Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8514416" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>In the early editions, levels are completely all over the map--there is no unified XP chart, and this is a very intentional function of the design. Wizards aren't just <em>weak</em> at early levels, they're comparatively <em>stuck</em> at early levels, while Thieves zoom off into their mid levels quickly. "A level" sans context has <em>indeterminate</em> value in early eds. You need to know both the class and when the level occurs. Further, does XP=GP? The answer changes what level means.</p><p></p><p>3e gave us a unified XP <em>a la carte</em> MCing. The <em>intent</em> was "a level is a level," e.g. taking a level in a new class should be <em>roughly</em> the same as taking a level in your current one. As with many <em>intents</em> of 3e's design, it failed miserably: sacrificing caster levels is orders of magnitude worse than sacrificing a point of BAB, frex. The value of "a level" was consistent in one sense, but not in another. 4e actually did make levels pretty consistent, but ditched <em>a la carte</em> MC and brought back the early-ed "level two classes at once" concept in Hybrids. 5e returned to the 3e model, but made tweaks as part of its "casters in 3e were too powerful, but just need some tweaks to be okay." (I, of course, do not entirely agree, but that's another topic.) It did, however, try to preserve some of 4e's consistency, by creating negative incentives against multiclassing (delaying ASIs, for example).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Eh. I find only 4e is an outlier here myself. Yes, the earlier editions were <em>more</em> lethal, but in all of them, an unlucky crit at 1st level can still kill you even when you've made no mistakes and done nothing reckless. That's...very difficult in 4e, by design--it's meant to give players the opportunity to recover from <em>a</em> mistake, <em>a</em> foolish decision. (Believe me, I know what happens when a player decides to stick with a foolish decision: the character often dies. I've seen it happen three times in a single 4e game, all before 5th level. I was one such player.) You don't necessarily need it to be an unlucky <em>crit</em> in the early editions, but it's still a thing: one bad die roll literally can kill any 1st level character in 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright. None of those positions apply to me. I find the gameplay portion of RPG play quite enjoyable...assuming it's a good system. The only good system where I don't really enjoy certain <em>aspects</em> of gameplay (not all, just mostly combat) is Dungeon World, and even there, a cooperative DM can make it work. Ironically, it is for this exact reason that I actually do enjoy <em>running</em> it, because for me as DM, every combat is refreshing and different, every monster can be something new or a twist on a familiar idea etc. As a player, I could basically flowchart every battle (from a pure gameplay perspective, not an RP one) and do just fine in probably 90% of combats. DM worked with me to give me more options--not strictly more <em>power</em> since many of them required resources or couldn't be used consecutively--and it felt better, but it was still on the ragged edge of what I'm looking for.</p><p></p><p></p><p>While that's fair, it doesn't have to be a C<strong>RPG</strong>, I play lots of other video games. Stellaris is a 4x space game, I still want to try to Mend the Great Schism in CKII, working on the "post-post game" of Hades, I've recently gotten completely enthralled (pun absolutely intended) by Cult Simulator, and one of these days I'm <em>going</em> to unlock the Dragon "class" for Desktop Dungeons. There's a lot of no-RP-just-G gaming I can get out there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a fair desire, and I support offering such things. A range of depth is desirable, from straightforward "I attack the guy" or "I shoot magic missile at the darkness" to intricate "I'll call out a Commanding Strike to Alice, and then Rally the Troops to get Bob and Carlos into position to thrash this thing when its turn comes up...", so that players can play what they like. Forcing <em>all</em> Fighter fans to <em>only</em> have the option to roll the die and tell the DM the number (despite the popularity of quite intricate fighting options in many computer games), and <em>all</em> Wizard fans to be planning spells four levels ahead and weigh the pros and cons of their six different preparation options (despite the popularity of very simple wizardry like <em>Harry Potter</em>) is unwise. Likewise, forcing all Fighter fans to feel like they must literally memorize a fencing manual to play, or all Wizards to have "BLUE WIZARD NEEDS FOOD BADLY"-level gameplay, is also unwise. A spread of options gives the best value. (Personally, I'm of the opinion that Barbarians should be the go-to "I roll a die and report a number" class, and Fighters should range from slightly, but not much, more complex than that all the way up to legit scholars of battle-tactics who have read several books on the subject and might be able to write one in-character.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, that's fair, but you should understand that this is a popular option. Popular enough that the edition <em>specifically built</em> around seeking broad appeal included it. It may not be <em>your</em> cuppa, but a lot of people really like it. Rather like dragonborn in that regard. A <em>lot</em> of old-school fans find them dumb or even annoying/actively bad, but they're only growing in popularity now, having risen to 3rd most popular race on D&D Beyond in 2020 (IIRC, dragonborn would drop to 4th if you merged together the different types of Elf--but that still means they'd overtaken tieflings, a significant feat in and of itself.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I'm just...not a very gonzo player. I tend to be Team Dad, group conscience, that sort of thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, fundamentally, the two really are separate things. If they weren't, you wouldn't have ever heard people accuse 3e of being "Spellcasters & Spreadsheets" (or "D&Diablo" or whatever) or the ever-popular, ever-grating screed of 4e being "an MMO on paper." It's clear that people are aware that the two are distinct things. That they're separate does not mean they <em>never</em> interact, but rather that the interaction of roleplay and gameplay is a <em>design choice</em>, something that must be <em>made</em> to happen rather than just being an innate fact of roleplaying. One does not need to roleplay in order to have gameplay, and one does not need gameplay in order to roleplay.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Dragonriders of Pern</em> is a science-fantasy series by Anne McCaffrey (and supplemented by her son...though that worked about as well as Frank Herbert's son "expanding" <em>Dune</em>). To the best of my knowledge, there is no system for it. We were literally just freeform writing out what our characters would do. The "rules" simply existed to maintain consistency with a given RP-site's twist on the official canon (since most such sites do so; it's more a way to add spice and a personal touch than anything else.) No <em>mechanics</em> of any kind, no levels or XP, anything like a "combat" would be very rare, and would be talked out between parties or resolved by moderator intervention if that wasn't working.</p><p></p><p>Lords of Creation is about as minimal as a system can get; it's a game where you play as a deity and shape the world and cosmology. You get certain amounts of Action Points every week, to spend on the various actions, which are designed to be about as open-ended as possible (e.g. there are three levels of Create Concept, which covers...literally almost anything, from basic tech like Writing to sci-fi advanced robots to magic.) Conflict between deities is very simple, resolved by basic head to head dice rolls with a few modifiers--it's meant to be a last resort when (player-side) diplomatic efforts have failed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Understood. No hard feelings.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Eh, I don't really see the "concept unfolding" aspect from a blank slate. A blank slate has nothing to unfold. There can't be any subtext if there isn't any text, nor any unveiling of the already-stark-naked.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's all fair, and all I can really say is...I just would like systems that support your way of doing things no better or worse than mine. It <em>is</em> possible. Some compromises usually have to happen, but they don't have to be radical ones. E.g. people in this thread have already indicated that they'd really like it if 5e had had actual "zero level" rules, so they could start even <em>earlier</em> than at the level of classes. That's a thing I've been advocating for for years--since before 5e launched, actually--despite having zero interest in using them myself. Because I believe zero-levels are the best and fullest way to serve all three seemingly-competing masters: the "I want the most zero-ish zero-to-hero I can get" crowd, the "I'm new and have no idea what's going on" crowd, <em>and</em> the "can we get past the tutorial, please?" crowd.</p><p></p><p>The third group (meaning, people like me) would have to accept that starting actually at 1st level isn't really appropriate for that: first level should be where <em>new</em> players start, with relatively few tools so they can acclimate. The first group (meaning, from what I understand, people like you) need to accept that having their playstyle be the default at first is punishing to those new players, and is thus better opt-in--dare I say, as a <em>module</em>--rather than opt-out. A sidebar saying as much, coupled with a robust "zero-level" system represented in <em>both</em> the PHB and DMG, would let a system genuinely and non-pejoratively support all three needs, in principle without issues. Obviously, the execution matters a great deal, but it's not like this is a revolutionary thing (since, as noted, many people in this very thread already have an ad-hoc system for doing just that). But I could see a sidebar of the type:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8514416, member: 6790260"] In the early editions, levels are completely all over the map--there is no unified XP chart, and this is a very intentional function of the design. Wizards aren't just [I]weak[/I] at early levels, they're comparatively [I]stuck[/I] at early levels, while Thieves zoom off into their mid levels quickly. "A level" sans context has [I]indeterminate[/I] value in early eds. You need to know both the class and when the level occurs. Further, does XP=GP? The answer changes what level means. 3e gave us a unified XP [I]a la carte[/I] MCing. The [I]intent[/I] was "a level is a level," e.g. taking a level in a new class should be [I]roughly[/I] the same as taking a level in your current one. As with many [I]intents[/I] of 3e's design, it failed miserably: sacrificing caster levels is orders of magnitude worse than sacrificing a point of BAB, frex. The value of "a level" was consistent in one sense, but not in another. 4e actually did make levels pretty consistent, but ditched [I]a la carte[/I] MC and brought back the early-ed "level two classes at once" concept in Hybrids. 5e returned to the 3e model, but made tweaks as part of its "casters in 3e were too powerful, but just need some tweaks to be okay." (I, of course, do not entirely agree, but that's another topic.) It did, however, try to preserve some of 4e's consistency, by creating negative incentives against multiclassing (delaying ASIs, for example). Eh. I find only 4e is an outlier here myself. Yes, the earlier editions were [I]more[/I] lethal, but in all of them, an unlucky crit at 1st level can still kill you even when you've made no mistakes and done nothing reckless. That's...very difficult in 4e, by design--it's meant to give players the opportunity to recover from [I]a[/I] mistake, [I]a[/I] foolish decision. (Believe me, I know what happens when a player decides to stick with a foolish decision: the character often dies. I've seen it happen three times in a single 4e game, all before 5th level. I was one such player.) You don't necessarily need it to be an unlucky [I]crit[/I] in the early editions, but it's still a thing: one bad die roll literally can kill any 1st level character in 5e. Alright. None of those positions apply to me. I find the gameplay portion of RPG play quite enjoyable...assuming it's a good system. The only good system where I don't really enjoy certain [I]aspects[/I] of gameplay (not all, just mostly combat) is Dungeon World, and even there, a cooperative DM can make it work. Ironically, it is for this exact reason that I actually do enjoy [I]running[/I] it, because for me as DM, every combat is refreshing and different, every monster can be something new or a twist on a familiar idea etc. As a player, I could basically flowchart every battle (from a pure gameplay perspective, not an RP one) and do just fine in probably 90% of combats. DM worked with me to give me more options--not strictly more [I]power[/I] since many of them required resources or couldn't be used consecutively--and it felt better, but it was still on the ragged edge of what I'm looking for. While that's fair, it doesn't have to be a C[B]RPG[/B], I play lots of other video games. Stellaris is a 4x space game, I still want to try to Mend the Great Schism in CKII, working on the "post-post game" of Hades, I've recently gotten completely enthralled (pun absolutely intended) by Cult Simulator, and one of these days I'm [I]going[/I] to unlock the Dragon "class" for Desktop Dungeons. There's a lot of no-RP-just-G gaming I can get out there. This is a fair desire, and I support offering such things. A range of depth is desirable, from straightforward "I attack the guy" or "I shoot magic missile at the darkness" to intricate "I'll call out a Commanding Strike to Alice, and then Rally the Troops to get Bob and Carlos into position to thrash this thing when its turn comes up...", so that players can play what they like. Forcing [I]all[/I] Fighter fans to [I]only[/I] have the option to roll the die and tell the DM the number (despite the popularity of quite intricate fighting options in many computer games), and [I]all[/I] Wizard fans to be planning spells four levels ahead and weigh the pros and cons of their six different preparation options (despite the popularity of very simple wizardry like [I]Harry Potter[/I]) is unwise. Likewise, forcing all Fighter fans to feel like they must literally memorize a fencing manual to play, or all Wizards to have "BLUE WIZARD NEEDS FOOD BADLY"-level gameplay, is also unwise. A spread of options gives the best value. (Personally, I'm of the opinion that Barbarians should be the go-to "I roll a die and report a number" class, and Fighters should range from slightly, but not much, more complex than that all the way up to legit scholars of battle-tactics who have read several books on the subject and might be able to write one in-character.) I mean, that's fair, but you should understand that this is a popular option. Popular enough that the edition [I]specifically built[/I] around seeking broad appeal included it. It may not be [I]your[/I] cuppa, but a lot of people really like it. Rather like dragonborn in that regard. A [I]lot[/I] of old-school fans find them dumb or even annoying/actively bad, but they're only growing in popularity now, having risen to 3rd most popular race on D&D Beyond in 2020 (IIRC, dragonborn would drop to 4th if you merged together the different types of Elf--but that still means they'd overtaken tieflings, a significant feat in and of itself.) Yeah, I'm just...not a very gonzo player. I tend to be Team Dad, group conscience, that sort of thing. I mean, fundamentally, the two really are separate things. If they weren't, you wouldn't have ever heard people accuse 3e of being "Spellcasters & Spreadsheets" (or "D&Diablo" or whatever) or the ever-popular, ever-grating screed of 4e being "an MMO on paper." It's clear that people are aware that the two are distinct things. That they're separate does not mean they [I]never[/I] interact, but rather that the interaction of roleplay and gameplay is a [I]design choice[/I], something that must be [I]made[/I] to happen rather than just being an innate fact of roleplaying. One does not need to roleplay in order to have gameplay, and one does not need gameplay in order to roleplay. [I]Dragonriders of Pern[/I] is a science-fantasy series by Anne McCaffrey (and supplemented by her son...though that worked about as well as Frank Herbert's son "expanding" [I]Dune[/I]). To the best of my knowledge, there is no system for it. We were literally just freeform writing out what our characters would do. The "rules" simply existed to maintain consistency with a given RP-site's twist on the official canon (since most such sites do so; it's more a way to add spice and a personal touch than anything else.) No [I]mechanics[/I] of any kind, no levels or XP, anything like a "combat" would be very rare, and would be talked out between parties or resolved by moderator intervention if that wasn't working. Lords of Creation is about as minimal as a system can get; it's a game where you play as a deity and shape the world and cosmology. You get certain amounts of Action Points every week, to spend on the various actions, which are designed to be about as open-ended as possible (e.g. there are three levels of Create Concept, which covers...literally almost anything, from basic tech like Writing to sci-fi advanced robots to magic.) Conflict between deities is very simple, resolved by basic head to head dice rolls with a few modifiers--it's meant to be a last resort when (player-side) diplomatic efforts have failed. Understood. No hard feelings. Eh, I don't really see the "concept unfolding" aspect from a blank slate. A blank slate has nothing to unfold. There can't be any subtext if there isn't any text, nor any unveiling of the already-stark-naked. That's all fair, and all I can really say is...I just would like systems that support your way of doing things no better or worse than mine. It [I]is[/I] possible. Some compromises usually have to happen, but they don't have to be radical ones. E.g. people in this thread have already indicated that they'd really like it if 5e had had actual "zero level" rules, so they could start even [I]earlier[/I] than at the level of classes. That's a thing I've been advocating for for years--since before 5e launched, actually--despite having zero interest in using them myself. Because I believe zero-levels are the best and fullest way to serve all three seemingly-competing masters: the "I want the most zero-ish zero-to-hero I can get" crowd, the "I'm new and have no idea what's going on" crowd, [I]and[/I] the "can we get past the tutorial, please?" crowd. The third group (meaning, people like me) would have to accept that starting actually at 1st level isn't really appropriate for that: first level should be where [I]new[/I] players start, with relatively few tools so they can acclimate. The first group (meaning, from what I understand, people like you) need to accept that having their playstyle be the default at first is punishing to those new players, and is thus better opt-in--dare I say, as a [I]module[/I]--rather than opt-out. A sidebar saying as much, coupled with a robust "zero-level" system represented in [I]both[/I] the PHB and DMG, would let a system genuinely and non-pejoratively support all three needs, in principle without issues. Obviously, the execution matters a great deal, but it's not like this is a revolutionary thing (since, as noted, many people in this very thread already have an ad-hoc system for doing just that). But I could see a sidebar of the type: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
Top