D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"

[payn]

I find it makes it very hard to dm when there is the implicit expectation that the characters should never die, especially in a way that is insufficiently meaningful. I recall one 5e campaign I ran, where I made a difficult but surmountable challenge for my group of 5 5th level characters. And they did indeed survive, and none of them even went down, but they unexpectedly made a number of very poor tactical decisions that made the encounter more difficult than it had to be. I was also rolling in the open (on roll 20), so wasn't artificially making things easier. Anyway, a couple players thought I was being adversarial with these encounters. I felt like the expectation was that they should be able to approach situations as recklessly as possible and still find a way to pull out an "easy win." I found that I was walking on eggshells after that point, always worrying if something would be perceived as too difficult.

One thing I really enjoyed in my PF1 era of gaming was hero points. We were able to enjoy the swingy combat of 3E, while the players had a resource to save their bacon if need be. Also, if the player wanted to push their luck they could just spend the HP as they saw fit. It was up to them how much of a life line their PCs had in the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it makes it very hard to dm when there is the implicit expectation that the characters should never die, especially in a way that is insufficiently meaningful.

It's never been a problem for me, but perhaps this is a matter of motivation. You don't want it, so doing it would be an added chore. I do, so doing it is a desirable goal.

I recall one 5e campaign I ran, where I made a difficult but surmountable challenge for my group of 5 5th level characters. And they did indeed survive, and none of them even went down, but they unexpectedly made a number of very poor tactical decisions that made the encounter more difficult than it had to be. I was also rolling in the open (on roll 20), so wasn't artificially making things easier.

I have personally experienced things of this nature. I always roll in the open for anything the vast majority of rolls--and definitely always in the open for damage and similar "could harm your character" events. (Stuff like "what treasures are in the box?" is fine for rolling behind the scenes, since that's just inspiration and, in general, is only used for things where neither the players nor I had any way to know what was there in advance.)

Anyway, a couple players thought I was being adversarial with these encounters. I felt like the expectation was that they should be able to approach situations as recklessly as possible and still find a way to pull out an "easy win." I found that I was walking on eggshells after that point, always worrying if something would be perceived as too difficult.

In my experience, this feeling is inaccurate, an example of the specter of "perfectly balanced encounters," which few players actually want and no games (to my knowledge) actually recommend. Of course, I cannot know your group, so it's possible they were as you say, petulant and demanding, unwilling to consider anything but the most foolishly reckless behavior and (seemingly) needing to be reined in.

My experience of most groups is diametrically opposite. Most groups I've seen where death is not an interesting consequence are highly conservative, taking the absolute least dangerous position, unless some higher calling makes an absolute demand (e.g. if the party is overall noble but trickster-y, taking down a tyrannical ruler or helping innocent and endangered victims may place a higher claim than always pursuing the course that takes the fewest risks.) To respond with recklessness would be rather severely missing the point. For my part, this is because I had an honest conversation with my players, and in part because they are naturally gunshy. But the conversation basically said, "I won't take your character away forever just because something crappy happened. If a character dies, there will be consequences, but you having to create a new character when you don't want to isn't one of them. I will NOT, however, protect you from the consequences of rank foolishness. A good-faith effort is fine. Don't exploit this." And I meant it (though I used more and different words.) I'm 100% fine supporting a player and them wanting to continue the story they've invested into, but as soon as the players start exploiting my good will to get away with things Just Because They Can, I'm going to be a lot less kind. As noted, my players are much too cautious rather than too reckless, so this is not a concern, but even if they weren't overly cautious I wouldn't fear them exploiting this, they're troopers and very patient with me.

And if you can't tell your players, "hey, I'm doing this as a gesture of respect and kindness to you, please don't exploit it" and they cannot abide by that request...I feel like there's a bigger problem going on than whether or not death is an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

Most people stridently insist you're supposed to be level 2 by the end of the first session, two at most.

Not in my presence they don't, or not for long anyway.

And, again, keep in mind that I find 1st level mind-numbingly dull in a gameplay sense. A good DM provides or fosters a good story regardless of level, so this is exclusively a gameplay concern.

Nah, levelling up is not at all a primary aspect of play for me. Having enough mechanics to actually sink my teeth into, on the other hand, is.

A drum I find myself banging on more and more often here is this one: mechanics don't make the character. Attitude, personality, ethos/morals (or alignment), mannerisms, quirks, etc. - that's what makes the character, and mechanics all too often get in the way of that.

And most 5e classes are barely deep enough to get your feet wet at 1st level.

If that's the case I'd say it's because they're trying to design for a 20-level game and have to save some stuff to give out at each of the other 19 levels.

Would you say the same about 1st-level 3e classes? Or 1e? (I ask as I've more experience with those)

Being stuck in the "earn the right to actually be a thing" zone for potentially months at a time is very grating when you signed up because you wanted to be the thing, y'know? It's not that I care about levelling up itself. I just sure as hell don't feel like much of a Bard or Paladin or whatever until at bare minimum 3rd level. So I care about getting those first few vital levels that are the "you must clear at least this much content before you're allowed to play what you want to play." Once that's out of the way, yes, I do want a reasonable rate of advancement but I'm fine with it taking 2 years to reach level 20 or the like.

Some classes can take a while to show themselves in any edition. However, in any edition there's classes that show themselves immediately without regard to mechanics, and you hit one of them here: I could play a 0th-level Paladin and within five minutes you'd know exactly what class it was without it having done a mechanical thing!

And, as noted, a good (or even just decent) DM can provide/support a story that is engaging completely outside of the mechanics of the game. I am presuming that aspect is already fine. I play a role-playing game just as much to role-play as I do to game. If I just wanted to RP, I've been able to do that freeform for years and years, no problem. I play D&D, and other systems, because it offers both role-playing and actual gaming.

So if I read this right, role-playing isn't actual gaming?

I think we're starting to talk in different languages here. Role-playing is the game; the mechanics are just there to abstract and define what we can't role-play.

One, in a sense, you're 100% correct. As I've said many times now, I don't have a stable gaming group where I can play. (My stable gaming group, I'm the DM of the one ongoing game I've ever run, and that's unlikely to change in the next couple years.) I don't have a set of old friends I can turn to and say, "hey, one of you feel like running D&D?" All of my gaming was done online even before the pandemic, in part because I'm painfully shy, and in part because going to a physical game shop is rather a chore (I live in a moderately large city, the shops certainly exist, but none anywhere close to where I live). And since it's not my friend group, I'm shopping around for online games wherever I can find them. So...yeah, an unexpected TPK is pretty likely to tank the group's interest in playing. Even when it IS being run by, and with, friends or acquaintances.

Ah. Yes, gaming a) with friends and b) in person are IMO vital to the experience.

Even then, I've seen brand new players react in all sorts of different ways to losing their first character; and often just by that reaction I can tell which ones are going to be keepers. Laugh it off - keeper. Take it like a gambler takes a losing hand - keeper. Get stuck in to rolling up the next one with a determined expression - keeper. Pout, whine, or take it personally - not a keeper. Hissy fit - not a keeper.

Two, unlike old-school play, I tend to go into a game with a concept I want to see unfold. I've invested a lot of time and effort into making that concept compelling and open-ended. Having that unceremoniously terminated, "you LOSE, good DAY sir," is pretty harmful to my enthusiasm and desire for play. It also means I must go to the drawing board and come up with an entirely new character, truly different from the first, all the while pining for what might have been. Yeah, I can get there. But I won't have much fun doing so. When "having a good time" is the whole point...and I'm already at least somewhat frustrated by having to slog through low levels I don't enjoy playing...it's just one more non- or even anti-fun element added in and one fewer fun element present.

Question: why not take a more old-school approach and start with only a very vague concept (e.g. this time I'll be a Monk), then let that concept evolve and refine itself during play? That way, if it dies soon you haven't "lost" as much and if it doesn't you're good to go.

As for low-level play - or any play, for that matter - being non- or anti-fun, my only response there is that the game is very often exactly as much fun as you make it be.

As an example: in fifteen minutes we'll drop the puck on a session where my PC is about half the level of the highest-level PCs in the party and maybe 1/4 as wealthy in magic. I've got two options: complain and whine and be negative about it, or make it fun and enjoy it. I choose the latter.

Finally? TPKs are demoralizing as heck. They'll suck the air right out of a campaign. Even if it's 100% possible for the DM to realign and start over, it's hard on me as a player. Even just one character other than my own biting the dust in an unexpected and unceremonious way is hard on me; I took the death of the party Wizard in my (lone, sadly cut short before its time) long-runner 4e game way harder than the actual player did, for example. Deaths suck, and severely damage my interest in continuing on. Total party kills leave me with a very strong aversion to continuing. Has nothing to do with "persistence" for me, it just is a majorly sucky feeling that has to be just accepted, neither really mourned nor worked through 'cause in a week we're supposed to be right back at it.

I've never played through a true TPK (I've DMed only one) but I've seen many many PCs die, both my own and those of others. Easy come, easy go, I say: adventuring is a lethally dangerous way to make a living and not everyone's going to survive.

 

[Mordhau]

Not in my presence they don't, or not for long anyway.

You don't run 5e though. It's a pretty much an explicit design goal of 5e.

The edition is designed to use the first few sessions to get you through the first few levels and introduce you to the mechanics in stages while simultaneously minimising the time you spend at the most dangerous levels.

 

[Stormonu]

1-2 are training wheels. Unless you play a Cleric and then, ha ha, you have to pick your subclass at level 1. Sucks to be you brand new D&D player.

Perhaps we should go the B/X route and clerics don't get spells until 2nd - Domain choice could be moved to that level then.

 

[Oofta]

You don't run 5e though. It's a pretty much an explicit design goal of 5e.

The edition is designed to use the first few sessions to get you through the first few levels and introduce you to the mechanics in stages while simultaneously minimising the time you spend at the most dangerous levels.

That's assuming you're using XP for leveling. Not everyone does.

 

[Mordhau]

That's assuming you're using XP for leveling. Not everyone does.

Yes. Normally the design of the game assumes the use of the rules.

You can keep the players at level 1 for six months if you wish. But that has nothing to do with the way the game was designed to work.

 

[Retreater]

Do most games use the whole level range, 1-20? If one's game doesn't, wouldn't it make sense to either start higher level, or make the levels more meaningful and give a couple at a time?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not in my presence they don't, or not for long anyway.

I mean...that's fair I guess. But we're talking about 5e (or at least I had assumed as such) and there it's very much the explicit intent of the design that 1st level be pretty quick. The designers have explicitly said that, and most people who run it will insist that that is in fact correct. If you aren't talking about 5e as Mordhau said then that's kind of a nonsequitur. Levels and their meaning are probably THE most edition-dependent aspect of the game.

A drum I find myself banging on more and more often here is this one: mechanics don't make the character. Attitude, personality, ethos/morals (or alignment), mannerisms, quirks, etc. - that's what makes the character, and mechanics all too often get in the way of that.

Which is why I said, repeatedly, that a good DM can provide or support story regardless of mechanics. In other words, the two questions are entirely orthogonal. You are, as is the case for most older-school fans, acting as though mechanics are either (a) an impediment to play, (b) a necessary evil for play, or (c) an optional and largely uninteresting adjunct of play. I do not hold any of those attitudes. Yes, as I said, I can make an interesting concept in pure roleplay terms in pretty much any system (holding back from saying truly all systems because hey, FATAL exists, system obtuseness is not a bounded quantity). But when I play, I want ACTUALLY both things. I want a roleplay that is interesting and engaging in and of itself, entirely unrelated to mechanics, AND gameplay that is interesting in and of itself, entirely unrelated to roleplay, AND meaningful interactions between the two. Because, as noted, if I just wanted RP, I could get that almost anywhere, and it would likely end up better than D&D RP because it won't be limited by anything except what my RP partner(s) and I find interesting, zero system to even potentially interfere. Likewise if I want gameplay with no RP, I have plenty of video games that provide that function handily, no need to even interact with others (or, if multiplayer is desired, I have that option too). D&D, and TTRPGing as a whole, offers the one place where deep and meaningful roleplay and engaging gameplay in the same place at the same time such that both are worthwhile and each affects the other.

If that's the case I'd say it's because they're trying to design for a 20-level game and have to save some stuff to give out at each of the other 19 levels.

Sure. Not saying 1st level should be rocking every tool in the toolbox. But there's a difference between "you have much room to grow" and "you must complete this many trials before you even get to start your class fantasy."

Would you say the same about 1st-level 3e classes? Or 1e? (I ask as I've more experience with those)

For 3e, yes, definitely. Most characters in 3e hardly even get off the ground in terms of mechanical feel and class fantasy until 3rd or 4th level, and then you hit the "oops, didn't players this properly" wall by level 8-10, the point at which (in theory) you should have fully come into your own and be refining your arts rather than developing them. It doesn't help that 3e went all in for Prestige Classes (particularly since they were very poorly implemented, as pure power-ups, rather than flavorful and character-specific specializations as they were intended to be), and thus had a tendency to tell players they couldn't do their Core Schtick until they'd (to invent an example) gotten 4 levels of Rogue and 3 levels of Sorcerer and picked up a feat that requires 8th level etc. That's specifically why you have Eldritch Knight as a subclass in 5e, so that you do not have to wait a huge long time to get to be "spellcaster-fighter mix." The whole point is to NOT lock class fantasy behind a bunch of hoops and difficulties before you get at least the basic, fundamental flavor of what you wanted to play.

I have very little experience with 1e (the closest I've come was a graciously homebrewed character in Labyrinth Lord), so my answer can only be partial there. It was...not as bad as I feared, but did not impress me. Most of the things that were supposed to be impressive or "creative" just struck me as "use <mundane resource> in <mundane manner> to <detect bad thing>." Few traps or difficulties required more than basic logic, situational awareness, and doing some physical thing, like using ball bearings to check how level a surface is. Social problems, which weren't much of a deal because we were exploring tombs of the long-dead, mostly centered on being respectful and careful about both your words and the words of others...which is something I always do anyway so I didn't find it to be very creative or deep (but had plenty of fun narrating it, because again, the tell-a-story side of things is a different type of engagement than the play-a-game side.) The setting was cool and flavorful, albeit more than a little dark for my tastes, and the DM's a great guy who could narrate like a champ, so it was a neat experience and I'm glad I tried it. Mechanically, though, it felt a bit like I must have been missing something 'cause it...just wasn't particularly deep.

Some classes can take a while to show themselves in any edition. However, in any edition there's classes that show themselves immediately without regard to mechanics, and you hit one of them here: I could play a 0th-level Paladin and within five minutes you'd know exactly what class it was without it having done a mechanical thing!

That does not read like a refutation to me. I can roleplay anything (well, up to my interest in doing so, of course), regardless of system or lack thereof. Hell, in a friend's Werewolf: the Apocalypse game, for all intents and purposes I DO play a paladin, even though such things don't even properly exist in that world. I kinda have to wrestle with the setting to make it make sense, but that's basically what the character is.

I'm talking about having the feel of doing paladin-y things, not the act of behaving in a paladin-y way. Because in pretty much every gaming system I've ever used, I have been able to behave in a paladin-y way, aka, roleplay as a paladin. I have not always been able to feel like I was doing paladin-y things, aka gameplay as a paladin. I want both things, and I don't feel like that's a complicated or overbearing request.

Heck, wasn't the reason they kept changing the Fighter class until like the last six months of the public playtest specifically because they wanted the mechanics to feel like playing a Fighter? That, right there, is what I'm asking for. I can roleplay a Fighter at any level no sweat; I would not call the task "trivial," but it is essentially always achievable without undue effort. But I can only get a gameplay feel of Fighter if the gameplay is available to me.

So if I read this right, role-playing isn't actual gaming?

Roleplay is one form of playing. Gameplay is another. Roleplay is not (inherently) "gaming" in the sense that it has no rules proper (just "whatever the group/leader finds sensible"), no state of play proper (just "the story so far"), and no analyzable alternatives proper (because it is a matter of sense, ethics, and drives). Likewise, gameplay is not (inherently) "story-narrating" (for lack of a better term) in the sense that it has no semantic content proper (just "whatever labels have been applied"), no fictional position proper (just the state of play), and no value judgments proper (being closer to calculation).

Computer games provide an experience that generally favors gameplay, with roleplay elements secondary at best. Freeform or mostly-freeform RP provides one that favors roleplay, with gameplay elements secondary at best (e.g. when I did Dragonriders of Pern RP many and many a year ago, there was no game at all; when I play Lords of Creation, I am mostly in roleplay mode as the "gameplay" is all of a couple sentences compared to paragraphs of text...if any gameplay even happens at all (it often doesn't). D&D(/TTRPGing overall) offers both things in much closer to equal proportions: gameplay is not strictly secondary to roleplay, nor the reverse.

I think we're starting to talk in different languages here. Role-playing is the game; the mechanics are just there to abstract and define what we can't role-play.

Yeah, if you see gameplay as merely an unfortunate band-aid over the parts of the experience that couldn't be done purely through roleplay we're on different pages. I see them as a valuable experience in and of themselves, but even moreso in how they interact with the roleplaying parts, since that interaction is very difficult to find or enjoy outside of TTRPGs.

Ah. Yes, gaming a) with friends and b) in person are IMO vital to the experience.

Even then, I've seen brand new players react in all sorts of different ways to losing their first character; and often just by that reaction I can tell which ones are going to be keepers. Laugh it off - keeper. Take it like a gambler takes a losing hand - keeper. Get stuck in to rolling up the next one with a determined expression - keeper. Pout, whine, or take it personally - not a keeper. Hissy fit - not a keeper.

I obviously cannot take a outsider's perspective on my own behavior, but I don't consider my own behavior "pouting." Pouting, to me, means passive-aggressively dragging your heels, making uncharitable remarks, and generally both "feeling sorry for yourself" and "taking things out on others" (primarily the DM in this case). Basically those three are all the same, it's just whether it's open and direct ("whining"), passive-aggressive ("pouting"), or secret simmering resentment ("taking it personally.")

For me...it just drains away all my enthusiasm. I just stop having any desire to play. Not petulantly, as in "FINE if I can't play I'll take my toys and LEAVE!" It's more..."what's the point?" The reactions you listed all entail being angry about the character death, being affronted by it. I'm talking about being depressed by it, feeling cut off and empty. No anger, just grief and sadness.

Question: why not take a more old-school approach and start with only a very vague concept (e.g. this time I'll be a Monk), then let that concept evolve and refine itself during play? That way, if it dies soon you haven't "lost" as much and if it doesn't you're good to go.

I am genuinely incapable of doing so. If I'm not invested in the character, I literally can't roleplay. It won't come out, regardless of my efforts to do so. Your suggestion, for me, is a bit like saying "why don't you try dating people you aren't actually attracted to? You'll lose a lot less that way if the relationship falls through!" I cannot bring myself to do that. Or if you want an analogy that wouldn't implicitly hurt another person in the doing, it's like saying, "Why not cook cuisine you don't particularly care for? That way if you end up not liking it, you don't feel bad throwing it out!" The odds are near 100% that I won't cook it well anyway (and thus won't enjoy it), because I don't want to cook it in the first place.

Roleplay is an activity that requires much investment on my part. I give it my all. I am not really able to do that with a character in whom I have zero investment. If I'm not invested, I don't care what happens and don't have any reason to take one action over another. The "character" is just dead numbers on dead trees.

As for low-level play - or any play, for that matter - being non- or anti-fun, my only response there is that the game is very often exactly as much fun as you make it be.

As an example: in fifteen minutes we'll drop the puck on a session where my PC is about half the level of the highest-level PCs in the party and maybe 1/4 as wealthy in magic. I've got two options: complain and whine and be negative about it, or make it fun and enjoy it. I choose the latter.

Firstly, again, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't continually imply that my position was "whining," I find that both extremely frustrating and extremely disrespectful. Implying that I'm a petulant child or a passive-aggressive jerk is not very productive, and honestly is a real killjoy.

Secondly, and reiterating for like the fifth time, gameplay is an axis I value, one I seek out. Gameplay is not under my control the way roleplay is. That's (part of) what it means to have, as I mentioned above, rules proper rather than guidelines like common sense or personal preference. The rules need to be external to me in order to matter, and as a result I cannot simply "make it to be" fun any more than, say, I can just MAKE a sports sim computer game fun for myself; if I don't find those mechanics fun, I cannot MAKE them fun purely by my own effort, and if I could, they wouldn't be gameplay anymore (as I am using the term), they would be something else--just as roleplay wouldn't be roleplay if it were dictated to you by the GM against your will, it'd be something else. It's like saying poker or horse or Monopoly "is as fun as you make it to be." They aren't. Either you enjoy them or you don't, and if you don't, you have two options. On the one hand, request changes in the hope that the new, altered game will be fun. On the other, you accept that there's some critical part about them that isn't fun for you and can't be changed without making it either not actually a game at all (because the rules are beholden to preference or the like) or not the game that was originally proposed (e.g. there is a point where a game ceases to be horse, or ceases to be chess, even if that point is context-dependent.)

I've never played through a true TPK (I've DMed only one) but I've seen many many PCs die, both my own and those of others. Easy come, easy go, I say: adventuring is a lethally dangerous way to make a living and not everyone's going to survive.

And for me, adventuring is the opportunity to experience the hero's journey, to watch a concept unfold and change in both expected and unexpected ways, to form and call upon bonds that can only be forged in the fires of trial and tribulation. To toss out that journey so cavalierly, to shrug off those bonds as if they meant nothing, is to admit that the whole experience was empty and kind of pointless--again, for me. I aim to speak for no one but myself.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean...that's fair I guess. But we're talking about 5e (or at least I had assumed as such) and there it's very much the explicit intent of the design that 1st level be pretty quick. The designers have explicitly said that, and most people who run it will insist that that is in fact correct.

Just because it was designed a certain way doesn't mean I have to agree with or support that design.

Levels and their meaning are probably THE most edition-dependent aspect of the game.

Hmmm. Interesting take, but (other than 4e, which is an outlier as usual) I'm not sure there's too much overall difference between levels in the various editions until you get up to about 10th or so, after which 3e and 5e somewhat separate themselves from 0e-1e-2e. At very low level in particular, which is what we've been discussing, I'm not sure there's much that's really edition-dependent.

Far more edition-dependent is the degree of lethality assumed by the design; and here 5e is quite different from anything other than 4e.

Which is why I said, repeatedly, that a good DM can provide or support story regardless of mechanics. In other words, the two questions are entirely orthogonal. You are, as is the case for most older-school fans, acting as though mechanics are either (a) an impediment to play, (b) a necessary evil for play, or (c) an optional and largely uninteresting adjunct of play.

I tend to vary between a) and b) here, depending on the situation at hand.

I do not hold any of those attitudes. Yes, as I said, I can make an interesting concept in pure roleplay terms in pretty much any system (holding back from saying truly all systems because hey, FATAL exists, system obtuseness is not a bounded quantity). But when I play, I want ACTUALLY both things. I want a roleplay that is interesting and engaging in and of itself, entirely unrelated to mechanics, AND gameplay that is interesting in and of itself, entirely unrelated to roleplay, AND meaningful interactions between the two. Because, as noted, if I just wanted RP, I could get that almost anywhere, and it would likely end up better than D&D RP because it won't be limited by anything except what my RP partner(s) and I find interesting, zero system to even potentially interfere. Likewise if I want gameplay with no RP, I have plenty of video games that provide that function handily, no need to even interact with others (or, if multiplayer is desired, I have that option too). D&D, and TTRPGing as a whole, offers the one place where deep and meaningful roleplay and engaging gameplay in the same place at the same time such that both are worthwhile and each affects the other.

Another difference between us is that I don't really do CRPGs at all, not since the gold-box days in 2e.

Sure. Not saying 1st level should be rocking every tool in the toolbox. But there's a difference between "you have much room to grow" and "you must complete this many trials before you even get to start your class fantasy."

For 3e, yes, definitely. Most characters in 3e hardly even get off the ground in terms of mechanical feel and class fantasy until 3rd or 4th level, and then you hit the "oops, didn't players this properly" wall by level 8-10, the point at which (in theory) you should have fully come into your own and be refining your arts rather than developing them.

Somewhat the opposite of how I saw it: for me my 1st-level characters in 3e already had more mechanics to them than I wanted to worry about, and it only got worse as they levelled up. The various bonuses and so on weren't a problem, but I was constantly short-changing my warrior PCs because I'd forget about some silly feat or other they had that could make them fight better; I just want to roll the die and tell the DM a number.

It doesn't help that 3e went all in for Prestige Classes (particularly since they were very poorly implemented, as pure power-ups, rather than flavorful and character-specific specializations as they were intended to be), and thus had a tendency to tell players they couldn't do their Core Schtick until they'd (to invent an example) gotten 4 levels of Rogue and 3 levels of Sorcerer and picked up a feat that requires 8th level etc. That's specifically why you have Eldritch Knight as a subclass in 5e, so that you do not have to wait a huge long time to get to be "spellcaster-fighter mix."

This is something that's long been a pet peeve of mine. There's casters, and there's fighters. Each does their own thing, and playing a character that does both always sounds to me like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

The whole point is to NOT lock class fantasy behind a bunch of hoops and difficulties before you get at least the basic, fundamental flavor of what you wanted to play.

I have very little experience with 1e (the closest I've come was a graciously homebrewed character in Labyrinth Lord), so my answer can only be partial there. It was...not as bad as I feared, but did not impress me. Most of the things that were supposed to be impressive or "creative" just struck me as "use <mundane resource> in <mundane manner> to <detect bad thing>." Few traps or difficulties required more than basic logic, situational awareness, and doing some physical thing, like using ball bearings to check how level a surface is. Social problems, which weren't much of a deal because we were exploring tombs of the long-dead, mostly centered on being respectful and careful about both your words and the words of others...which is something I always do anyway so I didn't find it to be very creative or deep (but had plenty of fun narrating it, because again, the tell-a-story side of things is a different type of engagement than the play-a-game side.) The setting was cool and flavorful, albeit more than a little dark for my tastes, and the DM's a great guy who could narrate like a champ, so it was a neat experience and I'm glad I tried it. Mechanically, though, it felt a bit like I must have been missing something 'cause it...just wasn't particularly deep.

1e as written can get mechanically as deep as the DM is willing to take it. I've seen a version of the initiative rules that's 14 pages long, for cryin' out loud. But - and thank [your favourite deity] for this - most DMs don't bother with such inanity, and strip it down to somehting more rational.

It sounds like your DM did what he could with it, but yes, it's sometimes on the player to think outside the box and more than later editions it can reward being a bit gonzo in one's play. Plaing it conservative can get boring.

I'm talking about having the feel of doing paladin-y things, not the act of behaving in a paladin-y way.

I guess I see behaving in a paladin-y way to in itself be the doing of a paladin-y thing.

because in pretty much every gaming system I've ever used, I have been able to behave in a paladin-y way, aka, roleplay as a paladin. I have not always been able to feel like I was doing paladin-y things, aka gameplay as a paladin. I want both things, and I don't feel like that's a complicated or overbearing request.

Heck, wasn't the reason they kept changing the Fighter class until like the last six months of the public playtest specifically because they wanted the mechanics to feel like playing a Fighter? That, right there, is what I'm asking for. I can roleplay a Fighter at any level no sweat; I would not call the task "trivial," but it is essentially always achievable without undue effort. But I can only get a gameplay feel of Fighter if the gameplay is available to me.

If I can hit more often and give out more damage than most of the other classes - in other words generally be the toughest badass in the party - that's the gameplay feel of a Fighter right there. Everything else is largely superfluous.

And I say this having spent a very long time at the helm of some rather memorable 1e Fighters.

Roleplay is one form of playing. Gameplay is another. Roleplay is not (inherently) "gaming" in the sense that it has no rules proper (just "whatever the group/leader finds sensible"), no state of play proper (just "the story so far"), and no analyzable alternatives proper (because it is a matter of sense, ethics, and drives). Likewise, gameplay is not (inherently) "story-narrating" (for lack of a better term) in the sense that it has no semantic content proper (just "whatever labels have been applied"), no fictional position proper (just the state of play), and no value judgments proper (being closer to calculation).

That seems like a much wider separation than I'd give it. They're interlinked, in that the fictional position informs the mechanics and the mechanics in turn inform the fictional position; and some of the biggest debates I've seen here seem to revolve around which of those should take precedence if either. (personally I'd rather prioritize the fiction and let the mechanics try to keep up if they can)

Computer games provide an experience that generally favors gameplay, with roleplay elements secondary at best. Freeform or mostly-freeform RP provides one that favors roleplay, with gameplay elements secondary at best (e.g. when I did Dragonriders of Pern RP many and many a year ago, there was no game at all; when I play Lords of Creation, I am mostly in roleplay mode as the "gameplay" is all of a couple sentences compared to paragraphs of text...if any gameplay even happens at all (it often doesn't). D&D(/TTRPGing overall) offers both things in much closer to equal proportions: gameplay is not strictly secondary to roleplay, nor the reverse.

I don't know D-of-Pern or Lords of Creation but I'd hazard a guess those systems aren't too concerned with abstracting combat and other physical things that can't be done at the table.

That's where D&D (and adjacent) games are good: they try* to abstract the physical in a consistent-within-system manner while (mostly) leaving roleplay free to run. It's this abstracton process that leads to what you're calling gameplay, but to me that process is merely a stand-in for playing the game as a full-ride LARP and a "virtual" for old out-of-shape guys like me who in reality wouldn't last 5 seconds on a medieval battlefield.

* - to a greater or lesser degree, and with widely-varying levels of success.

I obviously cannot take a outsider's perspective on my own behavior, but I don't consider my own behavior "pouting." Pouting, to me, means passive-aggressively dragging your heels, making uncharitable remarks, and generally both "feeling sorry for yourself" and "taking things out on others" (primarily the DM in this case). Basically those three are all the same, it's just whether it's open and direct ("whining"), passive-aggressive ("pouting"), or secret simmering resentment ("taking it personally.")

In my time, unfortunately, I've seen - and had to DM - all three. Fortunately, with my players now I'm pretty sure I can say those days are well behind me.

For me...it just drains away all my enthusiasm. I just stop having any desire to play. Not petulantly, as in "FINE if I can't play I'll take my toys and LEAVE!" It's more..."what's the point?" The reactions you listed all entail being angry about the character death, being affronted by it. I'm talking about being depressed by it, feeling cut off and empty. No anger, just grief and sadness.

I rarely if ever get anywhere near emotionally attached enough to a character to feel grief or sadness when it dies. Sure I'll play it with emotion when it's alive and active, but when it's gone it's gone.

I am genuinely incapable of doing so. If I'm not invested in the character, I literally can't roleplay. It won't come out, regardless of my efforts to do so. Your suggestion, for me, is a bit like saying "why don't you try dating people you aren't actually attracted to? You'll lose a lot less that way if the relationship falls through!" I cannot bring myself to do that. Or if you want an analogy that wouldn't implicitly hurt another person in the doing, it's like saying, "Why not cook cuisine you don't particularly care for? That way if you end up not liking it, you don't feel bad throwing it out!" The odds are near 100% that I won't cook it well anyway (and thus won't enjoy it), because I don't want to cook it in the first place.

Fair enough. In the (distant) past I've done a bit of stage acting, the sort where you don't always get much choice of role or character, meaning I had to develop at least a modicum of ability to play characters that didn't interest me personally. That said, given that in an RPG I've in theory got control of what I play and how I play it, if a character I'm playing for some reason doesn't interest me I'll find a way to make it interest me; doing so is not hard.

Roleplay is an activity that requires much investment on my part. I give it my all. I am not really able to do that with a character in whom I have zero investment. If I'm not invested, I don't care what happens and don't have any reason to take one action over another. The "character" is just dead numbers on dead trees.

Again, fair enough.

Firstly, again, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't continually imply that my position was "whining," I find that both extremely frustrating and extremely disrespectful. Implying that I'm a petulant child or a passive-aggressive jerk is not very productive, and honestly is a real killjoy.

Sorry 'bout that. I'm speaking from what I've seen at my own table.

And for me, adventuring is the opportunity to experience the hero's journey, to watch a concept unfold and change in both expected and unexpected ways, to form and call upon bonds that can only be forged in the fires of trial and tribulation.

Agreed; and this can happen whether one starts out with a fully-formed character concept or a blank slate.

An example of mine: I started playing a Magic-User once without much clue if any what would make her tick. I knew what culture (faux-Roman) she was from, and her stats, and that was about it. When she was first introduced to the party, on the spur of the moment I made her somewhat haughty and stuck-up, looking down her nose at all these non-Roman barbarians, and ran with it.

She's gone on to become my longest-serving character and is still on-and-off active, and between one development and another over the years she's probably got more character, history, and personality than I do.

To toss out that journey so cavalierly, to shrug off those bonds as if they meant nothing, is to admit that the whole experience was empty and kind of pointless--again, for me. I aim to speak for no one but myself.

I suppose that while I also like experiencing the journey* I willingly accept that said journey is possibly (probably?) going to end before its completion.

* - I don't call it the hero's journey as I don't play many heroic types.