency bonuses. Even though it's a defining characteristic of the druid's skill set. Whereas the druid would be better than said PC if they had equivalent proficiency bonuses. Meanwhile, the ranger in the group is better at nature magic than that same druid, and by quite a lot at that. Even though the druid is specialized in that magic. Even though nature magic is one of the central mechanical abilities their character is supposed to bring to the table to make them shine, she worse than someone who has that same mechanical ability as a minor side ability meant to augment their character, not define it. It actually punishes the druid in the context of the game's narrative.

See, the thing is when you see a character in a world for the first time, they're not always going to be anywhere close to a novice. The latter will actually be the exception, not the rule. Take any adventure you see, either on the screen, or read about in novels, and think about new characters introduced in that narrative long after it's begun who go on to become important allies or members of the protagonist's inner circle. How often are they some novice? They are usually in situations they are in because they have experience, not in spite of it. They've already been adventuring in the world, it's just that we're seeing their adventure's path cross that of the rest of the group for the first time.

Not saying people can't and shouldn't enjoy ES@1 games. But for many, it pulls us right out of the story itself to have new characters so utterly outclassed on so many levels all at once. It is actually, in my opinion, LESS cinematic, and pulls one out of the moment.

Ok, thought experiment to put it in perspective: you are only applying this metric to PCs. Try doing it with NPCs and see how much sense it makes. Every NPC added to a campaign from now on gets to start at 1st level; ES@1 now applies to all characters in the narrative. How much sense does that end up making, and how does that play out? Because, and here's the rub, when a PC is introduced to the party, until they become a member of the party, their characters should make sense both lore-wise and mechanically as an NPC filling the same role in the world.

 

[Nytmare]

See, I just don't understand this mentality, especially from the group that keeps trying to tell us that D&D is about more than combat. Reward them for doing nothing... You mean to tell me the player didn't come to those sessions and role play with everyone else? That they didn't take part in the story, just like everyone else, input their own ideas, just like everyone else?

It might be better to avoid adopting an "us vs them" stance about this. You're talking about a lot of different people and a lot of different games, and pointing to one person and saying "why does your side have conflicting and contradicting viewpoints, that's dumb" is a generalization that might end up leading to more confusion than it does clarification.

Beyond that, in a game system where players are given experience points for "taking action" (and not necessarily just "dealing damage") those rules might be there to encourage people specifically to roleplay, take part in the story, and input their own ideas. I know that I have had my fair share of experiences in games where one or more players do not want to do those things, but dutifully come every week to roll dice and jot down what loot and prizes they've received. Not that they don't have a right to do that, but that is what a system of rules like that might be created for.

How can it be a problem to level a character up alongside his fellow companions for being cautious and avoiding the frontline? Can't players make a character that contributes to the other pillars of play, and therefore perhaps less in the combat pillar? You yourself make it sound like combat contribution is all that matters. That risking your characters life in combat is the only way to earn those levels.

It's not a problem. Neither is not leveling them up alongside their fellow companions. Neither is having a character that contributes to only one, or any combination of the pillars that they want.

How can you accuse other posters of thinking about the game as all combat when you start stating that some characters don't earn their levels because they don't take risks. I mean, I'm assuming most of the characters who die in your games are deaths from combat and not an over abundance of traps or something.

There are plenty of in-game risks, not all of them are in combat, and not all of them result in characters dying. Not every game or DM is going to give XP for characters that face those risks, some of them do.

There's no issue with levelling up the whole party at milestones, unless you're married to the playstyle that characters need to earn those levels through sweat and blood and life and death situations. AKA combat is the way to earn the right to be a higher level, and how dare a character level up without taking an axe to the face.

Lanefan was pointing to a possible pitfall of the system, not saying that the system was broken, or that his way was the only way to play.

 

[Nytmare]

No, probably not. But you are removing a huge swathe of potential characters that make sense to be joining your party. Combat abilities or no. Even with bounded accuracy, some numbers just get out of hand such that the established PCs will so outclass the "newbies". Sorry, but a grizzled vet? That is the perfect example of a character that the party meets who then joins up. But the grizzled vet can only take one hit from one of the underlings of the BBEG, while the party wizard, described as frail, can take three to four times or more the hits?

Out of the near infinite number of possible characters to choose from, it is only removing the ones that don't fit within the definitions of that game and that story. If the rules are "new characters start off at a lower level" then "characters at the same or greater level" aren't in the running and shouldn't be considered as new character fodder. This could mean that you just don't make a super experienced, grizzled veteran as your new first level character, or it could mean that you use different definitions of what levels translate to in the in game reality.

Where someone's character is trained in Nature and Survival as an aside, simply because they could and had the time to gain those skills over the course of the adventure, is much better at it than the druid is because of proficiency bonuses, even though it's a defining characteristic of the druid's skillset. Whereas the druid would be better than them if they had equivalent proficiency bonuses. Where a ranger is better at nature magic than that same druid, and by quite a lot at that, even though the druid is specialized in that magic. It actually punishes the druid in the context of the game's narrative. They are automatically going to be worse at the central mechanical aspect of their character, one of the parts of the game that character is supposed to bring to the table to make them shine, than someone who happens to have been sitting at the table longer and has nature magic as an aside.

That would be the fault of the player(s) in that game having expectations that ignore the mechanics of the game they are playing. It only "punishes" the player of the druid for assigning an arbitrary definition of "I'm better at this thing than you even though your numbers are higher."

See, the thing is when you see a character in a world for the first time, they're not always going to be anywhere close to a novice. That will actually be the exception, not the rule. Take any adventure you see on the screen, or curl up to a book and read, and think about new characters introduced in a series who go on to become important allies or members of the protagonist's inner circle. How often are they some novice? They are usually in situations they are in because they have experience, not in spite of. They've already been adventuring in the world, it's just that we're seeing their adventure's path cross that of the rest of the group for the first time.

And this style of game (which again is not a style that I even regularly play) is not attempting to mimic any of those things. What it's attempting to mimic is a story where core characters start off small and grow.

Not saying people can't and shouldn't enjoy ES@1 games. But for many, it pulls us right out of the story itself to have new characters so utterly outclassed on so many levels all at once.

I don't think that anyone involved in this conversation has mentioned not believing that you or other non-ES@1 players don't like it, or that your personal reasons as to why are not justified.

Lando Calrissian was not a 1st level character to the rest of the group's well-established mid-level group. He was a force in his own right, who then became an important member of the group. Castiel in Supernatural was already a force to be reckoned with when he came into the picture in season four, not remotely outclassed by Dean and Sam, but right there with them. Honestly, when you start thinking about it, most characters are like this, and not some inexperienced newbie.

In all seriousness, think about characters who became part of some core group in a novel you've read, or series you've watched, and consider how often they are introduced as being folks who are, in so many ways, already well-established in their fictional world, potent forces in their own right. No matter how soon or how late they are added to a series.

Again, in an ES@1 game, Lando, Castiel and whatever other "not first level" character from books and movies you want to offer up as proof don't exist as unestablished player characters who get to wander in at higher levels because that's not the game that is being played.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Lanefan was pointing to a possible pitfall of the system, not saying that the system was broken, or that his way was the only way to play.

For a side of the argument that says combat isn't everything, that seems a really odd view to take in a game about creating fun and challenging stories with friends.

I'm honestly not sure what the crux of your stance is. It almost sounds like you agree with me on most points, save that of keeping characters the same level.

I suppose we can clarify. I do not believe that levelling up all characters at a milestone - or as Lanefan said, 'arbitrarily' - is a 'pitfall' of the system. What is your specific thought on this concept?

 

[Tectuktitlay]

Out of the near infinite number of possible characters to choose from, it is only removing the ones that don't fit within the definitions of that game and that story. If the rules are "new characters start off at a lower level" then "characters at the same or greater level" aren't in the running and shouldn't be considered as new character fodder. This could mean that you just don't make a super experienced, grizzled veteran as your new first level character, or it could mean that you use different definitions of what levels translate to in the in game reality.

That would be the fault of the player(s) in that game having expectations that ignore the mechanics of the game they are playing. It only "punishes" the player of the druid for assigning an arbitrary definition of "I'm better at this thing than you even though your numbers are higher."

It's not merely that numbers are higher, it's that they are flat out doing things considerably more potent in effect. Spells have the tiers they have for a reason, and classes has access to them at different levels for a reason; as a benchmark of how much one knows, how much one can influence the world, magically-speaking. There are massive jumps in relative power level at each odd spell level especially. 3rd level spells, 5th level spells, and so on, have potent, defining abilities that unlock as a general rule.

And this style of game (which again is not a style that I even regularly play) is not attempting to mimic any of those things. What it's attempting to mimic is a story where core characters start off small and grow.

Which is fine to a degree, except that it starts to break down significantly once the core characters are many levels in and new PCs are introduced. While it's great to want the characters to grow, at the same time WHY would a group of characters be ok with someone coming in to their group who is considerably outclassed? From a strictly narrative perspective, a group of people have been adventuring for a while, and in comes new character X. X seems interesting, has a vibrant personality, looks like they have potential. But. Time and time again, out of combat (using skills and non-combat spells), they don't actually appear to bring nearly as much to the table as even random NPCs comparable to them are bringing. In dangerous situations, they aren't merely ineffective, they are a liability. The rest of the group, you know can take a hit or two, even a nasty one, and pull through. But damn if X doesn't keep getting dropped over and over, even when protected by the group, from what should be minor threats to the party.

A group of people would only put up with that for so long before saying look, you are just not a great fit. I'm sorry, you're a nice person and all, but having you is a liability, not a benefit.

Like I said, even from a narrative sense, it doesn't actually make sense.

There's a reason I brought up (and notice you didn't address) NPCs. Apply the ES@1 to NPCs, and see how well it works. Because, again, every PC is an NPC until a player takes control of it. They should exist within the game world on their own in a way that makes sense from both mechanical and narrative perspectives.

Plus, as a player? As someone who has DMed large numbers of players over the years (working at a FLGS for ~13 years can do that; you see a lot of new faces)? Yeah, this kind of campaign would likely be a deal-breaker quite quickly for a great many people. Hence the results of the poll itself. And if over the course of an adventure a major character dies? That player, too, will have to bring in a PC at level 1. I suspect, based on a lot of experience, that a player that has that happen might just see how profoundly unfun it can be to be shoved so far in the mechanical hole, so to speak. To go from this epic hero doing epic deeds to being potentially downed by a lone goblin with a single hit, and a profound liability to the rest of the group.

Others have mentioned just going ahead and doing low-level content for a while until the lowbie PCs catch up a bit. That, too, is something that can yank a party out of their narrative. The group was in the midst of a mission to save the world from BBEG, and making headway. Suddenly, they stop to babysit some inexperienced novice? Facing down enemies that are, at this point, in no way a significant threat to them? Pausing a potentially time-crunched mission to help a newbie train? I can almost FEEL the need for a montage to just get past that for the upteenth time. I would in all likelihood actually play an 80s montage song and tell them to just go ahead and level up.

It doesn't feel like an organic world anymore, it makes it feel much, much more artificial if PCs (and only PCs, mind you) can only ever be some green newbie who has to start at the bottom.

It pulls you right out of the narrative if you meet YET ANOTHER inexperienced young adventurer, who the party takes under their wing. A half-dozen such newbies later, that gets so old, and makes progressively less and less sense. After all, these are PCs who actually have things to DO. They are already on a path, or multiple paths. Stopping for any new green rookie that catches their eye makes no narrative sense at all in that context.

Hence, why I simply remove XP and levels as rewards at all. They are a benchmark for the overall power level of the campaign itself. The rewards in-game come from elsewhere, and are more narrative in nature, less mechanical. My groups have stories to tell. And while occasionally having a novice come in to an experienced party might be fun, as a device it gets old incredibly quickly for the same exact reason that grinding new characters in video games over and over, doing essentially the same general type of content over and over, gets old quick for most people.

 

[Iry]

I've never done ES@1. I know the players entered into the game with the understanding that this would be ES@1, but how do high level characters handle it?

Under ES@1, what happens if they go searching for someone powerful and ask them to join? What happens if they have established friends of moderate power and ask one of them to join? What happens if the characters don't want to babysit a rookie with frequent magical protection? What happens when new rookies keep being instantly killed by things like fireball?

 

[Nytmare]

I'm honestly not sure what the crux of your stance is. It almost sounds like you agree with me on most points, save that of keeping characters the same level.

I suppose we can clarify. I do not believe that levelling up all characters at a milestone - or as Lanefan said, 'arbitrarily' - is a 'pitfall' of the system. What is your specific thought on this concept?

I did not participate in the poll because I don't really have a preference when I'm playing or running D&D, it totally depends on the campaign. The rule from my longest running campaign was "a new character comes in at d100% XP of the lowest level character bottoming out at 2 levels lower." That was for 3.5, was there because the story and world didn't have a lot of high level characters in it, and it was meant as a side run to prevent one specific player from using new characters as a way to increase his characters' wealth and to heal from hit point and attribute damage. The previous two, shorter lived campaigns were "start over at level one E6", and "everyone is the same level and I'll tell you when you get enough XP, 4th Ed."

Also as a side note, apologies to Lanefan for once again inserting myself and giving my explanation for what I think you were trying to say.

I do not think that he was saying that milestones are a pitfall, or that it is impossible to come up with rewards for players and characters that are not experience points or levels. The way that I read his post, I think he was saying that if you are playing with milestones, you lose out on a mechanical system to convince a bump on a log player from contributing to the game.

 

[MostlyDm]

In addition to that, I'd say that the following situations:
[snip]
are probably not characters (or maybe even situations) that would be introduced in a game where fresh PCs start out at level one.

I think this is the key observation. In a lot of cases the people who can't grok the sense of ES@1 are having a problem because they haven't checked their premises.

Just to reiterate, I don't think ES@1 works for every campaign. Like I said up thread, in my current longest running campaign new characters pretty much come in at whatever level they want, based on the character and backstory involved. Each player has a large stable of characters, including villains working for various NPC factions.

But in open world sandboxes ES@1 can be awesome. Jester has said repeatedly that one of the ways this works is that low level characters often seek out lower threat problems. Your new level 1 guy can slum it with the party of level 2-5 dudes that are staging an excursion into the Goblinwood, rather than tracking down your old party of level 12-16 that was in the midst of an assault on the city of Fire Giants.

Or not! Maybe the party of level 12-16 is investigating the murder at the high court of King Elfman III, and mostly they will be interacting with people and digging up dirt. Perhaps your level 1 rogue will be able to contribute meaningfully, so you hang out after all. The final battle when they uncover the Doppelgänger assassin is more of a formality anyway.

There isn't an overarching story pace being set by the DM. There isn't a set of challenges the DM is prepping for the PCs. There's just... A world full of stuff, that you can interact with at your discretion. You don't bring in a guy with extensive backstory. You bring in a guy, and *create* an extensive backstory for him through play.