D&D (2024) Rests should be dropped. Stop conflating survival mechanics with resource recovery.

[SteveC]

would anyone care to elaborate on the meaning of this for the people who weren't around for those wars then?

A first level character in 4th Edition had the hit points and abilities of perhaps a third level character, for precisely the reason that the low level starter levels are frequently skipped or just aren't that enjoyable for a lot of people. This was a conscious design.

It wasn't received well by the people who enjoy and want those first levels to be gritty and deadly. That's one of the reasons 5E has the starter levels they do have, and why we have exactly the reverse situation. It was one of the things people objected to the most.

I just want a game that's fun to play from session one and across the levels where you expect to play it. I'm not interested, nor do I have the time for "play this much in order to get to the fun part." I've just come out of a starting game where we advanced fairly rapidly and it was fine. I have to admit I'm not looking for a level one game any time in the near future, though.

 

[Emberashh]

The difference is 4e was years ago and before the great influx of players that 5e brought to the table.

Assuming that all these new players have the same preferences as grognards from over 20 years ago is a foolish thing, id say, and the fact that people consistently reinvent 4e and like what they see is also evidence that the times have changed.

But even besides that, theres a reason why I, and others, say that DCC is the game you want if you want something that "feels" like DND.

Funnels do a drastically better job of representing early level meat grindy realism and do so in a drastically more entertaining way. It makes way more sense to actually be a manure shoveling peasant than it is to be an ostensible hero adventurer who just sucks because reasons for a couple of levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

The difference is 4e was years ago and before the great influx of players that 5e brought to the table.

Assuming that all these new players have the same preferences as grognards from over 20 years ago is a foolish thing, id say, and the fact that people consistently reinvent 4e and like what they see is also evidence that the times have changed.

But even besides that, theres a reason why I, and others, say that DCC is the game you want if you want something that "feels" like DND.

Funnels do a drastically better job of representing early level meat grindy realism and do so in a drastically more entertaining way. It makes way more sense to actually be a manure shoveling peasant than it is to be an ostensible hero adventurer who just sucks because reasons for a couple of levels.

The early levels give players a chance to get a grip on their characters* and for the group to identify any gaps they have in aggregate before it's too late to fill them. The 5e ruleset certainly isn't making any effort to help players flesh out those things other than by fire.


* Both their own and each other's

 

[mamba]

Assuming that all these new players have the same preferences as grognards from over 20 years ago is a foolish thing, id say, and the fact that people consistently reinvent 4e and like what they see is also evidence that the times have changed.

no, it's a sign that you do not need to invent what you already have. People veer off in 4e and oldschool directions from there. Probably more into oldschool than 4e going by what other TTRPGs are out there and how successful their kickstarters are

But even besides that, theres a reason why I, and others, say that DCC is the game you want if you want something that "feels" like DND.

yes, so you can change 5e into not-D&D

 

[Emberashh]

The early levels give players a chance to get a grip on their characters* and for the group to identify any gaps they have in aggregate before it's too late to fill them. The 5e ruleset certainly isn't making any effort to help players flesh out those things other than by fire.


* Both their own and each other's

Well heres the thing about the early levels, by the games expectations, levels 1-2 are only meant to last a single session, two at the most.

The Adventuring Day expects you to be dropping up to 300xp on characters at level 1, which automatically kicks you to level 2, and then this jumps to 600xp, which in turn automatically kicks you to level 3. Only then do you start having to do more than one Adventuring Day to continue to level up.

What amounts to two different dungeons isn't actually a lot of time, and as noted, its not the only way to do things.

yes, so you can change 5e into not-D&D

If you haven't actually played DCC id just knock that off man. It was literally designed to capture that exact thing and it does so in spades.

Getting quippy because it isn't literally Dungeons and Dragons is just childish.

 

[mamba]

If you haven't actually played DCC id just knock that off man. It was literally designed to capture that exact thing and it does so in spades.

Getting quippy because it isn't literally Dungeons and Dragons is just childish.

I said nothing against DCC, I objected to your idea of what to turn 5e into

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you haven't actually played DCC id just knock that off man. It was literally designed to capture that exact thing and it does so in spades.

Getting quippy because it isn't literally Dungeons and Dragons is just childish.

The thing is that D&D has always been a big tent game - and it's one of its secrets. DCC captures one aspect of D&D better than D&D ever did - but Dungeon World was designed to and captures a different aspect of D&D better than D&D ever did. Because they get to focus in on those parts of it that they liked.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well heres the thing about the early levels, by the games expectations, levels 1-2 are only meant to last a single session, two at the most.

The Adventuring Day expects you to be dropping up to 300xp on characters at level 1, which automatically kicks you to level 2, and then this jumps to 600xp, which in turn automatically kicks you to level 3. Only then do you start having to do more than one Adventuring Day to continue to level up.

What amounts to two different dungeons isn't actually a lot of time, and as noted, its not the only way to do things.



If you haven't actually played DCC id just knock that off man. It was literally designed to capture that exact thing and it does so in spades.

Getting quippy because it isn't literally Dungeons and Dragons is just childish.

"It's only meant to last a session or two" is a different problem & it's a big one because that phrase gets used to dismiss many of the problems that 5e's wuxiua/isekai self insert power fantasy design concessions cause to make d&d struggle to feel like d&d. I've had groups get into their low teens & remark that they got there faster than they got to level 10 without at any point lamenting the speed of leveling. I don't remember how long it was but the game lasted over a year & I'm pretty sure it was two or three months of weekly sessions getting to level 3.

There's no prize for doing the fastest speedrun in d&d. That "only meant to last a session or two" dismisses any value in the players growing as a team with their PCs or the PCs themselves putting down roots with growing connections in the world as they adventure. In one of crawford's videos he even mentions how they discovered that not all groups advance at the same rate & how some are happy to just cruise along at a given level without advancing for long periods of time .

 

[Emberashh]

That "only meant to last a session or two" dismisses any value in the players growing as a team with their PCs or the PCs themselves putting down roots with growing connections in the world as they adventure.

I think you're projecting a lot of baggage that isn't actually in that statement; ie, you specifically feel immersion is undervalued if you don't spend X time at certain levels.

A single adventuring day can, in fact, take more than one session. In fact, it often should given how much people seem to assume it must take place in just a single session even if its entirely impractical.

But the XP values are what they are, and they're the progression rate that was intended. That some may have come along afterwords and used some other progression rate is immaterial; we can't have an objective discussion if we're assuming what amounts to homebrew is taking place at any given table.

When the first adventuring day of any campaign, by the rules, automatically levels you to two, and the second day to level 3, clearly these aren't levels you're meant to spend a long time at relative to level 3 and beyond.

Whether you take a month to get through that first adventuring day or a single session doesn't really make a difference; you're still going to be spending less time at those levels if you're following the intended leveling rates.

And if you're not, then you're not really playing 5e as it was designed so it doesn't really matter.

People may have different preferences what Ought to be but that is pretty much irrelevant to what Is.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you're projecting a lot of baggage that isn't actually in that statement; ie, you specifically feel immersion is undervalued if you don't spend X time at certain levels.

A single adventuring day can, in fact, take more than one session. In fact, it often should given how much people seem to assume it must take place in just a single session even if its entirely impractical.

But the XP values are what they are, and they're the progression rate that was intended. That some may have come along afterwords and used some other progression rate is immaterial; we can't have an objective discussion if we're assuming what amounts to homebrew is taking place at any given table.

When the first adventuring day of any campaign, by the rules, automatically levels you to two, and the second day to level 3, clearly these aren't levels you're meant to spend a long time at relative to level 3 and beyond.

Whether you take a month to get through that first adventuring day or a single session doesn't really make a difference; you're still going to be spending less time at those levels if you're following the intended leveling rates.

And if you're not, then you're not really playing 5e as it was designed so it doesn't really matter.

People may have different preferences what Ought to be but that is pretty much irrelevant to what Is.

You are doing a lot of projection of your own opinions overtop of what I wrote & it's very misplaced. Lower levels allow PCs a greater depth of play & interaction with the world than PCs at higher levels. That depth allows for a great deal more story plot & content than chasing after the next world ending apocalypse engine level threat of the week. That room for depth & potential for growth very quickly melts away as PCs advance because of some design choices 2014 5e made in the math & various rules to ensure that higher level PCs never actually need anything & never need to care about their place in the world.

As to that bolded bit?...
"You can also award XP when characters complete significant milestones."
"You can do away with experience points entirely and control the rate of character advancement. "

The same page with those two statements also includes the session or two comment, but that comment does not cease to be a phrase too often used to dismiss problems as noted simply because it's printed.