Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Have the level ranking of 5th ed made levels 1 and 2 pointless?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7509435" data-attributes="member: 15700"><p>As an award winning game designer for the past few decades myself, I'd like to think I know what game designers are capable of, thank you. My day job is also a systems analyst which is basically project management and design testing, so I'm intimately familiar with project scope, requirements, design goals, testing, etc. Which is why I stick by my statement that levels 1 and 2 were NOT specifically designed to be introductory. The created a specific product for that purpose. And in that product, "introductory" levels included 1 though 5. Not the arbitrary number you came up with. As a game designer, if I'm creating a product that specifically fulfills a design goal, I'm not going to repeat that same design goal in something else because it's redundant. </p><p></p><p>The purpose of the starter set was to introduce new players to the system. The purpose of having levels 1 and 2 the way they were (lacking features of higher levels) was because during the playtest, gamer feedback was overwhelming clear that many gamers preferred the zero to hero model. That's the reason Mearls stated why classes like the fighter in the first iterations of the playtest lost their features like expertise dice and maneuvers until higher levels. They literally said that was the reason, because a lot of gamers didn't want their level 1 PCs to feel like super heroes out of the gate (like in 4e). I don't recall them saying they removed those extra features at level 1 and 2 due to wanting them to be introductory. Not saying it didn't ever happen, but I recall <em>many </em>conversations about why they removed those features in regards to emulating the zero to hero style many of us were asking for. </p><p></p><p>So when you look at why they made the design decision to remove those extra features at level 1 and 2, along with their decision to create a stand alone introductory product, it's pretty clear that those levels were not designed specifically to be introductory as a primary design goal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7509435, member: 15700"] As an award winning game designer for the past few decades myself, I'd like to think I know what game designers are capable of, thank you. My day job is also a systems analyst which is basically project management and design testing, so I'm intimately familiar with project scope, requirements, design goals, testing, etc. Which is why I stick by my statement that levels 1 and 2 were NOT specifically designed to be introductory. The created a specific product for that purpose. And in that product, "introductory" levels included 1 though 5. Not the arbitrary number you came up with. As a game designer, if I'm creating a product that specifically fulfills a design goal, I'm not going to repeat that same design goal in something else because it's redundant. The purpose of the starter set was to introduce new players to the system. The purpose of having levels 1 and 2 the way they were (lacking features of higher levels) was because during the playtest, gamer feedback was overwhelming clear that many gamers preferred the zero to hero model. That's the reason Mearls stated why classes like the fighter in the first iterations of the playtest lost their features like expertise dice and maneuvers until higher levels. They literally said that was the reason, because a lot of gamers didn't want their level 1 PCs to feel like super heroes out of the gate (like in 4e). I don't recall them saying they removed those extra features at level 1 and 2 due to wanting them to be introductory. Not saying it didn't ever happen, but I recall [I]many [/I]conversations about why they removed those features in regards to emulating the zero to hero style many of us were asking for. So when you look at why they made the design decision to remove those extra features at level 1 and 2, along with their decision to create a stand alone introductory product, it's pretty clear that those levels were not designed specifically to be introductory as a primary design goal. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Have the level ranking of 5th ed made levels 1 and 2 pointless?
Top