D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?
- Thread starter JohnSnow
- Start date
Neurodivergence might explain a lot of arguments on ENworld. I suspect many, many of us are on the spectrum, which might explain our obsession with D&D in general and specific arguments about it.
I’m Gen X, so “my mom had me tested” is not true for me. But consistent elementary school report cards saying smartest kid in the class but way behind socially, I’m smart enough to guess how that would be labeled nowadays.
I’m Gen X, so “my mom had me tested” is not true for me. But consistent elementary school report cards saying smartest kid in the class but way behind socially, I’m smart enough to guess how that would be labeled nowadays.
dave2008
Legend
I am not aware of all your posts by a long shot. Maybe I have come across you suggestion for this, but I don't remember it. Do care to elaborate?
Simply saying Novice levels and incremental advance(ment?) rules does really mean anything. I mean 5e has novice levels* and incremental advancement, but we know that doesn't work for you. So, what do mean and do you really believe one solution will work for all?
*I have seen people say 5e has to many novice levels and some say it has not enough. Not sure how to bridge that divide.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
5e does not have novice levels. It has two regular levels which have been saddled with needing to serve three different masters (OSR players who want a brutal, low-competence, minimalist experience; brand-new players who don't know what they're doing and need a gentle introduction; and simulationist players who want to grow naturalistically).
Actual "novice level" rules would be, effectively, levels "between" nothing at all and a 1st-level character. So, for instance, maybe you have at rock bottom 8's in all stats, 1 hit point (and no hit dice), zero proficiencies, no background, no species, no feats, nothing else. Obviously I haven't tested this in any way, so please don't rip it apart by mechanical analysis; the point is simply to illustrate, not to prescribe a specific fixed solution.
Novice levels would thus provide a structured framework for building up from this absolute rock-bottom minimal character, slowly filling in until, eventually, you build up to finally being an actual 1st level character. "Structured", however, does not mean "perfectly dot-by-dot spelled out with zero deviation". Novice level rules, if well-structured, could very easily be bent in multiple directions:
- OSR-style, you start out with pretty much just the above. Maybe everyone starts out with the Human species package, but otherwise completely blank. Gain (say) 200 experience, and you get one "novice level"--meaning, you pick up one single additional piece. Maybe you assign your Strength a high score for that level. Another 200 XP, you learn you have magic--perhaps divine magic, setting you on a course toward a melee caster like Paladin or Druid. By spooling these bits out slowly over a long period of time, a character might take six months before they finally have reached "first level" and thus start moving forward by regular level rules (but see below re: incremental advancement).
- Tutorial Adventure mode. WotC could use these rules to make those "choose your own adventure"-style structured hooks into an actual, "learn to play" process, which can then let players explore their choices before locking into something. So maybe you start out with 1st-level-character HP and HD (presumably d8, since that's pretty much "average" HP now), but no species and no other features, 10s in all stats. Present it as an amnesiac recovering their memory, trying skills to see if they can, that sort of thing. If monster-design stuff is made compatible with the system for novice-level rules, you can even have combat and real challenge, all while still being focused on building up the skills through play, rather than merely through being talked at by your DM or reading lines on a page.
- Traveller-like character creation. A character creation method you play through, rather than one you just crunch through before you can start playing proper. Character naturally builds up to a set of skills, and then the closest-fitting class is chosen once you've hit a critical mass and reached 1st level. Allows for players to express themselves and to explore the natural growth of a character responding to their environment, rather than having to artificially declare all this stuff about who they were and where they went and what they did etc., etc. that many simulationist fans dislike so strongly.
Under this paradigm, a 1st level character does in fact have a little experience under their belt. They might still be green, but they aren't completely untested. That's what novice levels are intended to capture. So you would be choosing things like your "subclass" (if we preserve such things) at 1st level, and folks who desire to build up to that would instead start somewhere in the novice level rules.
"Incremental advancement" is a similar but distinct thing, taken directly from 13th Age (a game that has many very very good design ideas). TL;DR: Instead of gaining a full level, you can pick just one benefit to enjoy as if you were a higher level--and you can do this repeatedly, getting just a little morsel here, a little morsel there. In 5e terms, let's use a Sorcerer as a pretty good example. So, maybe for your first incremental advance, you pick up a Sorcery point (since those are normally keyed to your level, once you get the feature). Second advance, you pick up another spell known. Third, maybe you're about to hit level 4 so you pick up a feat or ability score increases. Or maybe you increase your proficiency score 'cause you'll get that bonus at your next level. Etc.
By having incremental advance rules, DMs can choose to spool out the levelling process almost as long as they like, while still giving their players tangible, obvious progression. Characters aren't stuck, utterly unchanged for 5 months and then suddenly getting a spurt of growth: instead, they slowly creep up to that, getting a bennie here, a bennie there until finally they cross the threshold.
Between the two, it is (at least in principle) entirely possible to construct a game, including reasonable threats and well-built encounter-design methods, which actively supports both the brutally-hard, outright-zero-to-hero, slow-methodical-growth experience that OSR fans love, and the baseline-competence, adventurer-to-legend, snappy-progress experience that contemporary fans love, without either side being treated as lesser or deprecated or inferior. Indeed, both sides can even get into dialogue with each other, possibly sharing some of the good side of their experience with the other, who might not otherwise have considered it.
Given these rules need to be treated with equal respect as any other approach to play, they obviously need to be put front-and-center, and their usage needs to be truly supported, meaning, they aren't just a fire-and-forget, they get ongoing attention and new content over time. I am quite serious when I say that, if I were in charge of developing 6e, making sure players who use these rules never feel sidelined would be a top priority, even though I personally have negative interest in ever using these rules myself.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Nothing to do with "forced"; much more to do with how a player reacts when their character dies or something else awful happens to it, be it through poor play or sheer bad luck or whatever. (note that I'm assuming a non-malicious DM here; a malicious or vindictive DM is its own problem requiring a different discussion)
I've played with and DMed a lot of "good sports" who take such things in stride and carry on. I've also played with and DMed (fortunately not as many!) some poor sports who when bad things happened would pout or throw dice or storm out or maybe even all three.
I have exactly zero use for or tolerance of the latter. I'd really like to think this isn't a controversial position; if it is, we've (as in, far more than just the gaming community) got bigger problems.
I also, perhaps more controversially, have zero use for a system or table wherein character death and other bad things by design cannot happen (or cannot happen without player consent); such things seem to me to exist in order to cater to the poor sports, and I don't see that sort of attitude as something to be in any way supported or encouraged.
I'm failing to see the connection between new DM slip-ups and fudging.
I think I've either lost the point here or you're misinterpreting what I wrote (the latter always possible as I'm not always the best at making myself clear).
And I'm saying the former, not the latter.
Then again, how many supervised flight hours does a trainee pilot have to put in before being allowed to fly alone, as mandated by regulations? Most DMs don't get much if any training at it, either formal or informal, other than through paying attention to how their existing DM does it; and the various DMGs' advice all put together - while well-meaning - still falls rather short of the mark. Which means the only avenue left is a simple equation: [trial + error + persistence].
TheMercile
Villager
On the topic of learning to DM/learning to play for new folks... I've seen a lot of people say the most recent Pathfinder starter box is the best of the best for people learning the ropes of an RPG. I think they might be right. Now personally, after having looked over the rules and seen discussions and such, I might guess Pathfinder 2e has moved a little too far from D&D for my tastes. But it does have some really cool basic options for martial/melee characters during tactical battles. That starter box was so juicy, I went ahead and picked it up for some random weekend when we want to change things up.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
You don’t like spells?! Well that was a shocker I wouldn’t have expected!
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Curious what makes the 5e skills boring to you compared to PF?
Belen
Legend
i think 5e skills are boring too. I preferred 3e/PF1e system. PCs generally had more skills and granularity and I like assigning points. They also grew better. I dislike the flat prof bonus for skills in 5e.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
That is what I guessed, but it seems so removed from play that I wouldn’t have described as boring. Skills function pretty much the same, you just have more/ more granularity in 3e/PF which to me is more boring in play. I find free wheeling more fun then strict structure. But I understand that is my fun, not yours.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Why Combat is a Fail State - Blog and Thoughts
