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.