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

[Lyxen]

You are misreading my post again. I did not say you need training. Please stop adding words and ideas to my posts I did not say to try and make up an argument with me.

Do I need training wheels or not ? Please be clear.

When I play at level 1-5, the game can be as complex as any other game because of intrigues, situations, roleplaying, etc. and the need to find solutions with little magic. How is this "training wheels exactly".

Training wheels in the context of this thread are not an add-on needed to try out a skill.

Then they are not training wheels by definition as you claim. So which one is it, are you using the proper definition of what training wheels are, or creating one specifically for this thread to justify the fact that the lower tier of thread is not called "training wheels" ?

I even provided another turn of phrase to replace it with, since training wheels was indeed causing confusion. Your insistence on arguing against a strawman instead of replying to my posts does not build confidence in me for the outcome of this conversation. Please respond to what I wrote, not your redefinitions of what I wrote.

You are the one creating new definitions, and trying then to tell us "By definition, this is training wheels.". I disagree with your personal definition, I find it useless and demeaning.

 

[Shardstone]

Do I need training wheels or not ? Please be clear.

When I play at level 1-5, the game can be as complex as any other game because of intrigues, situations, roleplaying, etc. and the need to find solutions with little magic. How is this "training wheels exactly".



Then they are not training wheels by definition as you claim. So which one is it, are you using the proper definition of what training wheels are, or creating one specifically for this thread to justify the fact that the lower tier of thread is not called "training wheels" ?



You are the one creating new definitions, and trying then to tell us "By definition, this is training wheels.". I disagree with your personal definition, I find it useless and demeaning.

I really don't know if you're trolling me or being serious anymore, so I think its best if you and I stopped talking. I think its clear though that you are trying to get a rise or negative response out of me. Don't know why, though.

This is true for any RPG game and many other games, You start small and progress.

But having little and getting more is not necessarily for training aspect even though it help those with less experience.

It's a red heering where people wrongly come to associate

Low level = inexperienced
high level = experienced

Yes, this is true for many RPG games. This is not a red herring. WotC has known in the past, with 3.X and 4E, the game was more difficult to get into at the start. so they made the first 4 levels of the game a lot easier to segway into. This isn't a red herring, this isn't even controversial, this is just good game design!

 

[Plaguescarred]

Its not new. Since D&D exist that you start small and get more abilities with levels. 5E didn't re-invent the wheel!

 

[Plaguescarred]

If you want to talk game design, the reason 5E is built that way is because R&D wanted to avoid frontloading classes to reduce multiclassing potency and abuse.

 

[Shardstone]

If you want to talk game design, the reason 5E is built that way is because R&D wanted to avoid frontloading classes to reduce multiclassing potency and abuse.

And to make the game easier to get into. I'm not sure why you're so against this design philosophy, which they've even talked about themselves. Yes, they didn't re-invent the wheel. No one is saying they did. Why is it so hard to just realize they did their best to make Tier 1 D&D more noob friendly while still keeping it satisfying for all of us to play?

 

[Lyxen]

I really don't know if you're trolling me or being serious anymore, so I think its best if you and I stopped talking. I think its clear though that you are trying to get a rise or negative response out of me. Don't know why, though.

Because our insistence that "There is really no valid argument for otherwise" really contradicts my personal view, as is your way of trying to create a new definition of what "training wheels" mean while at the same time insisting that it's the original definition.

Moreover, once more, this is demeaning term: "Training wheels (or stabilisers in British English and Hiberno-English) are an additional wheel or wheels mounted parallel to the rear wheel of a bicycle that assist learners until they have developed a usable sense of balance on the bicycle. Typically they are used in teaching very young children to ride a bike, although versions for adults exist."

So it's like saying that people who play at low level, whatever their experience, are actually like very young children needing teaching and not playing the game like adults.

 

[Lyxen]

And to make the game easier to get into. I'm not sure why you're so against this design philosophy, which they've even talked about themselves. Yes, they didn't re-invent the wheel. No one is saying they did. Why is it so hard to just realize they did their best to make Tier 1 D&D more noob friendly while still keeping it satisfying for all of us to play?

And here you go with the condescension again, low level players are noobs. Will you get it into your head that people probably more experienced than you play at level 1-4 and enjoy it ?

 

[Shardstone]

Here is a Twitter thread where Mike Mearls himself talks about new classes should not be overwhelming or overly complex at early levels. That early level classes should be easy to make, and not scare people away.

Thus, it stands to reason that every D&D class was designed so that early levels would be easier to understand and grok for new people.

Thus, it stands to reason that early levels are easier to understand, that this is by design ,and that this is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE FROM WHETHER THE GAME IS FUN OR SATSIFACTORY AT EARLY LEVELS, WHICH IT IS, WHICH WAS ALSO THE INTENTION OF DESIGN.

 

[Plaguescarred]

It's noob friendly because you have less options,. not because its a training wheel.

Using this analogy, L5 is more noob friendly than L10. Why? Because less options.

If you need training because you're inexperienced with D&D, you will learn it by playing at any level. It will be easier for you by having less options if you play low level, that's all. And this is true wether you are new to the game or experienced with D&D. More options means more complexity.

 

[Shardstone]

And here you go with the condescension again, low level players are noobs. Will you get it into your head that people probably more experienced than you play at level 1-4 and enjoy it ?

I'm not calling them noobs in a negative way, and I apologize if you took it that way. I play with people who are new to the game, and they use this language. I play with experienced people who love levels 1-4. I never said this was not the case.

Let be me clear with you @Lyxen , your entire argument that I am against people who are experienced palying those levels is completely made up by you. I never said that. I never intended that. I never implied that. I have corrected myself multiple times in this conversation.

Stop insisting that I am against experienced people enjoyin those levels. I have not said that. I have clarified that well over half a dozen times by now. I don't know why you want me to say this so bad, but I have never said it.

I know that you are trying to get me to get pissed and yell at you so I Get banned from this thread or this site. I think its disgusting. I am not going to correct you on this again. Read my words, and stop positing this insane argument. I am not against how you play the game. I have made no judgements. I have made no aggressions. You are the only aggressor here.

You are the only aggressor here.

Read it again.

You are the only aggressor here.