D&D is not a supers game.

[Steely_Dan]

The starting point has no effect on that.

Of course it does.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As someone else said, I don't see how one is harder then the other.

But I think it's a serious design flaw from the point of teachability to have the game start at a 1st level that will provide an unsatisfying play experience. Because every new player is going to begin at level 1. It's a natural and default starting point - if you weren't meant to start there, why would it be labelled "first"?

Its not unsatisfying to me. And I'm not the only one who feels like this.

You are not a new player.

But we all were, once.

Considering my first ever PC died- last man standing in a long, standard dungeon crawl (and still low-level)- I have to say that I'm with TrippyHippy- my view of what is "unsatisfying" or "flawed" clearly differs from pemerton's & Dannager's. Having experienced what I expererienced, I can say that the old style design can definitely deliver a satisfying play experience, "will" and "flawed" assumes something that is simply not true- that we all interact with the rules in the same emotional way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Of course it does.

Unless you mean starting at the highest level possible, I don't know what you mean. If you start at third level, when you reach ninth level, you've "earned" everything from fourth to ninth. The implication was that characters more powerful than the poster desired do not "earn" what they get.

 

[Doug McCrae]

All D&D characters earn more power as they gain levels. The starting point has no effect on that.

The point is, you're only arguing for an arbitrary starting point, not for being able to "earn" anything, since characters of any power level can earn more.

The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative. The encounters placed by the GM may, or may not, be level appropriate, but other challenges can arise from the world around the PCs as a result of unanticipated events, or the GM may be improvising to some degree. Those sorts of trials can be more difficult if the PCs are weaker relative to the surrounding world.

In addition, in order to earn power, acquisition of that power must be contingent, not necessary. It must be possible to earn 0xp, no level ups, no treasure, no magic items. Only certain types of player behaviour will be rewarded. I don't think that has anything to do with starting power level.

 

[Fifth Element]

The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative. The encounters placed by the GM may, or may not, be level appropriate, but other challenges can arise from the world around the PCs as a result of unanticipated events, or the GM may be improvising to some degree. Those sorts of challenges can be more challenging if the PCs are weaker relative to the surrounding world, I think.

But since so much of the challenge is dependant on the DM, I think suggesting that lower starting power = more "challenging" is fallacious, or at least far too simplistic.

 

[Mallus]

I'll have to disagree with you on that. It wasn't "mainstream" till 3e came out which was well after the 80s.

It certainly was among the gamers I knew back in the 1980s, playing AD&D and then 2e (or some hybrid thereof). Creating a personality for a new 1st level character was only slightly less important than rolling stats. Backgrounds were more optional. But showing up without a name and some idea of who this fictional character was would have earned you derisive laughter from my pals. After all, we weren't playing a board game...

]The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.

Sure we would. Because there's been a segment of the audience that has no desire to run through 20 unnamed, interchangeable 1st-level PCs before managing to get one to 2nd level. These players want to start the game with a personality, with ready characterization, and possibly even a few goals/motivations. High lethality at 1st level, which sends that back the drawing board almost immediately does not serve them well.

And this has nothing to do with the edition.

I want a game where "I" earn my heroic status, not one that's given to me at the start.

OK. Regardless of edition played, start your PC with 3 HP. Easy-peasy!.

Here is an example of this: I new a Taekwon-Do school that used to give black belts to smaller kids, who didn't earn them, in order to keep them in the school. I think a black belt should be earned, not given to keep kids interested.

Tae Kwan Do is a skill which can objectively measured. Through violent confrontation. D&D playing is not. The only objective measure of D&D play is the still subjective measure of whether how well you entertained yourself and your fellow players at the table.

It's also conflating Characters and Players. I am a fat nerd sitting at a table rolling dice and eating Cheesy-Poofs. Bruno the Warrior is an imaginary character being put into motion by said overweight nerd - his choices driven for the sake of entertainment and constrained by all manner of meta-level concerns and mechanics. Bruno is an imaginary engine to pretend at heroism. At best he's the Lone Ranger a character in a story. He doesn't really earn anything - it's a contrivance. I'm a gamer rolling dice - I certainly didn't earn any status on my end either.

Why can't I give you XP for this! There ain't no justice.

But it's the Dragonlance style of Tolkien-esque epic quest play, that first appeared in published material in the early 80s, that most strongly requires a much lower lethality than traditional Gygaxian D&D. It should be noted that in DL1 Dragons of Despair the PCs all start at 5th level.

And let's remember that the Dragonlance modules didn't introduce this style of play to D&D. The Lord of the Rings did. Dragonlance is best seen as a reaction to a part of the audience desiring a style of D&D play which more closely resembled the epic fantasy novels they enjoyed, the fiction which, in many cases, led them to D&D.

Everyone I knew who was into fantasy read Tolkien and his imitators. Their knowledge of Conan was limited to the Arnold movies. And no one had heard of Vance or Leiber.

If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable.

In AD&D, a broadsword does a maximum of 8 pts. of damage, barring STR bonuses.

I've seen plenty of 1st level AD&D characters with 8+ HP at 1st level. A ranger with no CON bonus, rolling for HP, would have an average of 9.

So 1st level AD&D characters aren't vulnerable (at least fighters, fighter subclasses, cavaliers, cavalier subclasses, and barbarians)?

I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.

Whose authentic D&D experience are we talking about? It's already clear mine and yours are fairly different.

What I believe Li Shenron is saying is that he's sick of people coming to the table with eight pages of backstory about how their character is a disowned prince from a forgotten kingdom who was raised by wolves and who possesses dichromatic eyes and a mysterious scar across the cheek.

While I'm not fan of long (and insipid) backstories, remember, we're all playing D&D. Let he who is not pretending to be an elf cast the first stone.

What makes you think that 1st level PCs in any edition of the game can take full strength blows from broadswords and come out smiling?

Because, as I pointed out, some of them can! Old-school D&D can be deadly, but stories of its' unrelenting grittiness have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And, oddly enough, old-school D&D parties aren't necessarily weak, when you broaden your analysis to include things like changes to PC spells and the general quality of the opposition.

I've seen 1st-level AD&D parties that were much stronger than their 3e counterparts, thanks to the cumulative effects of numerous rules changes, ie changes to the Sleep and Charm Person spells, "percentile strength", minimum monster damage, ranger's starting hit points, etc.

My own experience of Basic and 1e was that PCs seldom died, and won quite easily. But it was a long time ago and I think we were probably playing it wrong.

 

[pemerton]

The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative.

But since so much of the challenge is dependant on the DM, I think suggesting that lower starting power = more "challenging" is fallacious, or at least far too simplistic.

There's more going on than just starting power level, but there's still a certain sort of challenge at first level, just because (i) the main form of confict is combat, and (ii) a single hit will do about the same amount as damage as your hit die, meaning (iii) a single round of combat with a single foe can be deadly.

I don't think it's a challenge of skill, though. Luck plays a huge part. Once you get to 2nd level and get that 2nd hit die (at least if you're a cleric or fighter!), the role of luck starts to decline (though obviously is still there).

as I pointed out, some of them can! Old-school D&D can be deadly, but stories of its' unrelenting grittiness have been greatly exaggerated.

I know the hit point ranges and damage ranges. I was talking about the narration. If a 1st level ranger with (let's say) 12 hit points gets hit by a broadsword for 8 hp (max damage on 2d4), s/he walks away smiling with 4 hp. From which I infer that s/he wasn't smacked in the face full strength. She dodged, weaved, or otherwise ablated what (in the fiction) was the full potential of the blow (thus wearing down her metaphysical reservoir of luck, divine favour etc).

Another way to put it is that while, mechanically speaking, it is possible for a 1st level ranger to survive a full-strength (8 hp) broadsword hit, what this means for the fiction is that, because s/he has 12 hp, that ranger will never actually suffer a full-strength blow to the face from the first broadsword attack of the day.

And as a side-note, it's this non-simulationist aspect of hit points (they render it impossible, at the mechanical level, for stuff to happen in the fiction that clearly is possible within the fiction - ie, within the fiction there is no reason why that 1st level ranger couldn't be one-shotted by a skilled or lucky broadsword attack) that makes me puzzled by so many people's outrage at martial dailies and encounter powers in 4e.

Or, conversely, if they re-simulation-ise hit points by going for "hp as meat" - so that ranger really does get smacked full strength in the face by a broadsword, but having a face made of steel walks away anyway without even a dint to the teeth!

 

[TrippyHippy]

Two points:
The PC isnt taking a broadsword to the face... at least not until the blow that drops him or her to 0 or less.
Being able to be dropped in a single blow is indeed russian roulette, it discourages ever entering combat, to take the path of least heroics.

Being able to be dropped from a single blow by a lethal weapon in combat is nothing more and nothing less than realistic.

So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?

Essentially, this is reducing my argument into an ad hominem. I am saying that, for lots of players including myself, 4th Edition did not provide an authentic D&D experience (the D&D Next design crew acknowledge as much!). One of the reasons was because of the unequitable standards of 1st level PCs compared to NPCs and previous edition 1st Level characters. If D&D Next also follows down this path, then it will likewise not feel like authentic D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

There's more going on than just starting power level, but there's still a certain sort of challenge at first level, just because (i) the main form of confict is combat, and (ii) a single hit will do about the same amount as damage as your hit die, meaning (iii) a single round of combat with a single foe can be deadly.

A single hit is not a constant, though. It depends on the damage that the particular opponent causes with a single hit. This is why so much is dependent on the DM, and on what challenges he sets out for the characters.

I don't think it's a challenge of skill, though. Luck plays a huge part. Once you get to 2nd level and get that 2nd hit die (at least if you're a cleric or fighter!), the role of luck starts to decline (though obviously is still there).

That's a good point.