Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[Lanefan]

But why are the players controlling them? Why are adventurers/heroes the ones that are focused on? Why is the game adventurers going into dungeons to kill monsters and take their stuff? Why aren’t the PCs playing farmers, or blacksmiths, or reigning monarchs?

That's just it: the PCs should, before their first adventure, be farmers and blacksmiths and (rarely!) reigning monarchs; and be defined more by that than by their nascent class which they're only just starting in.

Why is it considered bad form in the hobby to make a character that doesn’t want to adventure and resists every quest?

Metagame dynamics, mostly. Not the characters' fault.

The characters in the party can’t just be anyone. They specifically need a reason for adventuring.

They certainly can be just anyone, and the "reason for adventuring" can be as simple as the adventure comes to them whether they like it or not; and there's a hundred different ways (some of which aren't even railroads!) to set this paradigm up as the start of a campaign if so desired.

If the camera was focused on just any random person in the D&D world, it wouldn’t work as a D&D game.

The way I see it, the character you just rolled up was and still is a random person in that world, though perhaps a bit more skilled than most in some way, that for some reason we're going to pay attention to for a while.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why are the players controlling them? Why are adventurers/heroes the ones that are focused on? Why is the game adventurers going into dungeons to kill monsters and take their stuff? Why aren’t the PCs playing farmers, or blacksmiths, or reigning monarchs? Why is it considered bad form in the hobby to make a character that doesn’t want to adventure and resists every quest?

The characters in the party can’t just be anyone. They specifically need a reason for adventuring. If the camera was focused on just any random person in the D&D world, it wouldn’t work as a D&D game.

Because the players want to play people doing those things. It’s (presumably) fun for them to play it out.

That's all. Some players enjoy depicting their PCs building fortresses, or leading armies, or running an inn, or engaging in commerce, or ruling a kingdom and engaging in politics. All of those things are exactly as valid as "adventuring" in the sense you mean, and all of those things have been depicted (with rules no less) in some version of D&D or a game based on it.

It's not about who the specific PCs are IMO and IME. It's about what a particular group of players (including the DM) want to point the camera at today.

 

[Lanefan]

I always go with: Commoners are 0 Level no class characters.

I have a 0th level between commoner and 1st level, to account for all sorts of common-trope NPCs such as typical gate guards who have a bit of training but aren't yet 1st level.

Most backgrounds mention that your character has some sort of experience. You're an soldier. You saved your village. You've had schooling.

Which in my view explains why you're not starting as a commoner or 0th level. But up to now all you've done is training or study, no field work.

By the by, I've always liked the idea that a god has just one paladin running around at any given time. Like Buffy.

So if I want to play a Paladin to Thor I have to first check to see there's no other Thor Paladins out there and kill them if there are?

Yikes.

 

[Velderan]

Even doing all 3 with the whole group together is basically walking and talking until you get to the overturned cart where you have a fight. It could all be done on one road as you get to the first town.

Walk
Divine character have a vision and get their powers!
Walk
Arcane PCs meet a real Tower Wizard and do a simple test!
Walk
Fight!
Walk
Enter Town.


2 of the 3 Prelude is just talking and making a check or 2.

Which is fine but that's all they do for 1 whole level. And Level 2 is basically the same thing but set in town instead of on a road.

Again, that's fine. It just feels really cheap and for me feels like I'm shorting my players of an experience.

The adventure could have just started in the town and it gets attacked. Make level 3 characters. And yeah as a DM i can do that. but I paid for the whole adventure.

It just feels cheap to not have the real adventure start until like level 5.

Maybe it's great for groups that like to do "shopping episodes" for a whole a session but I'm here to save the world.

IDK

Again, 5e has always had quick level ups for the first couple of levels. I am just not sure why you seem surprised the published adventures largely reflect the exp tables in the book by having the first 2 levels be something you can do in 1-2 sessions.

If I was running the mini-scenarios I would be tempted to make them be a bit longer to help flesh out the world just a bit better, but my guess is they kept them short to limit the amount of time players not involved in the deity or High Sorcery scenarios spent twiddling their thumbs while they sat there waiting to play. There's a reason I hated having a decker in my Shadowrun 2e games back in the day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The game happens because we focus on this particular party. My default (and, I think, the game's default assumption) is that they're not the only adventurers in the setting; there's other adventurers out there doing things and gaining levels, and people can gain levels more slowly without adventuring (thus explaining levelled NPCs).

In a set-up like default 5e where the early levels come thick and fast, yes; over the years these people maybe would gain some levels in a simple "class" such as fighter or assassin. (one could argue "serial killer" is close enough to an adventuring profession to be considered an adventurer anyway).

A better example is the military "lifer" or long-time street thief. To me, these people should be slowly gaining levels as they go along - a street thief who's been at it for 20 years is highly likely to be more adept at it than someone just starting out and could immediately apply at least some of that learning as an adventurer if so desired. Thus, if a party of PCs wants to recruit a Thief the 6th-level Thief they pick up might have earned all those levels as a street thief and never have done any field adventuring at all.

All of that is the game I play.

 

[Velderan]

By the by, I've always liked the idea that a god has just one paladin running around at any given time. Like Buffy.

I never considered this, but actually like this idea a lot and am probably going to steal it to use someday.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I never understood that question / argument. It is focused on them because they are the PCs, not because they are special. Just like ‘your camera’ is focused on you without you being special (generic you), it’s just recording what you are doing

I am not a character in a game focused around adventuring. D&D characters aren’t born, they’re created to fill a very specific role. If the adventuring party isn’t inherently “special” in some way and the camera could focus on anyone in the setting, why doesn’t it focus on employed workers, nobles, priests, or beggars?

A PC could have formerly been a laborer, or an acolyte/priest, or an urchin, or the scion of a noble house, but they’re not anymore. Somewhere in their background they must cross the threshold and stop being a “standard background NPC” and become an “interesting main character.”

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not a character in a game focused around adventuring. D&D characters aren’t born, they’re created to fill a very specific role. If the adventuring party isn’t inherently “special” in some way and the camera could focus on anyone in the setting, why doesn’t it focus on employed workers, nobles, priests, or beggars?

A PC could have formerly been a laborer, or an acolyte/priest, or an urchin, or the scion of a noble house, but they’re not anymore. Somewhere in their background they must cross the threshold and stop being a “standard background NPC” and become an “interesting main character.”

That is one valid way to interpret RPGs, but far from the only one.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I have a 0th level between commoner and 1st level, to account for all sorts of common-trope NPCs such as typical gate guards who have a bit of training but aren't yet 1st level.

Which in my view explains why you're not starting as a commoner or 0th level. But up to now all you've done is training or study, no field work.

So if I want to play a Paladin to Thor I have to first check to see there's no other Thor Paladins out there and kill them if there are?

Yikes.

I would assume your DM would have you just be THE Paladin of Thor. The Current Slayer.

 

[Scribe]

But why are the players controlling them? Why are adventurers/heroes the ones that are focused on? Why is the game adventurers going into dungeons to kill monsters and take their stuff? Why aren’t the PCs playing farmers, or blacksmiths, or reigning monarchs? Why is it considered bad form in the hobby to make a character that doesn’t want to adventure and resists every quest?

The characters in the party can’t just be anyone. They specifically need a reason for adventuring. If the camera was focused on just any random person in the D&D world, it wouldn’t work as a D&D game.

Because its an Elf Game, that has roots in going out there to the wilderness, killing what is there, and taking the stuff you find.