D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Parmandur]

Conan doesn't become a better swordsman over the course of the stories. He doesn't start out killing giant rats and then end with killing dragons. He's killing demons from day one.

Weeeell,no, that's not accurate: the first story, he is a Thief sneaking around a tower, and he does increase in power till he becomes a king.

Granted, AD&D creates it's own new, weird genre, and doesn't really emulate those stories (DCC does that job much better, amd it uses systematized micro-milestones for advancement). But it makes way more sense to me than the bizarre "kill things and get better at unrelated Skills" train of combat XP, which just encourages really warped behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

I usually phrase that as "I'm casing the joint."

I mean, if that's how you want to put it, at least it gives me something to adjudicate. It's not "I want to roll perception" which tells me nothing about what you are actually doing.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't some of the Conan stories go back a ways though to before he's prime Conan - the series jumps around chronologically. (Granted he's always well above average).

Reminded me to look up page 10 of Dragon 36.

Both Conan and Elric are zero to hero types. It's just that the authors opted to have the lower levels happen off screen. Elric had to learn sword skill and sorcery, training and getting better at both(leveling up) long before we see him in book 1. Conan was captured and trained in the slave pits where he got better and leveled up by training and fighting.

D&D just opts not to have the lower levels happen off screen as the default state of the game. DMs can certainly start the PCs at 5th, 10th or even 20th level if the group wants to play hero right off the bat.

 

[Clint_L]

These are all excellent arguments in favour of milestone leveling.

 

[Older Beholder]

Both Conan and Elric are zero to hero types. It's just that the authors opted to have the lower levels happen off screen. Elric had to learn sword skill and sorcery, training and getting better at both(leveling up) long before we see him in book 1. Conan was captured and trained in the slave pits where he got better and leveled up by training and fighting.

D&D just opts not to have the lower levels happen off screen as the default state of the game. DMs can certainly start the PCs at 5th, 10th or even 20th level if the group wants to play hero right off the bat.

Elric, is the 428th Emperor of Melniboné, and a version of the Eternal Champion,
I'm not sure how either of those things fit the 'Zero to Hero' narrative.

 

[Hussar]

And I would point out that Conan’s stories are not presented in chronological order. He’s an accomplished thief in the first story.

At no point is Conan first level. .

That’s kinda the point of pulp heroes. They start off as big damn heroes. At no point are they hanging out in the Shire living quiet lives.

 

[Maxperson]

Elric, is the 428th Emperor of Melniboné, and a version of the Eternal Champion,
I'm not sure how either of those things fit the 'Zero to Hero' narrative.

You think he was born an infant hero? I don't. I think he was a kid who learned and got better, eventually growing into the Eternal Champion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Haha

So now literally no hero can be anything but zero to hero because they were born at some point.

Wait, no. What if I play a warforged? Am I allowed to be the hero to a story structure that wasn't run into the ground by 1970 then?

 

[Clint_L]

Weeeell,no, that's not accurate: the first story, he is a Thief sneaking around a tower, and he does increase in power till he becomes a king.

He increases in power in the sense that he achieves political power. But it's not clear that he is a better warrior or adventurer as he ages, or at least not by much; he's pretty damned good from the earliest we see him. But that's because he's not a character in a game and doesn't need to level up.

What is the underlying argument here - that levelling up as happens in D&D is not very realistic? That's not exactly breaking news. I still think milestone levelling makes the most sense, though, because it can be linked to narrative progression.

 

[Aldarc]

Elric, is the 428th Emperor of Melniboné, and a version of the Eternal Champion,
I'm not sure how either of those things fit the 'Zero to Hero' narrative.

From what I recall, Elric and the other emperors also apparently "level up" by sleeping and entering into the dream realms.

He increases in power in the sense that he achieves political power. But it's not clear that he is a better warrior or adventurer as he ages, or at least not by much; he's pretty damned good from the earliest we see him. But that's because he's not a character in a game and doesn't need to level up.

What is the underlying argument here - that levelling up as happens in D&D is not very realistic? That's not exactly breaking news. I still think milestone levelling makes the most sense, though, because it can be linked to narrative progression.

Yes. Conan's power increase is primarily diagetic. He becomes a king of a powerful nation in the setting. I'm not sure, however, if that is an argument in favor of milestone leveling.

Unsurprisingly, 2e was my favorite edition and the one I bought the most. It was D&D to me. Dumping and/or twisting it beyond recognition felt and still feels quite personal, despite my knowing that's not true.

I find this ironic as I consider 2e to be the edition that has the least emphasis on an emerging story. It's probably the edition that leaned the hardest into GM-curated stories, metanarratives, and adventures. (In many ways, it's quite similar to 5e, which feels a lot like 2e in terms of GM as storyteller albeit with a post-3e style characters with builds.)