Search results

I would say that there is the potential for going further outside your comfort zone, but there's exactly equal potential to go not even the slightest bit outside. Conversely, with a chosen character, yes you can always choose to be something completely inside your comfort zone...but you can...

Said comedically, but yes, exactly. I don't really have much interest in one-shots. I vastly prefer campaigns intended to go long-haul.

No. That would make me incredibly anxious. It would spoil the experience. I cannot do that.

No, it isn't. You have to actually show why it is. Declaring it so does not make it so. The definitions available to me literally disagree. Like they literally specifically call out that gambling means reckless risk for a possible high payout and a likely loss. No. You are taking a very small...

I don't really see the "improve" part. Stress, perhaps, but nothing about a random thing guarantees you are improving any more than playing something chosen. Indeed, there's an an argument a chosen one is more effective, since you can elect to specifically choose something you aren't comfortable...

I can only base my conclusions on what evidence I have actually seen. The actual evidence I have seen, in my personal life, has been so massively, exclusively against the very idea of starting at any level other than 1st, that games which do so are almost unheard of.

I cannot do that. It's just not how my brain works. The only way that could happen would be if I were given a system I knew absolutely nothing about, at all...and I would never try to create a character in a completely unknown system without reading its rules carefully first.

Sure, I see the appeal. Hence why I think it should be an option, but signposted for its consequences.

While that may be true, for me that is simply not feasible. The instant I think about character creation, I am already selecting class or race options in my mind. There literally isn't any moment where I am thinking "you know, a character would be cool" without having a concept I want to explore.

This would be why I don't like random generation for character creation then--because yes, I do agree that's gambling, while hit rolls aren't. I have even called rolled stats "ability roulette" on this very forum. That's just one recent example, I've used that exact phrase something like ten times.

I included the "...and would never do so" option for a reason. Your opinion, while not one I share, is a valid answer to the question.

You keep saying this, but it keeps not being true. The dice do not make it a gamble. They make things uncertain. There is an ENORMOUS difference between these things. And it is that very difference which explains why the idea of "take 10" or "you just can't do that" (or "you just succeed")...

Well, we need one non-positive level: level 0. "Level 0" contains everything from "literally has the bare minimum to exist as a mechanically-relevant being" to "practically an actual character but missing a single relatively important piece."

Sure. I applied for several such games. Never got accepted.

My point was that I was focused on those things that aren't WotC's fault--unless WotC is somehow making GMs start their homebrew games at 1st level.

I have no idea whether they are or aren't, but by your own arguments they aren't? Like...you literally just blamed the fact this doesn't happen on WotC not putting out adventures that start at higher levels...?????

Exactly what it says on the tin. 5e has various reasons--formally-recognized or not--for starting at levels other than 1st. Do you? Have you? Would you? As noted, you cannot change your vote, so only vote for something you're sure of. I have tried to be completely impartial and cover as many...

If people were exclusively running canned adventures, I would agree. I specifically avoided games using pre-written adventures. I wanted to see what GMs were doing. I found all of two games starting at higher level, and only got into one of them (which, of course, died an early death, as I...

You'll never get GMs saying that, is what I mean. I mean, this is obviously the loose squishy kind of "never" where there are obviously exceptions. But they're just that. Exceptions. Extremely overwhelmingly rare exceptions.

I am well convinced that no amount of "guiding" will ever achieve this effect. The grammar of the English language is simply too strong. First is first is first is first is first is first. You'll simply never convince people to do anything else. If third level is too high for people to start...