Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8642416" data-attributes="member: 6790260">There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.People don't actually use it &quot;correctly.&quot;I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say &quot;just start at higher level,&quot; in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in &quot;zero level&quot; rules. These would empower fans of &quot;zero to hero,&quot; indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in &quot;zero level&quot; rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8642416, member: 6790260"] There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used. People don't actually use it "correctly." I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have [I] begged[/I] them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it [B]is[/B] first level has been [I]directly[/I] responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in. There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," [I]in practice[/I] this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it [I]speculation in a chamber most pale[/I]... Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint. Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification