D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Li Shenron]

We are second level right now and I hate my character. I am playing a necromancer and it will be several levels before I can truly be a necromancer instead of just the wizard with ray of enfeeblement.

I enjoy the world I am playing in and the RP is fun but combat is so boring I can do it in my sleep.

There are so many issues say you want to multiclass as part of your concept but at first level you can only be one of your classes.

I am not sure how to fix this as long as we have a game where your character improves through gaining levels.

This is one practical and legitimate concern, or two:

a) you have the concept of a character, and you want a mechanical representation of that (e.g. "necromancer", and you want her to be able to raise some undead minions), but the game rules allow that only at level 10

b) you want to be tactical in combat, and for that you need at least a few different combat abilities that you can combine and see how they work, but the game is stingy with those until a certain level

This is totally understandable issues, and should be solved by agreeing to play the right game at the right level. Which of course, isn't always easy... players and DM may have different preferences. But in fact, you say you have no problems in Shadowrun, so this means it is an issue related to chosen system and level.

 

[Hussar]

So what's the difference between a weekly game lasting 2 years and a biweekly game lasting 4, beyond the fervor and intensity of playing every week?

Nothing. But if you're seventh level then your about a third of the way through an AP. IOW at your pace an AP should last six years, not 4.

 

[Hussar]

Look, in a level based system, some things require you to be a certain level before you do them.

It's pretty hard to be a first level weapon master.

It's pretty hard to be head of a religious order at first level.

It's pretty hard to be king of a land at first level.

So, the higher the goal, the further off it's going to be. If you are playing DnD and you want your followers and small keep then you have to be a certain level.

If I'm waiting three years to play the character I actually want to play then you can bet I'm getting frustrated.

 

[Li Shenron]

Look, in a level based system, some things require you to be a certain level before you do them.

It's pretty hard to be a first level weapon master.

It's pretty hard to be head of a religious order at first level.

It's pretty hard to be king of a land at first level.

So, the higher the goal, the further off it's going to be. If you are playing DnD and you want your followers and small keep then you have to be a certain level.

If I'm waiting three years to play the character I actually want to play then you can bet I'm getting frustrated.

Then the mistake is the starting level. If you have to wait 3 years playing what you want, you should have joined a different gaming group who want to play the same - not always an option of course

Or again, the mistake could be playing the wrong system. AFAIK D&D has always started off about exploring dungeons or saving a village, and later move to saving or ruling kingdoms. If all players want to play a game of kings or superheroes, start a campaign at high-level or look for a superheroes RPG. Let's not blame the system but blame our choice of system.

 

[Celebrim]

Nothing. But if you're seventh level then your about a third of the way through an AP. IOW at your pace an AP should last six years, not 4.

Why does an AP need to end at 20th level? Isn't the whole point of an AP to tell a coherent campaign story, or is it merely to get in a requisite number of levels?

I guarantee I will not run this campaign to 20th level. There is no need. There is no reason really that it should go beyond 13th level or so, by which point the PC's will be at least on par with most high level NPCs in the world.

I'd far rather start up again in some different part of the world with some new story.

 

[Celebrim]

Look, in a level based system, some things require you to be a certain level before you do them.

It's pretty hard to be a first level weapon master.

Sure, depending on what you mean by 'weapon master', but if you are playing your character to be a weapons master... then what?

If you want to start play as the finest swordsman in the world, you can do that. You just don't start at first level. You start off at above whatever level is normal for the setting. This is however true of the 'first level' of any game system, even one that don't have levels. By default GURPS starts you with 100 character points - probably about the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level character - there are many things you won't be able to buy for that. MM defaults you to power rating 10. Every system tries to ensure that you will fit to the fundamental law of RPGs, "Thou shalt not be good at everything." Even something like Exalted where you are veritable demigods starts you out with a vast hierarchy of more powerful beings above you and with plenty of room for mechanical growth.

If you start off play as the finest swordsman in the world, then for the most part there really isn't much room for mechanical growth. You've already reached the ultimate. What particular story are you wanting to tell with that?

I mean, in terms of absolute power, it's sort of hard to be a 1st level god. But there is nothing really that stops you from doing that if that is what everyone wants to do. Perhaps your problem is that you just need to run one wildly Monte Haul over the top epic campaign to get it out of your system. Take all the brakes off, start at high level, and just go nuts with world breaking world spanning yahoo.

It's pretty hard to be head of a religious order at first level.

No it isn't. It would just be an unusual GM that would allow a PC to have that much influence. For one thing, it's a nightmare to adjudicate. I've been in campaigns with the players as rulers of various sorts, and as a player I was doing more work keeping track of my holdings, retainers, hirelings, and income than many GMs do to run their campaign. My 'character sheet' ran out over 100 pages. It was fun and it's definitely different and I have some awesome memories of that campaign, but I can't criticize any GM for not wanting to go there because my DM was putting the work of a full time job to run the game.

It's pretty hard to be king of a land at first level.

No it isn't. Presumably 'boy kings' who take the throne without much inexperience aren't even particularly rare. Such boy kings might also be at least the nominal head of religious orders - high priestly kings, uniting church and state. Again, it's just an unusual GM that would allow a PC to have that much influence. It's possible to start my campaign as the son or daughter of a king however, and I had one character in the campaign start with royal blood so they were literally in my game a 'Princess' and NPCs addressed her as, "Your highness". IF that is what you want, I'm fully willing to support it. If what you want is a administrative, political, military campaign, and everyone is in agreement, I'm fully willing to run that as well - but it certainly doesn't require you to be more than 1st level. Authority isn't solely the result of how many levels you got; some people, monarchs in particular, are born with it.

If I'm waiting three years to play the character I actually want to play then you can bet I'm getting frustrated.

I can honestly say I've never had to wait to play any character that I wanted to play. I'm not even fully sure I understand the complaint.

 

[Celebrim]

I have noticed that I am now in the camp of can we hurry up and level. My reason is I am deathly sick of the lower grind levels.

I don't understand this. Are you alone in the group in thinking of lower levels as a 'grind'? If not, why are you even starting as 1st level characters anyway? Start at 3rd or 5th or 7th or wherever you think you can start the story you want to tell.

I have noticed that when I play Shadowrun or other non level type games this is not a problem mainly because you start with a more effective character and usually can play your character concept right away.

Many games without levels tend to start you at equivalent to a 3rd or 4th level character, and then 'level you up' much slower with small packets of skill improvement. But that's not always true. Star Wars D6 starts you off at a power level roughly equivalent to a D&D 1st level character and it doesn't have levels. I'm not hugely familiar with Shadowrun, but from what I've heard combat is potentially absolutely brutal. You mention hating combat. In systems where combat is brutal either in outcome or the work to resolve it, there is a huge pressure to avoid it.

We are second level right now and I hate my character. I am playing a necromancer and it will be several levels before I can truly be a necromancer instead of just the wizard with ray of enfeeblement.

Tell me what being a necromancer means to you?

There are so many issues say you want to multiclass as part of your concept but at first level you can only be one of your classes.

3.0 had an interesting system where you'd start out as a multiclassed apprentice 0th/0th level character.

I am not sure how to fix this as long as we have a game where your character improves through gaining levels.

I don't think levels have anything at all to do with it. I think that since the 80's there has been a trend of turning every genera into a super-hero genera - Capes & Swords is now almost the norm of fantasy especially among RPGs. God of War has become the default experience players want. For example, have you seen the trailer for Elder Scrolls Online? It seems like every FRPG out there wants to show how much more over the top it is than every other one. But ironically or not, probably the most popular fantasy series out there right now - GRR Martin's Game of Thrones - has gone completely the other way, with probably every character reasonably being below 6th level.

If what you want is a Capes & Swords campaign, D&D can certainly deliver it.

 

[Umbran]

Look, in a level based system, some things require you to be a certain level before you do them.

It's pretty hard to be a first level weapon master.

It's pretty hard to be head of a religious order at first level.

It's pretty hard to be king of a land at first level.

That's not really a symptom of being level based. That's an issue for starting characters in most systems. The dynamic of growing in power seems to be a pretty strong draw to players, in general, so most games use it as a base assumption. You start low, and progress in power as time goes on. The stock expectation for starting is at the lower end of the game's power curve, so you have somewhere to go as time goes on.

You can, of course, not play by the stock expectation. Non-level based systems tell you to use more points (or whatever they use for character advancement) if you want to play more powerful characters. In D&D, you start at higher level. But the general plan is mostly the same.

 

[Savage Wombat]

That's not really a symptom of being level based. That's an issue for starting characters in most systems. The dynamic of growing in power seems to be a pretty strong draw to players, in general, so most games use it as a base assumption. You start low, and progress in power as time goes on. The stock expectation for starting is at the lower end of the game's power curve, so you have somewhere to go as time goes on.

You can, of course, not play by the stock expectation. Non-level based systems tell you to use more points (or whatever they use for character advancement) if you want to play more powerful characters. In D&D, you start at higher level. But the general plan is mostly the same.

If you've noticed, it tends to be the norm in most occult/mystery fiction lately, too. Think about how many characters in these books seem to develop one new supernatural power, magic item, or previously undiscovered ability in each book.

 

[Hussar]

I think you guys are missing my point though. I have no real problems with the whole just starting out character thing. That's fine.

My problem is that many DM's figure that the journey is the whole point of play. Luke doesn't become a Jedi at the end of the movies. He becomes one about half way through. Arthur doesn't become king at the end of the story. Peter Parker isn't bitten by a spider after months of story.

Just because a character has goals doesn't mean that those goals should only be achieved at the end.

And what's the point of a game with twenty levels if you only ply thirteen of them?