D&D 5E Observations of a new player

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. Recently, I was asked to run a game for my siblings and their significant others. They have never played actual D&D before, but they've played the Infinity Engine games as well as plenty of WoW and other RPGs. We played the beginning of "Lost Mines" before work and school schedules got in the way, but my brother had some strong feelings that I thought were interesting.

Chief among his complaints was that they got trashed by a group of goblins. I think he came in thinking of goblins as "trash mobs" and was surprised when his fighter got dropped to 0 in the first fight of the adventure. Playing level 1 didn't allow him to feel heroic like he had envisioned his character.

As a DM, I feel like I failed to guide his expectations. Level 1 is on the path to being a hero. A level 1 adventure is what makes the character a hero. It's been so long since I've played level 1 (outside of 4E, we got in a habit of starting at 3rd or 5th) that I forgot the reasons I avoid 1st level now.

Other observations from the game:

*I don't want players to be forced into playing. One player at the table didn't really want to play and wasn't invested. They didn't make their character and I had to explain to them what their character could do. I don't think they had fun.
*One player was very quick to act, which was bad for their character but great for the game. They wanted to act. They didn't want to sit around and wait. They were playing a rogue and had no concept that their 13 AC was low; they just jumped into the fray.
*One player kept forgetting which spells they had prepared. It made me happy for the simplicity of the known spells casters.
*Last, low level play is brutal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Croesus]

Level 1 is on the path to being a hero. A level 1 adventure is what makes the character a hero. It's been so long since I've played level 1 (outside of 4E, we got in a habit of starting at 3rd or 5th) that I forgot the reasons I avoid 1st level now.

I noticed the same thing. When 5E came out, I insisted that all characters start at level 1. But characters achieve level 3 so quickly in this edition (only 900 XP), and 1st level characters are so limited, I recently told my players that new characters will begin at 3rd level. I've heard no complaints.

 

[Xeviat]

I noticed the same thing. When 5E came out, I insisted that all characters start at level 1. But characters achieve level 3 so quickly in this edition (only 900 XP), and 1st level characters are so limited, I recently told my players that new characters will begin at 3rd level. I've heard no complaints.

That's how my players felt in 3E too. No one felt that way in 4E, and no one asked to try the apprentice mechanics there either.

It seems odd for the tenor of the game to change so drastically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaelis]

That's how my players felt in 3E too. No one felt that way in 4E, and no one asked to try the apprentice mechanics there either.

It seems odd for the tenor of the game to change so drastically.

My belief is that levels 1 and 2 are the way they are to make multiclassing work better. It also probably makes some OSR people happy. But it works very well to start at level 3 if that's not your style.

I don't want players to be forced into playing. One player at the table didn't really want to play and wasn't invested. They didn't make their character and I had to explain to them what their character could do. I don't think they had fun.

That doesn't exactly seem like a game issue?

 

[Shiroiken]

5E, like 3E, is the "Zero to Hero" style game, where you start weak and become strong, unlike 4E, where characters started off as heroes. Some do not like this style, and the simplest solution is to start experienced players at 3rd level (I still strongly suggest new players start at level 1). The downside is that your players have to understand and keep track of more, which you noted was a problem already.

 

[Rhenny]

Cool observations.
[MENTION=60210]jaelis[/MENTION] I definitely think levels 1 & 2 are for the old timers. My group and I love the vulnerable, survival mode levels and we are old (ouch...).

One thing I noticed when I introduced classes of 9th graders to the game is that for most of them, the story and narrative of character/action/plot was really all they needed to get them involved. If I were going to teach newbies again, I'd just let them know or have them decide more about what their PCs are like and then encourage them to make decisions based on what I narrate. When I DMd for the classes of students, I made 6 groups of 4 or 5, and each group assumed the persona of 1 PC. I rolled all the dice and I kept the story going without bogging them down with rules and numbers. They got to confer with each other briefly before they called their actions. The way I did it in class really fostered group thinking and decision making and the fun of creating a shared story.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My belief is that levels 1 and 2 are the way they are to make multiclassing work better.

I definitely think levels 1 & 2 are for the old timers. My group and I love the vulnerable, survival mode levels and we are old (ouch...).

Both these observations ring true, especially the latter, a lot of 5e is slanted that way.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Level 1-2 isn't really a "Hero" for me yet. More like a soldier. Can fight, but in a battle they still drop like nameless flies.
I always see those two levels as introduction. For new players to the game I always start here, so the players slowly get to learn their characters and have some time to decide how they want to develop them. If veterans play, then I usually just ask them if they want to start at level 1 and play the introduction or skip to level 3 and start the main story right away.

Anyway, I do think there is some charm into actually feeling like you get stronger. Like if after a year of playing, you can easily wipe out masses of enemies of which a single one managed to get you down to 0 HP a year ago. Though this charm is really really slow to come, so you need to be dedicated in the first place.

I guess it's best to just outright tell new players that they are pretty frail at level 1 and should be careful.

 

[Seramus]

Level 1-2 isn't really a "Hero" for me yet. More like a soldier. Can fight, but in a battle they still drop like nameless flies.

Hero is Level 4. Veteran is Level 1.

 

[Horwath]

I find that a bonus feat for everyone at 1st level deals very well with blandness of 1st level.

It gives that point of personalization for a character.

No variant humans in that version ofc.

But yeah, 1st level characters are grunts, cannon fodder, 1st level fighter is a youn private fresh out of 12 week boot training and knows what side of the sword to grasp.