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

[Shardstone]

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.

No, you're right, level 5 is more noob friendly by level 10, and that's by design.

But let's not use the term noob, since that sets some people off around here.

Everything you are saying in this post is not an argument against me. We know that early levels are designed to be more friendly to the new player experience, and still satisfactory for the experienced player. This is said by the designers in more areas then just that twitter thread. This is objective fact.

 

[Eric V]

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.

This should be the end of people being offended at the idea, but...it sadly and most likely won't be.

 

[Plaguescarred]

For people that never played high level D&D, playing L16-20 is also tranining wheel then !

 

[Cadence]

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.

Do you mean mutually exclusive (that being easier to understand and being fun/satisfactory both can't happen at the same time), or do you mean independent (that they are separate unrelated issues)?

 

[Shardstone]

Do you mean mutually exclusive (that being easier to understand and being fun/satisfactory both can't happen at the same time), or do you mean independent (that they are separate unrelated issues)?

Independent, my apologies!

 

[Eric V]

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 ?

When did he say people don't enjoy it? What are you doing here, man?

 

[Lyxen]

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.

First, you are adding way too much (like "scare" for example) from that simple tweet. Second, complexity comes in linearly throughout the whole game from level 1 to 20. What gives you the right to say that a certain range of levels is "beginner stuff" ? And finally, once more, you are only considering the technical aspect of the game, which can actually be a fairly low part of the experience of learning the game.

Once more, words this time from the game itself: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

You can play the game very well without reading all the rules and memorising all the details. You don't need training and you certainly don't need training wheels.

 

[Shardstone]

For people that never played high level D&D, playing L16-20 is also tranining wheel then !

This logic only holds up with a gross misunderstanding of what I'm sayinig.

This should be the end of people being offended at the idea, but...it sadly and most likely won't be.

Its actually insane. I really don't get where this offense is coming from, and people are literally ignoring what I'm saying to just keep getting offended.

 

[Shardstone]

First, you are adding way too much (like "scare" for example) from that simple tweet. Second, complexity comes in linearly throughout the whole game from level 1 to 20. What gives you the right to say that a certain range of levels is "beginner stuff" ? And finally, once more, you are only considering the technical aspect of the game, which can actually be a fairly low part of the experience of learning the game.

Once more, words this time from the game itself: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

You can play the game very well without reading all the rules and memorising all the details. You don't need training and you certainly don't need training wheels.

There's a whole twitter thread on that tweet that you didn't read. You literally just read the first tweet in the thread and said I made everyhtin else up.

Yes, you don't need training and training wheels to get good at the game or to learn the game. I never said this was the case. What do you want from me, man? Do I have to pay you to start reading my full posts, or to stop coming up with assumptions I'm not implying?

the third tweet in that thread you ignored btw.

 

[Eric V]

This logic only holds up with a gross misunderstanding of what I'm sayinig.

Its actually insane. I really don't get where this offense is coming from, and people are literally ignoring what I'm saying to just keep getting offended.

While having no problem telling other people how to play and making Oberoni-fallacy counterarguments...it's bizarre. Might not be worth continuing.