D&D General D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed

[Belen]

Which is why I preferred 5e to 4e, among other reasons.

Agreed. I prefer to start my campaigns off with people who are just starting out and I hated that 4e default assumption was level 1 superhero.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D has gone more heroic over time as that was always the pitch to new prospective players.

I can't imagine many people were convinced to play D&D by saying you can be a butcher's son or the strong farmer. Many were told they can be like the characters from books and movies.

The game bait and switched you and hoped you like zero to hero to earn being the action hero.

With the internet, its harder for people to market the white lie. So 3e., 4e, and 5e are more heroic.

I still prefer zero to hero. My current PCs are a park ranger, an account who just became a psychic, a mechanic, and a rodeo clown (and a robot bartender, to be fair). None of them are particularly heroic or any kind of warrior by nature, just regular folks that happened to be in a hotel bar when the world ended.

 

[JEB]

You do seem to have more problems than about anyone else I know of though. Make one wonder.

What does it make you wonder? Care to elaborate?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

What does it make you wonder?

How one gets what one came for even if the stores are all closed.

 

[Marandahir]

Starting at Level 0 helps with a lot of the action trope fatigue. Start players off with just the origin features (species, background, origin feat) - the tool training would go a long way to them having a career prior to full on adventuring.

The 3 NPC classes from Tasha's and Essentials Kit work well for this purpose too – use for players before transitioning to full classes.

Some of the origin feats might be unbalanced if you people lack a class but they grant access to level 1 spells etc. And you'd still need to hombrew a few things like weapon profs and HD – I'd use the NPC classes at 1st level for these features only.

 

[Minigiant]

Starting at Level 0 helps with a lot of the action trope fatigue. Start players off with just the origin features (species, background, origin feat) - the tool training would go a long way to them having a career prior to full on adventuring.

The 3 NPC classes from Tasha's and Essentials Kit work well for this purpose too – use for players before transitioning to full classes.

Some of the origin feats might be unbalanced if you people lack a class but they grant access to level 1 spells etc. And you'd still need to hombrew a few things like weapon profs and HD – I'd use the NPC classes at 1st level for these features only.

It's less action heo fatigue and resetting fatigue in general.

Most heroes have only a few features which can be boring or have multiple tons of features which can be overwhelming.

Starting at zero means just have a shorter time with the parts you got bored of.

In another thread I and some other posters discussed that humans work better with a handful or so of choices. If you had only 5-10 features, you could scale them with level and have fun at zero, hero, or superhero. D&D and fantasy RPGs traditionally gives you only 1 scaling feature (warriors), dozens of useful features (casters) or a dozen open ended features (experts).

 

[Kaiyanwang]

This level 0 discourse reminds me of an amazing 3P book created by Italian game designers (from the forums Dragonslair unless I am mistaken), called "Il Manuale dei Livelli Infimi" - The Book of the Least Level, least intended as opposite of Epic. It would have rules for 3e core classes for small levels before level 1, in which skills, HP, class features and so on would be gradually built to eventually reach level 1.
The book imagines the apprentices as very young, to the point that weapons could be wooden swords and common garden and kitchen tools. A very strong monster could be a baby Giant that got lost and throwing a tantrum.

I am trying to import this concept in my 3.PF hybrid homebrew (calling these levels 0, 1/3, 1/2 and 3/4).
I do wonder if it could be translated into 5e. Not necessarily this "child-focused" so to speak, but just with apprenticeship levels.
Perhaps it was, but I don't follow 5e as much as I followed 3e.

 

[Minigiant]

I think it's less a matter of strong/weak and a matter of competency.

Old D&D assumed level 1 PCs are incompetent. Literally, they are terrible at their jobs. A fighter was marginally better than a commoner, a magic-user had 1 spell, a cleric didn't even have spells (just turn undead, which only worked on a scant few types) and thieves had less than one in five chance of successfully using any skill (climb walls excluded). Despite what the level titles implied; you weren't even worth the rock needed to make a gravestone until you were at least 3rd level. The reason 5th level was the sweet spot was it was finally the level where you had a better chance of succeeding on a given action than failing.

Contrast to 5e, where a level 1 fighter is already a better warrior than most NPCs, a level 1 wizard has a few spell options, a level 1 cleric likewise has good magic, and a level 1 rogue can succeed most of his core skill checks more often than not. 5e PCs start out already with some ability to succeed and it grows from there. Come 3rd level, they are reasonably good at their chosen class and by 5th, they are experts.

That said, most media still portray their characters as competent even when they are starting out. Harry Potter might not be the best wizard, but he is certainly naturally gifted enough to keep up the much more powerful antagonists he encounters. Luke Skywalker is a crack shot with a blaster and the best brush pilot this side of Mois Eisley and that's before he learns the Force.

The bait was always implying "you could play your favorite fantasy heroes" and the switch was "one day, if you're lucky."

And this is why I think besides marketing that most old school RPGs relied on RPG converts from other games rather than attracting RPG "virgins".

Some people like the switch.
But more people like the bait.

It's easier to market the bait if people want it and you're giving.it. A Star wars fans wants to at least be a Padawan.

If you are only letting them start as younglings and sandpeople and the marketing and videos show Late Stage Anakin.... Might not attract a lot of newcomers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Those are stories, not tropes built into the mechanics. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

No, they are mechanics. Fighting Man was based on Conan, Ranger was based on Aragorn, cleric was based on Van Helising, magic user was based on Doctor Strange and thief was based on Grey Mouser. This is why thieves get to use scrolls for example - Grey Mouser does. The inspiration characters are baked into the class mechanics.

None of the D&D classes are based on ordinary people.

 

[Maxperson]

I still prefer zero to hero. My current PCs are a park ranger, an account who just became a psychic, a mechanic, and a rodeo clown (and a robot bartender, to be fair). None of them are particularly heroic or any kind of warrior by nature, just regular folks that happened to be in a hotel bar when the world ended.

That sounds like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Rod Serling: "A park ranger, an accountant who can read minds, a car mechanic, a rodeo clown and a robot bartender. Just some regular folks who happened to be in a hotel bar when the world ended. Only to find themselves in........................the Twilight Zone."