D&D General Critique My Funnel Rules for D&D5E 2024

[FrogReaver]

It's been 20 years since I played any kind of D&D (or D&D derivatives), but I've recently been roped into running a few game nights for some old buddies. I thought I would short-circuit the (potentially) time-consuming process of character generation, and try a variation of the Dungeon Crawl Classics "funnel" concept.

I'm generating approx. 20 0-level characters, using the approach outlined below. Each PC is written up on an index card. Players take a card at random, and play that character until they die, or complete the scenario.



I'm toying between having Proficiency bonus be +0, to reflect just how weak a 0-level character is, versus making it +1 so having proficiency in a particular skill actually makes a difference. 0-level characters are supposed to be weak, and plenty of character death is part of the fun of the funnel concept. That said, without a proficiency bonus, some backgrounds and species end up much weaker than others -- eg, Magic Initiate becomes quite useful, but being a scribe maybe not so much. But maybe that's ok? It'll all even out in the end.

At the end of the funnel, players get to keep the character they are currently playing. There follows a period of in-game downtime, where players can 'uplift' their characters to a 1st level class of their choice. Apply all the usual bonuses and abilities that come with being 1st level, uplift their hit points, increase proficiency, and so forth. If they are super-unhappy with the character they end up with, they can randomly choose an index card if any remain. But they can only do this once.

We all grew up playing old-school D&D, with 3d6-straight for chargen. I loved the variety you tended to get around the game table -- fighters weren't always the strongest, wizards weren't always the smartest, etc. But bad luck could be kinda brutal. And 1e/2e had pre-requisites that would cut off a lot of class options. I feel like this approach gives the variety of randomness, remains reasonably fair, and still gives players plenty of choices to make. I'm hoping it speeds up the first session, and reduces the min-maxers a bit.

Like I said, it's been 20 years since I've played any D&D. I completely skipped 3.5e, 4e, and 5e 2014. In fact, 5e 2024 is the first time I've bought any RPG books in maybe 15 years. So I'd appreciate any sage feedback.

My biggest questions:

1. What happens later in the campaign if a PC dies?
2. 5e typically makes it much harder for a PC to die, so alternatively, what happens if the player doesn't really like the character he is stuck with for a year long campaign and he never gets to roll a new one? And so if that's avoided later, then outside players being on board with embracing the randomness, heroic suicide seems to be what the rules likely actually push for.
3. Depending on the answers above, what prevents a player from just suiciding a character after the funnel until he gets 1 he is happy with?

IMO. Funnel type play is fine if everyone is on board, but in the 5e context, not many people are going to be happy playing a level 0 or level 1 character beside level 5 characters (and it's not like such a character gets to live except by the mercy of a benevolent DM anyways). IMO, without players fully committed to funnel style random PC's and playing with what they get, it seems the rules most like incentivize heroic suicide to maximize player happiness. It's just a different kind of min-maxing than traditional character build min-maxing.

Not saying you shouldn't do this, just make sure the players are on board. My group would be good the doing this funnel style thing occasionally in the 5e context.

 

[Fattycat]

My biggest questions:

1. What happens later in the campaign if a PC dies?
2. 5e typically makes it much harder for a PC to die, so alternatively, what happens if the player doesn't really like the character he is stuck with for a year long campaign and he never gets to roll a new one? And so if that's avoided later, then outside players being on board with embracing the randomness, heroic suicide seems to be what the rules likely actually push for.
3. Depending on the answers above, what prevents a player from just suiciding a character after the funnel until he gets 1 he is happy with?

The fact that we are grown-ups? In the early days of D&D it was pretty common when players lost a character in the middle of a dungeon crawl that they'd just start playing one of the hirelings. No-one had a hissy fit. You're basically describing the equivalent of someone flipping the board over because they are losing the game.

Besides, what's to stop a player becoming unhappy with a character they 100% made themselves? I mean, it's entirely possible you create a character you think you want, get to level 5 or somesuch and realise it's just not happening for you.

What then?

Like I said... we're grown-ups. We use our words and we work something out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In the early days of D&D it was pretty common when players lost a character in the middle of a dungeon crawl that they'd just start playing one of the hirelings. No-one had a hissy fit. You're basically describing the equivalent of someone flipping the board over because they are losing the game.

Frankly, the D&D in those games was a complely different game to 5e.

For example, hirelings. It was easy to run additional characters in 1st edition because there were a lot less combat options, no reactions or bonus actions, so every turn was resolved quickly. In 5e every turn takes much longer so allied NPCs really slow the game down. Ergo they are usually avoided.

Another point: 5e character creation is far more complex and time consuming that the 2 minutes it required to roll up a new character in 1st edition, thus players are far more invested in them.

If you want to try running a game like the D&D you remember, you would be advised to use one of the retroclones rather than try and hammer 5e into a 1st edition shaped hole. I believe Shadowdark comes highly recomended.