D&D 5E Followup on "Everyone Starts at First Level"

[KarinsDad]

The definition- the only definition- of ES@1 is "everyone starts at 1st level". That's it. He's doing exactly that, and the fact that some of the players made secondary characters is only relevant in that they, too, started at first level.

The definition of ES@1 that typically has contention is when some players are playing high level PCs and new PCs come in at level one. Not when a new PC comes in and the entire table resets to level one. That has nothing to do with the main contention that people have with ES@1.

ES@1 games do work best- as I think I have acknowledged in both this and the original thread on the topic- in troupe-style play with lots of players, many of whom sometimes have multiple pcs in the setting at once. That doesn't mean everyone necessarily switches pcs whenever a new pc comes in, but it means that, eventually, most players have a couple of characters at fairly widely separated levels to choose from for a given adventure. And often, when a new 1st level character comes in, the group will play mostly low-level pcs alongside him or her. That's one way to do ES@1. It's not the only way, but it's probably one of the more common.

But he was not exactly discussing that. He was discussing the table dropping from high level to level one for a new player.

A bit of apples and oranges. You can call that ESQ1 if you'd like, but it's not the same as your troupe-style "everyone is between level one and five and we swap PCs out all of the time" game that you have going on where a ton of players rotate in and out with a variety of different low level PCs.

Some players love switching up PCs and for such a player, switching up a PC when a new guy joins the group or a PC dies might be great.

But many players love the consistency of the current storyline, character interactions, and adventure. Busting that up is just plain annoying and frustrating to many players. They want to continue the adventure and discover what happens next. They don't want to put that on hold and either get back to it months down the road or never.


Getting back to your original post here, you have admitted that you have not tried ES@1 with a large level discrepancy. The people who have concerns with ES@1 often have that as their main concern. So yes, your experience is fine at low levels and probably the same that most other tables would have. But even using his example as ES@1, I do have major concerns with either example of ES@1 here.

1) Having a 1st level PC in a party of 12th level PCs.
2) Having the entire table start over at 1st level because a PC died (or a new player joined).

Both of these seem extremely problematic to me and your experiences at low level seem to be non sequitur to these two problem children here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The definition of ES@1 that typically has contention is when some players are playing high level PCs and new PCs come in at level one. Not when a new PC comes in and the entire table resets to level one. That has nothing to do with the main contention that people have with ES@1.



But he was not exactly discussing that. He was discussing the table dropping from high level to level one for a new player.

Actually it was several new players. And, I had one player who was behind the party with a multi-classed character who really needed all the exp he could get, too. It was a creative work-around to an unusual situation that still kept everyone starting at 1st (as advertised), but it was a work-around (as you pointed out in your first reply to my anecdote, and, you'll notice, I didn't argue).

Working around a potential difficulty of a policy is not the same thing as violating that policy.

But many players love the consistency of the current storyline, character interactions, and adventure. Busting that up is just plain annoying and frustrating to many players. They want to continue the adventure and discover what happens next. They don't want to put that on hold and either get back to it months down the road or never.

FWIW, this was 3 years into a campaign that ultimately ran for 10.

Getting back to your original post here, you have admitted that you have not tried ES@1 with a large level discrepancy. The people who have concerns with ES@1 often have that as their main concern. So yes, your experience is fine at low levels and probably the same that most other tables would have. But even using his example as ES@1, I do have major concerns with either example of ES@1 here.

1) Having a 1st level PC in a party of 12th level PCs.

I obviously haven't had a chance to see how this plays out in 5e, but, in 1e, if you didn't hold tightly to the training rule, the level gap was made up with phenomenal speed, and the new character would also get beefed up with surplus magic items (seems silly, I know, but that's how it sometimes was).

2) Having the entire table start over at 1st level because a PC died (or a new player joined).

Both of these seem extremely problematic to me and your experiences at low level seem to be non sequitur to these two problem children here.

It might have been problematic in other modern editions, but in classic D&D it tended not to be. It's partly a matter of context, it may seem like a big problem when characters of different levels have vastly different levels of basic competence, for instance, but when the relative differences are smaller (due to bounded accuracy in 5e, or simply not having level-based rules for a lot of resolutions in classic D&D), the much lower-level character can still contribute in more ways than it might in other modern editions. Players will be used to coping with a character that's much less effective than his piers in many ways, too, whether that's a class or race that starts out weak (only to get more powerful relative to the rest of the party later), or PC gimped by a curse or other inflicted disability (cursed magic item, magical trick/trap with a permanent effect, brutal critical hit variant, or whatever). Similarly, putting some levels on a back-up character (or henchman, perhaps) doesn't seem like such a bad idea in the context of the lethality of classic D&D, and switching from high level (maybe on the edge or past the 'sweet spot') to low level for a bit also might not lack appeal in that context.

 

[the Jester]

Getting back to your original post here, you have admitted that you have not tried ES@1 with a large level discrepancy.

Not in 5e yet, no, but only due to the fact that the top level in the group (so far) is fifth.

The people who have concerns with ES@1 often have that as their main concern. So yes, your experience is fine at low levels and probably the same that most other tables would have. But even using his example as ES@1, I do have major concerns with either example of ES@1 here.

1) Having a 1st level PC in a party of 12th level PCs.
2) Having the entire table start over at 1st level because a PC died (or a new player joined).

Both of these seem extremely problematic to me and your experiences at low level seem to be non sequitur to these two problem children here.

I ran ES@1 for the entirety of the 1e and 2e eras. During that time, I did indeed see 1st level pcs join groups with 12th level members (and sometimes higher). I'll continue to stand by my assertion that it can indeed work; I'll agree that it can fail in the hands of a DM who isn't interested in making it work. But yeah, 1st level 2e bard joins 9th to 12th level party, survives, contributes and does okay; I have been there is previous editions. Is the 1st level guy as powerful as the rest of the group? Obviously not. Is he able to compete head-to-head with them? No. Can he (DID he) still have a fun and rewarding time? Yep!

As for the problems with having the entire table start over at 1st level- yes, that's problematic. But that's not what anyone is talking about. "Starting over" implies that the old pcs will not be available again. That, indeed, there is no connection between groups. In typical ES@1 play, those new pcs eventually become backup or additional pcs. They may wind back in to whatever storyline (if any) the 'main' group is involved in; they may simply be a part of the same setting (in story-light games). But IME, they usually end up tied in somehow. Sometimes they add a nice layer of complexity to the game, letting the players see things from a second, otherwise unavailable, perspective.

 

[Sunseeker]

Except that playing without using experience and leveling at DM discretion is a fairly common staple at many D&D tables. The DMG explains how to do it on page 261.

His point is valid.

I think you're missing what I was saying. Leveling at DM discretion has no mathematical or structuratal foundation. It's "you level when I say so" as opposed to leveling at 1/2 XP rate or 1/4 XP rate, or every 5 battles or every 10 battles. Those things we can talk about, we can form conclusions about how play would progress or not progress, or how quickly a 1st-level character would advance under those circumstances. If you only level because the DM deigns it to be so, we can't really discuss character progression because there's no numerical backing to the deigning it to be level time.

 

[Sunseeker]

I noticed. If you're looking for someone to force you to play differently, you won't find that person in me. If you find that your table loves detailed offstage backstories and listens to them without complaint, or loves high-level characters without a backstory explaining how they reached high level (in your rebuttal, "he was there at the PCs' battle but didn't really do much" doesn't explain how he went from 5th to 10th level just from watching), game on.

If "I don't understand" is code for "I want you to persuade me that", I'm not interested in playing that game.

Backstories are backstories. They only exist, regardless of how exotic or mundane they are, to give the DM very player-tuned hooks. We don't serenade each other with them, in fact I get rather tired of hearing about them from other players. You know the kind who just don't shut up about their backstory. I write fairly lengthy backstories, but they're not really for use at the table, they're for me to get an idea of the character I'm playing and for the DM to create things that are of interest to my character, if they choose to do so.

I don't see backstories serving a greater purpose than that. Maybe that's why you see them as you do. But for me all they are is a foundation for good roleplay.

 

[S'mon]

I think I'm going to go with everyone starts at the bottom of the current tier, so 1, 5, 11 or 17. Should give the best of both worlds.

 

[77IM]

I think I'm going to go with everyone starts at the bottom of the current tier, so 1, 5, 11 or 17. Should give the best of both worlds.

Or the worst of both worlds...