D&D General Boredom in "Zero to Hero" Campaigns

[Retreater]

@Lanefan those are some great ideas and definitely a step in the right direction of making the early levels feel less monotonous, but they still exhibit the problem that characters beginning a campaign aren't considered real adventurers. They are always playing second (or third) fiddle. Why is D&D so afraid to make early characters feel important, powerful, essential to the campaign world?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why is D&D so afraid to make early characters feel important, powerful, essential to the campaign world?

Well, to the "world" they just simply aren't usually powerful, important, or essential. On a local level, they might be the best thing around and people rely on them for help. But I've argued why are they used when often a more powerful hero in the region could handle any task more easily. Why have a bunch of level 1 PCs clear dungeon X when the 7th level Fighter could do it single-handedly and in faster time?? The idea is there are always stronger threats out there for the stronger PCs to deal with, so the smaller threats get handled by the PCs who can "barely" handle them, making the game fun and challenging.

Now, nothing says you can't have them be important. Have a level 1 PC suddenly crowned Emperor of a vast region, with the power of life and death over his people, etc. The adventure could revolve around intrigue and other things more so than combat, etc.

 

[jgsugden]

You get bored when the story is boring. You get excited when the story picks up and is interesting.

Try a better story at first level than "hunting rats in a basement". Low level is a great place to place a murder mystery, before the PCs have the magical tools to divine the answer. It is a great place to put a race across the countryside, while the PCs lack the magic to teleport. It is a great place to have them negotiate, before they have magics to charm, influence and divine away the problems. In short, it is the best place to run the traditional storylines that become so much harder once PCs have access to spells that are designed to solve mysteries.

 

[Retreater]

Well, to the "world" they just simply aren't usually powerful, important, or essential. On a local level, they might be the best thing around and people rely on them for help. But I've argued why are they used when often a more powerful hero in the region could handle any task more easily. Why have a bunch of level 1 PCs clear dungeon X when the 7th level Fighter could do it single-handedly and in faster time?? The idea is there are always stronger threats out there for the stronger PCs to deal with, so the smaller threats get handled by the PCs who can "barely" handle them, making the game fun and challenging.

Now, nothing says you can't have them be important. Have a level 1 PC suddenly crowned Emperor of a vast region, with the power of life and death over his people, etc. The adventure could revolve around intrigue and other things more so than combat, etc.

Maybe the disconnect that I'm feeling after reading that Plot Point campaign is that in other systems, the Player Characters are THE heroes. If something is going to be done, it's on them, not some random 7th level fighter, or epic level wizard NPC. I know this can give the campaign world a feeling of verisimilitude, of a sense of vastness, but it also has the effect of making characters feel like they are level grinding or running errands for the real heroes until they come of age.

 

[DND_Reborn]

in other systems, the Player Characters are THE heroes

Really? I admit I've only played a handful of different RPGs "in depth" over the years, and pretty much all of them have the PCs starting out low on the totem poles.

That being said, if you want your PCs to be the heroes from the get-go in 5E, I would start them at levels commensurate with those assumptions. Otherwise, the adventure, challenges, or expectations will be out of alignment in some fashion.

What I always find more annoying, THB, is how the adventures are made to be won by "level appropriate" PCs. I totally understand the reasoning for it, but to me it makes the game less enjoyable. If the PCs are too weak, the adventure becomes (nearly?) impossible; if they are too strong, it is a cakewalk and some will find that boring. This is why one of my favorite types of adventures are when it IS beyond them, and they have to find some powerful NPC to help, or it is much to easy for a powerful party, so what would be an adventure for a party of PCs, becomes a solo-adventure (or better yet, a group of solo-adventures where each PC must succeed individually!).

 

[Tallifer]

It's not just the monsters - it's the entire expectation of play and scope of low-level adventures. You could call it a bugbear, an ogre, or hill giant, but it's all basically the same thing: a brute with a club, low AC, high damage potential, not very smart and leading a band of lesser humanoids. There could be an infestation of rats, kobolds, goblins, mutated beavers, but it's still pretty much the same thing.

Like, what harm would there be in having the low-level characters start off their careers special? Embroiled in the setting's politics? Saving the countryside from an otherworldly menace that could destroy the region (or maybe the world)? Fighting a creature that is more than just a slightly bigger version of everything else they've already been fighting?

Forsooth. Leaning into character's backstories is one way. NPCs with mysterious powers and suspicious quests is another. In Eberron, I always seed the ground with a multitude of prophetic hints.

As for monsters, right from the start I throw monsters at the party with immediate interrupts, status effects, ambiguous motives, tactical thinking, potential infection or poison, death effects et cetera.

 

[Mercurius]

They have the Tiers of Play in the DMG pg 36-38 which describes each tier as well as a description.

For instance, the 1st tier goes from 1-4 and is called "Local Heroes" where much of their gear and magic items are common and mundane. Magic doesn't affect much at this tier, either.

I know, but I'm talking about deeper guidance of starting points and resulting campaigns. I don't have my books handy, so don't remember to what degree they cover that territory. I'm thinking "threshold starting points" - platforms, if you will, with different campaign types.

 

[Asisreo]

I know, but I'm talking about deeper guidance of starting points and resulting campaigns. I don't have my books handy, so don't remember to what degree they cover that territory. I'm thinking "threshold starting points" - platforms, if you will, with different campaign types.

As for locations, they have a few:

A village (the fate of which is determined by the characters)

A haunted crypt

Dangerous Terrain (pretty vague).

They also give a list of monsters they'll be likely to fight: Orcs, Wolves, Spiders, Cultists, Ghouls, amd Thugs.

Other than that, it does give guidance on making adventurers, but they're applicable for all tiers of play. It's more general than "here's where they should start at tier 1."

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan those are some great ideas and definitely a step in the right direction of making the early levels feel less monotonous, but they still exhibit the problem that characters beginning a campaign aren't considered real adventurers. They are always playing second (or third) fiddle.

That's because they are.

Low-level adventurers are little tiny fish in a great big pond. Even high-level adventurers aren't the biggest fish in the pond, there's always a bigger one.

Why is D&D so afraid to make early characters feel important, powerful, essential to the campaign world?

Because where do you go from there? If at low level they're already important, powerful and essential to the game world then what awaits at high level other than more of the same?

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe the disconnect that I'm feeling after reading that Plot Point campaign is that in other systems, the Player Characters are THE heroes. If something is going to be done, it's on them, not some random 7th level fighter, or epic level wizard NPC. I know this can give the campaign world a feeling of verisimilitude, of a sense of vastness, but it also has the effect of making characters feel like they are level grinding or running errands for the real heroes until they come of age.

Reading between the lines here (rightly or wrongly) I see an underlying desire for the PCs to be 'special snowflakes'; and for the game world to revolve around them and only them right from day one.

If that's what floats yer boat then have at it, but for me? No thanks.

Also, the errand-running phase a) makes sense and b) doesn't last long provided the DM chucks out some decent early-game story hooks and the players bite at one or two.