D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[Ruin Explorer]

Same level as existing players. It's a social game.

Yep. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Practicality and making it fun do. I'd be fine, "fairness"-wise with starting at 1st. But holy crud as a DM I would not want to be writing around a 1st level PC, nor would I want the other players having to deal with it.

Also, given the speed of leveling if they get a full XP share, it'd all seem a bit silly, I think. They'd catch up to 1 level behind real fast - so fast it'd make you go "Hmmmmm".

That's a fine approach for certain playstyles, but it's awful in a true sandbox. In a true sandbox, the player chooses his or her pc options and then makes the most of them.

I think you'll find that sandbox dms tend to be the same ones who threw out the whole idea of the magic item wishlist, magic item shops, easy access to npc spellcasting and the like, too. Sandboxes don't serve softballs tailored to the party; by their very nature, there's no magic polearm just because you took Polearm Master- but there might be one somewhere even if you don't.

Bit of a tangent but I'm not convinced a sandbox that pure exists. Certainly not after a few sessions. For a sandbox to remain that perfect you'd basically need the DM merely interpreting rules, and a computer program or something generating content. Access to NPC spellcasting and magic item shops has nothing to do with sandbox or not, but rather to world design - it may be that sandbox DMs prefer lower-magic, often wilderness-set campaigns with none of that, but it's not inherent.

 

[Iry]

That's a fine approach for certain playstyles, but it's awful in a true sandbox. In a true sandbox, the player chooses his or her pc options and then makes the most of them.

I think you'll find that sandbox dms tend to be the same ones who threw out the whole idea of the magic item wishlist, magic item shops, easy access to npc spellcasting and the like, too. Sandboxes don't serve softballs tailored to the party; by their very nature, there's no magic polearm just because you took Polearm Master- but there might be one somewhere even if you don't.

I can agree that in a pure sandbox tailoring the adventure to the players might be awful, but in my completely anecdotal experience sandbox tends to be the minority. My sample size is only about a hundred different players, but I would put the percentages around 70% to 80% in favor of a more story oriented game. It can become downright hard to find 4 players who all want to sandbox unless you use a large scale meeting place like this forum.

But putting anecdotes aside, playing a pure sandbox like that would pretty much require A) Running a module with no modification. B) Running a procedurally generated world (roguelike?). C) Running an old campaign setting of your own that was made for different players.

There is also the complication that a sandbox setting may not be catering to the psychological needs of your players, unless their psychological needs coincidentally can be fulfilled by a sandbox setting.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Same level as existing players. It's a social game.

Agreed, there is little to no reason to hamstring a new guest in a gaming group. We're there for fun after all and forcing a new player in the group t be lower level than everyone else is just a pointless exercise IMO. Plus if you start a new character at 1st level and they run with a group of higher levels, and the manage to survive even one adventure it does not sit well with me to level them multiple levels after one adventure. Which is what would happen. That just seems to break the feel to me.

 

[the Jester]

I can agree that in a pure sandbox tailoring the adventure to the players might be awful, but in my completely anecdotal experience sandbox tends to be the minority. My sample size is only about a hundred different players, but I would put the percentages around 70% to 80% in favor of a more story oriented game. It can become downright hard to find 4 players who all want to sandbox unless you use a large scale meeting place like this forum.

I agree- but I think that the style of most campaigns vis-a-vis the story/sandbox divide is largely decided by the DM. Most players are happy with either style, so long as the game is good (at least in my experience).

But putting anecdotes aside, playing a pure sandbox like that would pretty much require A) Running a module with no modification. B) Running a procedurally generated world (roguelike?). C) Running an old campaign setting of your own that was made for different players.

The design of the world need not be for any players at all. Speaking for myself, my campaign has been running with different groups and encompassing different time periods in the world for about 20 years now, and has had 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and now 5e groups in it.

There is also the complication that a sandbox setting may not be catering to the psychological needs of your players, unless their psychological needs coincidentally can be fulfilled by a sandbox setting.

I think it's easy for players who want some story to get it by engaging with npcs or groups that are pursuing agendas and getting into how those agendas interrelate with other things the pcs are invested in (at least in my game and in my experience with other sandboxy DMs). Just because it's a sandbox doesn't mean that there aren't things happening in the game. IMC the city has around 20 different factions in it, all working to further their own ends while hindering those of their adversaries. How things play out at important points is determined either via some dice rolling on my part (if it doesn't happen during play) or with the input of the pcs' actions, if they get involved.

 

[Iry]

I think it's easy for players who want some story to get it by engaging with npcs or groups that are pursuing agendas and getting into how those agendas interrelate with other things the pcs are invested in (at least in my game and in my experience with other sandboxy DMs). Just because it's a sandbox doesn't mean that there aren't things happening in the game. IMC the city has around 20 different factions in it, all working to further their own ends while hindering those of their adversaries. How things play out at important points is determined either via some dice rolling on my part (if it doesn't happen during play) or with the input of the pcs' actions, if they get involved.

But here is the problem. Meeting the needs of your players means knowing what is going on in their lives and building situations that can help them on a psychological level. Let me give an example:

Player A is an explorer who just wants to experience what kind of cool story I am telling. I do some digging to find out what genres and tropes she likes and dislikes, then make sure she encounters (or avoids) those tropes to a moderate degree in-game.

Player B has been passed up for promotion twice and seems really bummed about it. I make sure she encounters situations where she can be better recognized for her accomplishments and maybe an authority figure is willing to give her more responsibility (if she rolls well -- these are not freely given).

Player C wants to talk trash to NPCs because he has to be extremely nice and diplomatic in his workplace. Since he needs to blow off some steam now and then, I make sure to arrange some situations where he has an easier time getting away with talking trash to NPCs. Doing so is ultimately his choice, of course.

Player D is a higher functioning member of the autism spectrum and has trouble interacting socially with others both inside and outside of the game. I make sure circumstances in the game conspire to give him a wide and obvious range of social situations so he can learn and experiment with how to act in a safe environment.

A sandbox is probably not going to meet the needs of those players with any regularity. Only by coincidence. This is one of the biggest reasons why it is such a good idea to tailor situations to the needs and capabilities of your players. Unless you have players who specifically enjoy a sandbox heavy game over the alternative, they may be having objectively less fun.

 

[Halivar]

The xp tables in 5e give a 1st level character the best chance to catch up since 1e (there is another thread I saw with a chart comparison). Starting at 1st level is something I would never have done in 3.x or 4E, but is something I'm considering for 5th. All of this is with the caveat that for new characters, I always run periodic side adventures for bonus catch-up xp and magic items.

 

[the Jester]

But here is the problem. Meeting the needs of your players means knowing what is going on in their lives and building situations that can help them on a psychological level.

With all due respect, I'm running a game, not a therapy group. My game isn't there to validate anyone or make them feel better about their lives; it's there to be a fun game with interactive storytelling elements.

 

[ad_hoc]

With all due respect, I'm running a game, not a therapy group. My game isn't there to validate anyone or make them feel better about their lives; it's there to be a fun game with interactive storytelling elements.

Yeah, not to just keep ganging up but this too.

At work, providing client centred therapy is important. But...D&D time is time to have fun. I'm a player too.

 

[Iry]

With all due respect, I'm running a game, not a therapy group. My game isn't there to validate anyone or make them feel better about their lives; it's there to be a fun game with interactive storytelling elements.

That's absolutely fine. We each have a limit to how much effort we can put into the hobby -- god knows I have less time and patience for planning a game compared to when I was younger. We are all in it for the long haul and it is easy to burn out when you put 110% of yourself into every game. We gotta pace ourselves.

But adding some therapy and providing a little catharsis is one of the best tools you can use to elevate your game from good to great.

 

[manduck]

Wait, so you are only going to play through 1 campaign in 5e?

We're not jerks at our table. We play as a social game so we don't measure character power against each other. I am sorry that is how your group sees the game.

You're sorry that my group treats everyone at the table as equals and goes out of the way to help each other out? I don't think you picked up on what my post was actually about.