D&D is not a supers game.

[TrippyHippy]

Time to get a new post interpreter. The one you're using looks broken.

Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.

 

[Fenes]

If D&D ends with larger than life superheroes battling demon kings and gods, then it should not start out with zeroes, but heroes. Otherwise you have a sort of bait and switch for new players. Those who expect Dungeons with Dragons get disappointed when the actual game is not about slaying dangerous monsters but running from angry house cats and hungry rats, and those who start out and like to struggle against half-blind legless kobolds get disappointed when you leave hat level and become a competent hero.

 

[Fenes]

Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.

Are you actually trying to condemn people for wanting to play powerful characters in a game?

 

[Ichneumon]

Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.

Lack of fulfilment has many more possible causes than that. Personally, I'd place a game that focused on discouragement well in front of one that didn't dole out a bunch of super powers first up, when it comes to not fulfilling players. Hare versus tortoise, in fact.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Are you actually trying to condemn people for wanting to play powerful characters in a game?

I'm condemning people for using this as a reason for refusing the allowance of lower-powered modes of play that used to be the norm at low levels in previous iterations of the game.

 

[Campbell]

You are presenting your own preferences and experiences as being universal. Where is the research to say that new players want higher powered beginning characters? From my own experiences, starting play in older editions provided fun, memorable experiences that has hooked me for most of my life since.

Archetypes exist for a reason. When I choose to play a warrior type I'm saying I want to engage in meaningful combat encounters where my decisions have a direct bearing on the party's success. If an encounter is reduced to Russian Roulette where matters like target selection, choosing to stay back and ready an action to attack anything that comes near the wizard, etc. have no effect I'm not playing the game I signed up. When my rogue has no meaningful ability to sneak about or unlock traps I'm not playing a rogue. If the careful application of spells isn't meaningful than I'm not playing a wizard. We're all playing Calvin Ball waiting for the chance to actually play the game. It's about meaningful choices.

Like I mentioned before default RuneQuest PCs start off at a similar level of competence and combat is just as short and brutal, but the results are much different. A goblin is just as threatening, but there are all sorts of decisions players get to make. You have multiple actions per round, but you have to use actions to defend yourself too. Let's assume I'm playing a novice warrior with a great sword and 3 combat actions. I lose initiative and the bugger attacks me with a short sword. Do I trust in my armor to protect me and risk a wound so I have more actions to attack with? Do I attempt to evade and deny myself the oppurtunity to use my next CA to attack? Do I try to parry knowing that if I succeed he won't damage me possibly opening myself up to a bleeding wound or free shot to the head if I fail my skill test to parry and his attack is a success?

Or lets say we scout ahead and see that the goblins in the next room have bows. At this point if I possess a shield and weapon combat style and access to the right equipment I face a quandry. Do I use a shield so I can parry missile weapons or do I rely on my greatsword for its superior reach and ability to completely parry the short sword one of the goblins is using knowing that means I have to use the evade action against missile weapons?

Same 3 goblins as a legitimate threat. Far more interesting because I actually get to make meaningful decisions that matter.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Lack of fulfilment has many more possible causes than that. Personally, I'd place a game that focused on discouragement well in front of one that didn't dole out a bunch of super powers first up, when it comes to not fulfilling players. Hare versus tortoise, in fact.

After reading through this three times already, y'know I might need a new post interpreter afterall...

 

[Chalice]

I think high powered characters, right from the start and ever increasingly, suit D&D (and its source material of old) very well.

Larger than life heroes, anti-heroes and villains are the stuff of classic sword & sorcery, heroic fantasy, and many a myth and legend. Shrugging off solid blows, calling upon mighty powers, and being superhuman in general, is all par for the course. And more! Much more.

There is room for various perspectives on D&D, I know, but that is mine.

 

[Drowbane]

The hyperbole is strong in this thread.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The hyperbole is strong in this thread.

Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.