D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[EzekielRaiden]

You're trying to solve a problem that does not exists for most people. There are already novice levels, they're levels 1-4, and most people like playing them. You don't so you want to put them into some optional basket, so that people would ignore them like you want. But the real issue is not the structure of the game, it is that you want to play the game differently than how most other people want to. If a lot of people shared your preferences, they would already skip low levels, but they don't. (Or if they do, then you don't have a problem to solve.)

But I think we've had this exact same discussion before already.

Since I know you're so fond of asking this of me: Any citations on that? The "most people" specifically wanting to play this way?

I will also note that (a) you've completely dismissed my question of what is forcing anyone to do anything, and (b) you've completely ignored my repeated specific statements that these rules be front-and-center and well-made, so that while they might be optional, anyone who really wants them has them.

So....I'm kinda confused as to why you would say the things you said, only to then do absolutely nothing to defend them.

I am quite convinced that the issue is the structure of the game. System matters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since I know you're so fond of asking this of me: Any citations on that? The "most people" specifically wanting to play this way?

That they do so. (And that seems to match your experience.) And an option to start at a higher level exists for those who want that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That they do so. (And that seems to match your experience.) And an option to start at a higher level exists for those who want that.

So people always and exclusively do things because they like 100% of the characteristics about that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So people always and exclusively do things because they like 100% of the characteristics about that?

Not necessarily, but this case is very simple. An option to start at higher level is easy, obvious and doesn't have a costs or drawbacks. If people do not utilise that, then that to me rather strongly implies that they do not want to.

 

[dave2008]

The original thing I replied to specifically spoke of someone talking about how much fun a class would be once you reach level 7.

You are speaking of a completely different kind of person, and thus of course I wasn't talking about that.

Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

That's great for you. A lot of people--I would argue most people--do not find such a glacially slow pace of levelling particularly fun

We don't generally derive fun from leveling at all. We derive fun from playing the game. Doesn't matter the level to us.

Awesome! I would never want to play at your table, but I'm glad you've found stuff you like.

Not me really, but my group. It is how my players want to play so I accommodate them. I prefer epic levels (over level 20) myself.

Personally, I would very much prefer that the game actually include "Novice Level" rules, so that you can have your nigh-infinitely-spooled-out "zero-to-slightly-more-than-zero" experience, without forcing me to be trapped in that experience for months or years on end. With well-crafted, front-and-center "Novice Level" rules, you could have an experience actually designed to do what you want, for just about as long as you could possibly want (especially if it includes 13A-style "incremental advance" rules)...and nobody who doesn't want that experience ever has to touch it. Literally a win for everyone involved except the initial design team, who would have slightly more design workload, something I'm quite okay with.


In my experience, well over 95% of all DMs refuse to ever start at anything other than level 1. Because it's level 1. 1 is where you start. It's the first number. That's what 1st means. It's first. So you should always start at 1st level. Fragile characters? Nahhh, everything will be fiiiiine, they assure me. (Oops, TPK. Again.) Inability to address common problems? JUST BE CLEVER, 4HEAD! Hoping to actually see some of the stronger spells or magic items or monsters or allies? No no no, you haven't earned that yet!!! JUST WAIT ANOTHER THREE YEARS.

I have beaten my head against this wall so many times, I've got scars on top of scars on top of scars. It never, ever changes, and for folks like me who feel absolutely trapped by this low-level experience and are DESPERATE to get out, it's hard to communicate exactly how infuriated I am by all this--and how much it makes me loathe playing 5e in most cases.

100% of DMs in me experience are accommodating to their players wishes. Heck, WotC makes it easy by starting a lot of adventures at level 3-5. I know my experience is unique, but so is yours. I do feel for you and your experience, but I have not shared it and I would not want novice levels to be a separate supplement. I could see some guidance in the DMG about starting games at different levels, but I like how 5e does, but wish they included 0 level too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

We don't generally derive fun from leveling at all. We derive fun from playing the game. Doesn't matter the level to us.

Not me really, but my group. It is how my players want to play so I accommodate them. I prefer epic levels (over level 20) myself.


100% of DMs in me experience are accommodating to their players wishes. Heck, WotC makes it easy by starting a lot of adventures at level 3-5. I know my experience is unique, but so is yours. I do feel for you and your experience, but I have not shared it and I would not want novice levels to be a separate supplement. I could see some guidance in the DMG about starting games at different levels, but I like how 5e does, but wish they included 0 level too.

I never said supplement.

I want them to be in the DMG or PHB.

To include a "0 level" in the DMG would be about a third of what I'm asking for. The other two thirds would be to:

(1) Make the rules for that "0 level" robust enough that they can cover a spread of different possibilities, all the way from "you have nothing but raw ability scores, no racial stats, no class, no proficiency, nothing" to "you're almost a 1st-level character." This provides a spectrum of options. It would be especially nice if they came with tools to help with the squishiness that such characters might face, so that an experienced DM could use the same rules for introducing brand-new players without automatically putting those players in a meatgrinder as a consequence.
and
(2) Include "incremental advance" rules in the style of 13A. If you're unfamiliar with the system, you basically can pick up just one tiny piece of a higher character level: maybe a feat, maybe a ki point, maybe a spell slot, etc. You can't take flat attack or defense bonuses, but otherwise, the world is your oyster. Such rules make it extremely easy to spread out character advancement nearly as long as you might want, since you can now get (say) 1/10th of a level every few sessions, so you're still getting a feeling of clear progress even while the actual changes only come very, very slowly.

13A included the latter rules in its single core book. While I'm aware that it isn't trivial to design rules, I can't imagine the above things taking more than 10 pages in total (and even that sounds terribly profligate). Yet including them would be incredibly useful to a wide variety of players--old hands and neophytes alike.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not necessarily, but this case is very simple. An option to start at higher level is easy, obvious and doesn't have a costs or drawbacks. If people do not utilise that, then that to me rather strongly implies that they do not want to.

Oooooor, as I said, they see it in the most simple terms possible: 1 is first. It is literally "1st." Hence, that's where you should always start.

I have had this discussion with numerous different DMs. Every single one of them has made an argument that boiled down to that, plus (in the better cases) some variation of "I appreciate your feedback, but I'm not going to listen to it, and going to do what I'm certain is best."

Even when it demonstrably wasn't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oooooor, as I said, they see it in the most simple terms possible: 1 is first. It is literally "1st." Hence, that's where you should always start.

I have had this discussion with numerous different DMs. Every single one of them has made an argument that boiled down to that, plus (in the better cases) some variation of "I appreciate your feedback, but I'm not going to listen to it, and going to do what I'm certain is best."

Even when it demonstrably wasn't.

It seems rather arrogant to assume that people would not understand what they want, and you would understand their needs better. Nor I believe the negative experiences of low levels are common. I don't recall many people here besides you complaining about them, and people complain about everything here. This, as they say, seems to be "a you problem."

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're trying to solve a problem that does not exists for most people. There are already novice levels, they're levels 1-4, and most people like playing them. You don't so you want to put them into some optional basket, so that people would ignore them like you want. But the real issue is not the structure of the game, it is that you want to play the game differently than how most other people want to. If a lot of people shared your preferences, they would already skip low levels, but they don't. (Or if they do, then you don't have a problem to solve.)

But I think we've had this exact same discussion before already.

Perhaps not an answer to the "most" people, but I will throw my own anecdote into the hat. I actually spent a good most of a year trying to get an online game where I could playtest the One DnD Rogue after the Cunning Strikes were revealed.

Every game had to start at level 1. Most died there. One of them I was power leveled to level three (DM gave me two levels back to back)... where the game promptly petered out and died before I could reach level 4.

My long term online group did a one shot where we started at level 5... but it was a horror one-shot and the only fight we had had no good targets to test the ability on. So, with over a year of attempting... I didn't get a single character to level 5 and have a fight to test the ability.

Sure sure, anecdote, doesn't disprove "most", ect ect. Just wanted to put out the story.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing I think we need to avoid altogether in dnd is something like you pick a class and then the DM starts going on and on about how much fun you will have at 7th level. How do we even know the character will make it there? I would like to be in a place where that assumption doesn't exist and is the furthest from people's minds.

The whole idea of the 1-20 character-build path in 3e kinda torpedoed this idea, as players were de-facto led to expect their characters would last long enough to fulfill that path.

It hasn't got any better since.