Okay, but the opinion repeatedly put forward is that the rules were actually bad. As in, they literally didn't work, could not be made to work, and that the fact that that was true was somehow a boon. I dispute this.
OK, everyone has opinions and we often exaggerate them for emphasis. I don't think such comments are intended to be taken literally.
...why would anyone ever look "for all the answers in the rules"? Written rules are a human creation. They are by definition imperfect. They are by definition not capable of giving every answer. Anyone who has that view is, inherently, wrong and always will be. We can certainly do better, and it is often wise to check (good, serious, well-written) rules to see if you've missed something or to get a better understanding of the purpose and goal.
That is a strawman. That is not what I was discussing.
IMO, that "certain point of view" is jaundiced to the point of active hostility toward rules. If rules are good, they should fairly consistently provide good results for almost everyone who plays the game. They may--almost surely will--still
Consistency is good only if you like the results. Being consistent doesn't make a rule good, it just makes it well written. An even if a rule is good, that doesn't mean it works for all people and groups.
From a pure design-side consideration: unnecessary inclusion of significant scaling issues, relegating the part of play most actively sought out by players to an area that gets little to no attention, and spending excessive time on a part meant to be moved through quickly by most players except the relative minority that really really loves such levels.
I don't know that to be true and neither do you. I suspect there are fewer people now days who like those levels, but many of the people from my era do like them. I don't have an issue with the game I want to play taking into consideration how I like to play. I can't speak for or know what other people want. I have no data on what other people want. But if I am considering a theoretical 6e, where the question is (form the OP):
" What would your
preferred hypothetical 6E look like?"
I am obviously going to discuss my preferences.
From an aesthetic position: as previously argued GMs will see 1st level as the place absolutely everyone MUST start always no matter what because "it's first" why wouldn't you start at what is first that's why they call it first etc. (a thought process I utterly detest, but which is unfortunately extraordinarily commonplace), because people who enjoy these rules will avoid what they consider "high" levels and that's guaranteed to be classified as such even if the rules explicitly say otherwise, and because the typical perspective for fans is literally "zero to hero", so starting out at "level zero" is in the most literal way possible giving them what they actually want.
See above. I am discussing my preferences as asked to do so in the OP. I have no issue with people starting at level 1 (or any level for that matter).
Nothing "can't" be. Necessity is an irrelevancy when talking about TTRPG design. It's a matter of what achieves goals in productive ways. Novice levels should be designed to be of best use to the people who really really want to use them, which are (a) people introducing brand-new players, who need a gentler introduction that isn't forced upon them every single time they play but is an opt-in possibility for the first time they play, and (b) OSR-style fans who consistently want brutal difficulty, fragile characters, and low mechanical competency.
I can't so you are wrong, but I can't say you are correct. It seems the popularity of OSR and Shadowdark might even suggest the trend is heading the novice / 0-hero direction. I have no hard data, and I don't think you do either, but the number of Kickstarters I see for OSR and Shadowdark suggest to me this is a thriving market.
Regardless, see above. I am discussing my preferences as asked to do so in the OP. Your opinion on what you think people want to play will not sway me. Your experience is different than mine. That doesn't make yours any more valid than mine.
Perhaps I have made you think something too specific by my verbiage? I'm not actually talking about LEVELS, as in like, "At Novice Level A, you definitely always get feature X, and at Novice Level B you definitely always get feature Y" etc. Instead, it is more a loose term for having rules that allow the GM to parcel out the process of going from an absolute bare-minimum, barebones character (as in, "you have... hit points!" levels of ULTIMATE bare minimum) to a proper, full 1st-level character who is a competent adventurer with a little bit of relevant experience (not necessarily specifically adventuring, but implicitly that's the most common option). These rules would then guide how characters pick up the competencies which permit them to go from "I am literally a generic character who lacks any features other than the absolute bare minimum required to be playable at all" to "I am a fully-fleshed-out 1st level character", but by degrees, piecemeal, assembled.
Unfortunately, the accepted term for this sort of thing is "novice levels", even though the system I would create would not at all look like "levels". You are always a level 0 character until you are a level 1 character. It's just that "level 0" is a rich and complex state to be, where you can be (perhaps) moonlighting in different things before you lock features in. Flirting with divine magic for a moment before rejecting it, or whatever.
Yes I know you are not talking about actual levels. I think that is a mistake. I think we should be talking about levels (for a D&D game at least).
Except, as I have specifically and repeatedly said, actual people aren't doing this.
They will ALL start at 1st level. Because it's first. If it weren't the place absolutely everyone were supposed to start, why would they make it first? Isn't "first" the place where things start? Then we're going to start at 1st, because it is first!
I have seen this kind of position--never explicit, but functionally this is the argument being made--over and over and over and over and over and over and over when looking for 5e games. Even though the designers have repeatedly and explicitly said that levels 1 and 2 are meant to be skipped over by groups that already know what they're doing and aren't interested in a gritty difficult start. Doesn't bloody matter what the books say, nor what the creators say, nor what people advise online, none of it bloody matters. The one and only thing that matters is that it is called 1st level, therefore it must, ALWAYS, be first.
That is the utility of novice """"levels"""" (remember, NOT ACTUAL LEVELS, that's just what this kind of thing gets called). It stops people thinking that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE has to start there.
But people actually are doing this. My group has done it (we have started at 1st level, 3rd level, 10th level, and 20th level), official WotC adventures have supported it, games at CONS support it, and people on these forums do it. Your are demonstrable wrong when you say people are not doing it. I have no idea how popular it is, but your experience is not what I have seen as the norm. That doesn't mean what I experience is the norm either. I can't really discuss an unknowable norm, I can only discuss my preferences.
