Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8440192" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Okay...but...that's sort of the whole point. People treat 1st level as the default. The books are pretty clear that 3rd level is <em>supposed</em> to be the default. They could, potentially, be more clear about that. But given it's already a well-known factor, something relatively easy to deduce simply from looking at the structure of the game, and that fact <em>doesn't matter</em> for whether DMs go for it or fail to go for it, is pretty clearly an issue.</p><p></p><p>And, as noted, I have seen this fail <em>multiple times</em>. New DMs, old DMs, new players, old players, doesn't matter. I've seen it happen, repeatedly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, almost certainly, but I've had something of an idea that our tastes are highly divergent for some time now.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My problem with your phrasing here is that you treat death as though it is an unlikely but possible event. It is much more accurate to say that it is a reasonably likely event, <em>especially</em> with the kinds of adventures that DMs tend to throw at their first-level parties. And that's my problem. People <em>think</em> death is an unlikely but possible occurrence, when it is actually a <em>fairly likely</em> occurrence unless both they and their DMs guard against it, something the books <em>do not tell you to do</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is reflecting a rather biased view of history. It's another aspect of the fundamental change in how people approached D&D between the "everyone learned from Gygax, or a chain connecting back to Gygax" period and the "people started learning it on their own."</p><p></p><p>Stuff like Critical Role or The Adventure Zone is wildly popular because it captures what a ton of players want: a story-heavy exploration of several characters, loosely analogous to watching a TV show, except that it's much heavier on imagined scenery and narration than on CGI and makeup. You can't explore a character that dies in the first episode, and sudden and irretrievable death tends to be much more frustrating than challenging in this context. It's basically inarguable at this point that that's where player opinion has drifted since the early days of D&D, and making it so that the <em>expected</em> starting point is VERY BAD at supporting that desire is not a good design decision.</p><p></p><p>Also, pulling this out of my above post so you can respond separately:</p><p>[SPOILER="Quotes from the PHB about various classes"]I want to refer back to the description in the fighter class, of what a fighter both isn't, and is (emphasis added): "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. <em>Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.</em>"</p><p></p><p>Veterans, officers, knights. These are the people that are <em>good enough</em> to be Fighters. Even a 1st-level fighter is supposed to be <em>more</em> than just a random city watch member, village militiaman, or soldier in the royal army. Having "basic" combat knowledge isn't enough, and being "relatively untrained" is definitely not enough. With the books saying things like this, why on earth would DMs (let alone players) think that 1st level is supposed to be rough-hewn greenhorns who are supposed to run at the first sign of serious trouble?</p><p></p><p>Or consider the equivalent blurb from the cleric: "Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.</p><p>When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it. Pursuing the goals of the gods often involves braving dangers beyond the walls of civilization, smiting evil or seeking holy relics in ancient tombs. Many clerics are expected to protect their deities' worshipers, which can mean fighting rampaging orcs, negotiating peace between warring nations, or sealing a portal that would allow a demon prince to enter the world."</p><p>Again, this does not bespeak of a fragile priest just learning the arts of combat. It specifically separates the cleric from ordinary non-combat priests, from folks who don't engage in powerful (non-ritualized) magic, nor martial prowess. The cleric is presented as someone who's already kicking butt and taking names, no matter what level they are. Obviously some of the examples are aspirational (the portal-sealing example), but others are presented very generically ("seeking holy relics in ancient tombs.")</p><p></p><p>Even the Wizard, very much the most fragile of classes (before subclass anyway), is specifically spoken of as having <em>completed</em> an enormous amount of learning. Emphasis added: "...these surface components barely hint at <em>the expertise gained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study</em>." Or, just a bit later, "Wizards' lives are seldom mundane. The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse. [...] But the lure of knowledge and power calls even the most unadventurous wizards out of the safety of their libraries and laboratories and into crumbling ruins and lost cities."[/SPOILER]</p><p></p><p>To sum up: The books don't present 1st level as the difficult, dangerous experience it is. They don't give any hint that 1st-level characters are supposed to be wet-behind-the-ears novices, untested and barely trained. In fact, the books seem to go out of their way to indicate that that is the <em>opposite</em> of true, that characters have months, years, maybe even decades of training and education before they begin their adventures. I certainly agree that it <em>doesn't</em> say you're an automatic badass hero, who shoots aliens and doesn't afraid of anything, but it absolutely contradicts the notion that a 1st-level character is a clear and distinct novice...despite "you're a novice, try not to die" being reasonably accurate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8440192, member: 6790260"] Okay...but...that's sort of the whole point. People treat 1st level as the default. The books are pretty clear that 3rd level is [I]supposed[/I] to be the default. They could, potentially, be more clear about that. But given it's already a well-known factor, something relatively easy to deduce simply from looking at the structure of the game, and that fact [I]doesn't matter[/I] for whether DMs go for it or fail to go for it, is pretty clearly an issue. And, as noted, I have seen this fail [I]multiple times[/I]. New DMs, old DMs, new players, old players, doesn't matter. I've seen it happen, repeatedly. Oh, almost certainly, but I've had something of an idea that our tastes are highly divergent for some time now. My problem with your phrasing here is that you treat death as though it is an unlikely but possible event. It is much more accurate to say that it is a reasonably likely event, [I]especially[/I] with the kinds of adventures that DMs tend to throw at their first-level parties. And that's my problem. People [I]think[/I] death is an unlikely but possible occurrence, when it is actually a [I]fairly likely[/I] occurrence unless both they and their DMs guard against it, something the books [I]do not tell you to do[/I]. I think this is reflecting a rather biased view of history. It's another aspect of the fundamental change in how people approached D&D between the "everyone learned from Gygax, or a chain connecting back to Gygax" period and the "people started learning it on their own." Stuff like Critical Role or The Adventure Zone is wildly popular because it captures what a ton of players want: a story-heavy exploration of several characters, loosely analogous to watching a TV show, except that it's much heavier on imagined scenery and narration than on CGI and makeup. You can't explore a character that dies in the first episode, and sudden and irretrievable death tends to be much more frustrating than challenging in this context. It's basically inarguable at this point that that's where player opinion has drifted since the early days of D&D, and making it so that the [I]expected[/I] starting point is VERY BAD at supporting that desire is not a good design decision. Also, pulling this out of my above post so you can respond separately: [SPOILER="Quotes from the PHB about various classes"]I want to refer back to the description in the fighter class, of what a fighter both isn't, and is (emphasis added): "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. [I]Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.[/I]" Veterans, officers, knights. These are the people that are [I]good enough[/I] to be Fighters. Even a 1st-level fighter is supposed to be [I]more[/I] than just a random city watch member, village militiaman, or soldier in the royal army. Having "basic" combat knowledge isn't enough, and being "relatively untrained" is definitely not enough. With the books saying things like this, why on earth would DMs (let alone players) think that 1st level is supposed to be rough-hewn greenhorns who are supposed to run at the first sign of serious trouble? Or consider the equivalent blurb from the cleric: "Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies. When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it. Pursuing the goals of the gods often involves braving dangers beyond the walls of civilization, smiting evil or seeking holy relics in ancient tombs. Many clerics are expected to protect their deities' worshipers, which can mean fighting rampaging orcs, negotiating peace between warring nations, or sealing a portal that would allow a demon prince to enter the world." Again, this does not bespeak of a fragile priest just learning the arts of combat. It specifically separates the cleric from ordinary non-combat priests, from folks who don't engage in powerful (non-ritualized) magic, nor martial prowess. The cleric is presented as someone who's already kicking butt and taking names, no matter what level they are. Obviously some of the examples are aspirational (the portal-sealing example), but others are presented very generically ("seeking holy relics in ancient tombs.") Even the Wizard, very much the most fragile of classes (before subclass anyway), is specifically spoken of as having [I]completed[/I] an enormous amount of learning. Emphasis added: "...these surface components barely hint at [I]the expertise gained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study[/I]." Or, just a bit later, "Wizards' lives are seldom mundane. The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse. [...] But the lure of knowledge and power calls even the most unadventurous wizards out of the safety of their libraries and laboratories and into crumbling ruins and lost cities."[/SPOILER] To sum up: The books don't present 1st level as the difficult, dangerous experience it is. They don't give any hint that 1st-level characters are supposed to be wet-behind-the-ears novices, untested and barely trained. In fact, the books seem to go out of their way to indicate that that is the [I]opposite[/I] of true, that characters have months, years, maybe even decades of training and education before they begin their adventures. I certainly agree that it [I]doesn't[/I] say you're an automatic badass hero, who shoots aliens and doesn't afraid of anything, but it absolutely contradicts the notion that a 1st-level character is a clear and distinct novice...despite "you're a novice, try not to die" being reasonably accurate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently
Top