Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[Phoebasss]

Yes. What I'm saying is that this is not necessarily a positive development.
Agreed. Compared to 0e-1e and even 2e, 5e goes very easy on its characters; IMO far too much so.

I guess my position is that when making an "advanced 5e", we should at least try to stick to the tone of 5e. The other editions still exist, along with a bunch of other (and in my opinion, better) OSR games. We don't need to recreate that tone, because we'd have to change almost everything about 5e to get the old tone returned.

EDIT: Also if I'm playing 5e, I'm looking for a kind of easy, mostly relaxing game with moderately interesting combat. There's other games for other things.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also if I'm playing 5e, I'm looking for a kind of easy, mostly relaxing game with moderately interesting combat. There's other games for other things.

But that’s 5e- easy, relaxing, for beginners.

I thought we were discussing ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Lanefan]

MÖRK BORG is a meat-grinder OSR. There is a clear expectation that player characters are expendable, to the point that there's an automatic character generator for the game ready to go, since players are expected to be using it a lot: SCVMBIRTHER.

D&D 5e is not a meat-grinder. That expectation for expendable PCs isn't there. Instead, the game pushes a zero-to-hero theme with PCs expected to (fairly) quickly level up in power, eventually reaching mythic levels. Usually through wanton violence.

Since Level Up is meant to be compatible with D&D 5e, I don't think it should go the meat-grinder route. I'm not saying that Level Up should go full story-game; as much as I like that scene and think that there are some very important and overdue lessons that D&D should learn from that genre, D&D 5e as it stands right now isn't that (it's closer to what some designers call "trad games", as opposed to OSR and storygames). If Level Up wants to remain compatible with D&D 5e, it should probably hew close to it in tone.

Except for, you know, the parts of 5e that really should be fixed, and which Level Up is in the perfect position to do so, but that's a topic for a whole 'nother set of threads, which will become more timely as Morrus expounds more on the design ethos and plans for the game.

'Like' for some well-put points, even though I might not agree with all of 'em.

To the bit I bolded: I like the zero-to-hero aspect, though I'd prefer if far more time was spent closer to the 'zero' point and that level-ups came far less frequently than they do (probably because I like low-level play in general both as player and DM). I'm not too concerned about whether or not the PCs reach mythic levels, but I'm more than willing to agree there should be design space given to those high levels for those as wants 'em. And the wanton violence aspect makes it fun!

One thing I'm not sold on in any of 3e-4e-5e is the idea of there being a capstone level (3e=20, 4e=30, 5e=20) beyond which the game either ends or falls apart. I far prefer the more open-ended idea of 0e-1e-2e, where the game design allowed for stupid-high levels but the general expectation was that PCs would pretty much never get there; instead the campaign would just last as long as it was going to last which could, all willing, be nearly forever.

As for Level Up's fixing and enhancement of 5e, my contention is that one important way it needs fixing is to in general be made tougher on its characters; to adopt more of a "the world is out to kill you" philosophy. War rather than sport.

 

[Lanefan]

Human Occupied Landfill.

Soylent Green has to come from somewhere...

 

[Guest 6801328]

But that’s 5e- easy, relaxing, for beginners.

I thought we were discussing ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons.

As I observed in the thread about "What do you want in Advanced D&D", a lot of the responses amounted to, "I want it to be an earlier edition." (And a lot of them also seemed to be, "I want it be a different game entirely.")

 

[Phoebasss]

But that’s 5e- easy, relaxing, for beginners.

I thought we were discussing ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons.

I don't think advancing 5e isn't a matter of making it harder or changing the tone too much. It's about helping it along to fulfill its own promise as an RPG. Powerful heroes face up against even more powerful foes and use their array of powers and character options to succeed. An advanced 5e should still have a little bias in favor of the characters, because that's a part of what makes 5e its own game and different from the other versions. As far as I'm concerned 5e just needs a bit of patching up to fulfill that promise. The main thing that's relevant to this thread being that player characters need to actually have a vast array of options and they should be interesting! Which I feel 5e base fails to fulfill.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think advancing 5e isn't a matter of making it harder or changing the tone too much. It's about helping it along to fulfill its own promise as an RPG.

Really well said.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't understand why you assume that elves understand orcs just by virtue of them existing in the same world. That premise stretches my belief far more than the idea that there are orc wizards on par with elven wizards.

My example was between elves and dwarves, in third edition. Elves don't need to understand orcs (or dwarves), in order for them to make decisions based on what they do know; and their observation of elven wizards would be enough to confirm that it's not a good path for them to pursue.

People don't observe reality and come away with truth. They see pieces of the world and come away with explanations. I provided at least 3 reasons high elves could believe that orcs are bad wizards besides racial ASIs.

The actual truth is always consistent with observable reality. Rationalizations exist to try and explain things when you don't have sufficient proof to discern the truth. You have provided three rationalizations for why elves might hold beliefs which are factually incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that your narrative hinges on people believing things which are untrue, which does not make for a good story.

(Not to mention we have no reason to believe the elves are capable of observing racial ASIs in any meaningful way.) Just, think about it for a second. Also, the furthest average difference available in 5e is 5%. Humans vary in capability by substantially more than 5%.

You can't have it both ways. Either 5% is enough to discriminate between capabilities, or it isn't.

Statistically, a 5% difference is enough to change the outcome of one check in twenty. You will probably notice that over the course of your campaign, because you're going to roll for that stat more than twenty times. Likewise, elves will definitely notice the difference over the course of their civilization, because they will test their ability far more than twenty times.

 

[Guest 6801328]

but it doesn't change the fact that your narrative hinges on people believing thins which are untrue, which does not make for a good story.

You're going to need to explain/defend this. I wouldn't be able to type fast enough to list all the great stories that come to mind in which either the audience, or the characters, or both believe things that aren't true.

 

[Phoebasss]

You have provided three rationalizations for why elves might hold beliefs which are factually incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that your narrative hinges on people believing thins which are untrue, which does not make for a good story.

This is absurd, I've gotta be done at this point. This position is a walking parody.