D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"

[payn]

Curious on this: define "unwelcome behavior" as you saw it. Was the xp reward turning the PCs into murderhobos?

Murderhobo one min, diplos the next ruled by meta gaming logic based on what the best xp score would be instead of what worked best for the story and/or characters.

 

[Lyxen]

Renown isn't quite the same if it stems from self-promotion.

True, although it's not exactly that, it's more across the players, i.e. one character telling how another was heroic - and this in the cases where the absence of NPCs witnesses does not create the reputation anyway.

The DM decides what treasure is found but the players/PCs decide how to divide it; and round here everything gets divided equally. So, if all the party found in an adventure was a magic sword and a magic staff, they'd each be assessed a g.p. value and then each member of the party would get an equal share of the g.p. If the fighter wanted to claim the sword she could, but would have to pay its value for it into the party treasury (less her own share of course).

In 5e, there is no monetary value of gear, so this does not work, and while we did this heavily in 3e, we also found it extremely burdensome. It's not to everyone's tastes, but honestly monetary management bores us, and in all our 5e campaigns, there was a common pot where all the wealth went, and players only discussed if someone wanted to borrow heavily from there for whatever endeavour was interesting to him.

This way nobody gets left out, everybody gets what they earned, and as a side effect it somewhat puts to rest any threat of DM favouritism in treasure placing.

Our players are obviously less suspicious than yours, we never have this kind of suspicion.

Overall, and as often the case, it's all a matter of taste, our groups play very, very collectively and collaboratively. It does not preclude dissenssion and disagreements, but overall it's not about competition or suspicion between players/characters at all.

Usually they're adventuring to get rich quick; the flip side of the high risk of adventuring is the fact that if you do succeed you'll almost certainly be rolling in wealth when you're done.

OK, again a matter of taste, at our tables adventurers usually have many different other motivations than getting rich, which in turn prompts them to probably take more risk on their own without being prompted.

True, making and keeping friends in high places can be useful.

That's certainly something that works with players at our table, that kind of in-game reward is extremely valued.

 

[Kinematics]

This is an interesting way to run, and I like it! I think I'd have to manage expectations in the form of monsters, but otherwise this is a solid way of playing the game and not breaking anything. Do you play to level 20 still, or level 40?

Well, as the purpose is to focus on low-level play, it would likely end at 20, not 40, though we haven't gotten that high yet either.

 

[Lanefan]

Murderhobo one min, diplos the next ruled by meta gaming logic based on what the best xp score would be instead of what worked best for the story and/or characters.

Got it.

My lot tend to at least be somewhat consistent in their murderhobo-iness, and it's rare that anything's done solely for gaining xp (the exception sometimes being if someone's very close to bumping they'll try to eke out enough xp to get that character across the line so it can train; and despite my general dislike of metagaming I don't really mind this as either player or DM.).

That said, they'll table-joke about it on a regular basis e.g. a long-ago quote from a player regarding Giants: "Every time I hit one of these things I can just hear the experience points leaking out."

Then again, our games level up very slowly compared to most and so xp farming isn't as big a priority as it might be in some games.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is an interesting way to run, and I like it! I think I'd have to manage expectations in the form of monsters, but otherwise this is a solid way of playing the game and not breaking anything. Do you play to level 20 still, or level 40?

A cautionary tale about doing this style (or a variant of it) in actual play is even though you have lower level features, the combination of class features can create strong synergies.

We played our game to level 20, and having a Fighter (Champion) / Rogue (Assassin) 10/10 is a very strong combination for Extra Attack, Sneak Attack, Fighting Style, and much more.

The breadth vs. depth sometimes results in PCs which are surprisingly powerful and make your encounters turn out weaker than you planned.

It is fun, and you can certainly do it, just a friendly bit of warning.

 

[Lanefan]

True, although it's not exactly that, it's more across the players, i.e. one character telling how another was heroic - and this in the cases where the absence of NPCs witnesses does not create the reputation anyway.

The party can pat each other on the back all they like but how does that do anything for their standing in the community at large?

In 5e, there is no monetary value of gear, so this does not work,

It works as soon as a player in-character forces it to work, as follows:

Player-as-PC: "Hey, guys, I've got this extra magic sword. Falstaffe, you want it? Gimme 500 gold and it's yours!"
Falstaffe: "Thanks but no, I've got this enchanted mace which does me just fine. Never did get on with swords all that well."
PC: "OK. I wonder what I can sell it for in town?"
DM: "It has no monetary value."
PC: "Hell yes it does - I'll take it to the local mercenaries' hangout and offer it around, see what offers I can get for it. If nothing there I'll take it to the local temples, even to the palace if it comes to that. Someone's gotta want a magic sword badly enough to pay me for it - it's not like they grow on trees!"

And if the DM is playing at all in good faith she then has to determine what offers come the PC's way; and in so doing will set a value range for a sword of that enchantment. Lather-rinse-repeat with a bunch of other items and you might as well just build a list and have done with it.

This alone is why 5e's idea of magic items having no value is just plain dumb.

Our players are obviously less suspicious than yours, we never have this kind of suspicion.

Overall, and as often the case, it's all a matter of taste, our groups play very, very collectively and collaboratively. It does not preclude dissenssion and disagreements, but overall it's not about competition or suspicion between players/characters at all.

Perhaps, but if it turns out that the first 5 magic items are all only usable by warriors don't the Rogues and Wizards have a right to their share of that?

And the answer is, damn right they do; even more so if as in my game they all have to pay for training each time they level up and thus are inevitably going to need that money.

OK, again a matter of taste, at our tables adventurers usually have many different other motivations than getting rich, which in turn prompts them to probably take more risk on their own without being prompted.

Other motivations come and go but getting rich is always there either on the surface or not far beneath it.

 

[payn]

Got it.

My lot tend to at least be somewhat consistent in their murderhobo-iness, and it's rare that anything's done solely for gaining xp (the exception sometimes being if someone's very close to bumping they'll try to eke out enough xp to get that character across the line so it can train; and despite my general dislike of metagaming I don't really mind this as either player or DM.).

That said, they'll table-joke about it on a regular basis e.g. a long-ago quote from a player regarding Giants: "Every time I hit one of these things I can just hear the experience points leaking out."

Then again, our games level up very slowly compared to most and so xp farming isn't as big a priority as it might be in some games.

We had an old schooler in our group and he was very skill play. If a trap wasnt around every corner the GM was a push over. He had an oversized influence on the gorup. He was the leader of the "whats the best XP move here?" I had a long chat with him and it ended up being just old habits dying hard. He wasnt happy when I jettisoned XP, but his play went well after that. After awhile he didn't even miss the XP.

 

[Monayuris]

There is complexity and then there is difficulty.

At lower levels you have less abilities, so you have less complexity. In these terms, you could argue that low levels may be a sort of training wheels level... introduce the game at less complexity so new players can slowly develop their understanding of their character.

But this doesn't consider difficulty. You only have a training wheels approach at low levels IF you have a difficulty that matches the level. A level 1 dungeon with three rooms with a couple goblins in it would be either average, if not hard difficulty for a typical first level party. If you stay within those confines you have low level less complex characters with an adventure that has less potential for negative consequences and requires less player skill to survive.

You would need both of these aspects of the game to be true to consider low level training wheels.

On the other hand, you may have difficulty that does not match the level. This is a common situation in open world sandbox games or West Marches style games. The world does not match the level of the group and a low level group may find themselves in areas designed for higher level characters.

Players who prefer open world / West Marches style play may scoff at the idea of low level being training wheels because in their experience low level may actually be more challenging than higher levels. The lower level your character is, the greater chance that any dungeon, or wilderness ruin, or region you explore will be greater than you in challenge and will be more difficult to survive.

Personally, I find low level D&D to be more challenging, more rewarding, and more fun because it takes more effort and engagement in the game to succeed.

In order to consider low level D&D to be training wheels, it is implied that challenges in the game are balanced to the level of the characters.

 

[Lanefan]

We had an old schooler in our group and he was very skill play. If a trap wasnt around every corner the GM was a push over. He had an oversized influence on the gorup. He was the leader of the "whats the best XP move here?"

The (a) trap around every corner or the GM's a pushover and (b) always looking for the best xp move are different issues.

There's nothing wrong with (a) as a guiding principle. There is an issue with (b) if it changes too much or too often what the charcters would otherwise reasonably do.

I had a long chat with him and it ended up being just old habits dying hard. He wasnt happy when I jettisoned XP, but his play went well after that. After awhile he didn't even miss the XP.

Interesting. I know some players who I think in such a case would largely stop trying, or stop trying as hard, as the incentive is gone. I might even be one myself, won't know until-unless I'm in that situation.

 

[Lyxen]

The party can pat each other on the back all they like but how does that do anything for their standing in the community at large?

Because they relate the exploits of others to NPCs, of course. Our parties usually have a bard, or a paladin, or both, very communicative folks. In our Odyssey of the Dragonlords, we have a ship full of NPCs including multiple bards, and the goddess of Music to do our PR, as Fame and Prestige are tracked stats.

It works as soon as a player in-character forces it to work, as follows:

Player-as-PC: "Hey, guys, I've got this extra magic sword. Falstaffe, you want it? Gimme 500 gold and it's yours!"
Falstaffe: "Thanks but no, I've got this enchanted mace which does me just fine. Never did get on with swords all that well."
PC: "OK. I wonder what I can sell it for in town?"
DM: "It has no monetary value."
PC: "Hell yes it does - I'll take it to the local mercenaries' hangout and offer it around, see what offers I can get for it. If nothing there I'll take it to the local temples, even to the palace if it comes to that. Someone's gotta want a magic sword badly enough to pay me for it - it's not like they grow on trees!"

"I'm sorry, I won't accept that estimate, the value from three people who are little bit more than brigands does not mean anything to adventurers like us".

And if the DM is playing at all in good faith she then has to determine what offers come the PC's way; and in so doing will set a value range for a sword of that enchantment. Lather-rinse-repeat with a bunch of other items and you might as well just build a list and have done with it.

Except that the principle of 5e (you might like it or not) is that there is simply no market for items, not enough items on the market, not enough buyers, not enough communication means and, even more importantly, not enough trust that it will not be stolen at one point or another.

This alone is why 5e's idea of magic items having no value is just plain dumb.

The designers and I don't agree. What gives you the impression that showing a sword to a few mercenaries will give you an estimate of the value of such specific items to high level adventurers ? It's just as dumb.

We have been running 5e for maybe 20 campaigns since we started, not one with monetary value for items, although there was trading, and it went absolutely fine.

Perhaps, but if it turns out that the first 5 magic items are all only usable by warriors don't the Rogues and Wizards have a right to their share of that?

And at the same time, none of our DMs are that one-sided and stupid, so we don't have that problem either.

And the answer is, damn right they do; even more so if as in my game they all have to pay for training each time they level up and thus are inevitably going to need that money.

That is a house rule, good for you if it works. As for ourselves, we have multiple ways to deal with this, in Odyssey of the Dragonlords, we all need money to get ingredients to reforge legendary weapons, and the world will end if we don't, so pooling the money for that takes priority over anything. In Avernus, gold almost does not matter, only souls and soul coins matter, etc.

Other motivations come and go but getting rich is always there either on the surface or not far beneath it.

Well, it's not the case at our tables, and we think our collective and collaborative play is much better for it (once more, not preventing discussions and dissenssions, but focussing on heroic things and plans).