D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Mephistopheles]

Changed zeitgeist, old bean. The days when 1st level meant expendable candidates for promotion are pretty much over.

Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Lacyon]

I'm not arguing that the game should not be fun. What I don't see is why level 1 as it has been in D&D to date was not fun. Sure you'd lose the odd character to bad luck but that does not mean you didn't have fun in the process.

Fun for some, but not very representative of the rest of the game. If a group of people start the game at level 1 and end up disliking the experience, they may well end up not going any further.

I'd very much like to see some optional rules for 0-level characters, but from what I've seen, whipping them up would be pretty simple.

In fact, here's a few baselines:

HP = CON score + X (X is less than any class' level 1 hp boost, as low as 0 if you like).
Healing surges = CON modifier + Y (Y is less than any class' base number of healing surges, probably at least 2 so that an 8-con 'hero in training' still gets 1 per day, but can go as low as 0 if you prefer)
Choose one appropriate simple (or 4e equivalent) weapon proficiency (or none if you prefer)
PCs only use basic attacks

That's probably enough by itself to run that low-level game. Most PCs still probably won't die in one hit, which I think is a good thing, but they'll have a tough time against 1st-level monsters.

If you want players to start with some of their class abilities:
Choose one defense score (besides AC) to get a +1 (appropriate to the class)
Choose Z trained skills (Z less than any class' base number of trained skills, and must come from their class' list). These skills get a +3 bonus instead of the 'heroic' +5 until you get your first class level.

Do you really need much more than that?

 

[Mephistopheles]

Because you can get killed by a housecat. Because whipping up a new character takes an hour instead of 5 minutes. Because immediately dying frankly isn't something that is a fun outcome for newcomers. Or me.

Hmm, the good old house cat killing the first level character immediately as they pop out of character generation routine. You're putting words in my mouth for me and I'd prefer it if you didn't.

The further along we get with 4E the more I wonder how D&D survived to it the way some people carry on.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Fun for some, but not very representative of the rest of the game. If a group of people start the game at level 1 and end up disliking the experience, they may well end up not going any further.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm not an advocate for extreme PC lethality. I just don't agree that there isn't fun to be had in a game where characters begin their careers vulnerable. PCs being sturdy at 1st level is fine but I don't see it as a selling point for a new edition. I see it as an option that's always been around.

 

[Lacyon]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm not an advocate for extreme PC lethality. I just don't agree that there isn't fun to be had in a game where characters begin their careers vulnerable. PCs being sturdy at 1st level is fine but I don't see it as a selling point for a new edition. I see it as an option that's always been around.

Then I would merely say that the 'optionality' should be reversed. Default should be that 1st-level plays out similarly to higher levels (don't sell the newer players a false bill of goods of what the game is going to be like), with the vulnerability being an option that's always around (experts are always going to tinker with the system to make it more like what they want anyway). It's a smart move.

 

[Cadfan]

PCs being sturdy at 1st level is fine but I don't see it as a selling point for a new edition. I see it as an option that's always been around.

It has? How?

 

[Zinovia]

The rules in 3.5E do lend themselves to this and actually take away the DMs fiat a little.

And we all know that if you take away the DM's fiat, he whines about it and is always calling you on your cell phone to come pick him up from work. Fiats are good in general. They don't always work reliably, but they're usually pretty cool.

 

[Zinovia]

It has? How?

The WotC ninja death squads who are on 3.5 book destruction duty will set their man-portable tac-nukes on "Seek and Destroy House Rules" and there you go. Kerplow!

 

[Zinovia]

Then I would merely say that the 'optionality' should be reversed. Default should be that 1st-level plays out similarly to higher levels (don't sell the newer players a false bill of goods of what the game is going to be like), with the vulnerability being an option that's always around (experts are always going to tinker with the system to make it more like what they want anyway). It's a smart move.

This.

It's fine for a group of experienced players to accept that their characters are just a bunch of red-shirts waiting to be given season contracts if they pan out, otherwise they get eaten by the alien and replaced with another up-and-coming actor. Players should have a good experience from the beginning, and the default should be whatever experience *most* people will find fun. Consider how many 3.5 games started at second or higher level compared to the number that started as escaped slaves wearing nothing but loincloths and carrying rocks.

4E has set the starting level such that your character is already a hero and can do some pretty neat stuff. It would be trivial to scale that down if you want to play commoners with barely the skill to pound dirt. Some people enjoy watching the growth of their characters from that stage of ineptitude, but I don't feel it should be the default.

 

[Cadfan]

The WotC ninja death squads who are on 3.5 book destruction duty will set their man-portable tac-nukes on "Seek and Destroy House Rules" and there you go. Kerplow!

First level should be appropriate for newbs. Newbs do not have house rules because the lack the experience or context to know they need them. My question was asked in the context of our previous discussion further up the page, which is discussion of first level in the context of a player's introduction to the game.

Unless I've completely misunderstood your post, which is possible.