PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying level one



BiblioRook
2016-07-17, 06:33 PM
Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this. You're weak and limited in both resources and abilities and generally can feel kind of useless. Even worst often you even are completely lacking in core class mechanics that are central to how you see yourself as a character. I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?

Foe example, I rather like Rogues but I enjoy magical Rogue even more, so you can imagine I'm pretty keen on Arcane Tricksters. Character wise I usually like to focus more on the magical side then the Rogue side (like being a failed or runaway wizard apprentice)... but this becomes a problem due to not being able to learn any spells until level three. True you can get a few various magical abilities by other sources like through race, but thatsnotreallythepointofthisthreadthankyou.

So how about it? It's kind of hard to confidently play yourself as some sort of bad-ass adventurer when an angry house cat can prove a legitimate threat...

Draconi Redfir
2016-07-17, 06:40 PM
As just a general tip, for roleplaying a magical rogue at level one, you could always put things in where your character is using magic but not in a way that directly affects anything. Maybe he's making replacement lockpicks hover next to his head as he's trying to pick a lock, or maybe he makes a slice of bread that was already within arms-reach float over to him while making a sandwich.

So long as it's not enough to mechanichally impact the game, using magic purely for fluff should be fine in my eyes. Then once you get to level three, just say you got a liscence or learned a few new things that will help you out more.

Blue Duke
2016-07-17, 06:49 PM
also you are probably practicing the magic on your downtime for two levels it doesnt just suddenly manifest but when you hit level 3 or what ever you've practiced it enough to be confidant enough to use it in the field. same goes for the Eldritch Knight and even wizards and such are probably practicing or studying their spell books.

Vitruviansquid
2016-07-17, 06:49 PM
Sounds like the fault of the system.

For your particular situation, I'd consider it like you could do some magical stuff of too little consequence to be represented on the tabletop, until level 3.

OldTrees1
2016-07-17, 07:11 PM
How I play characters before mechanical maturity:
The character is still working on developing their abilities. They are still an apprentice, even if self taught, rather than a journeyman.

Examples:
The Necromancer is still studying the process of death and will only become a master over death after further study.

The Magic Rogue is still relying on the mundane method while they tweak their spellcraft to where it catches up with their natural talents.

The Warrior is still practicing art forms and moves. They have mastered the beginnings of many of the sequences but are still working on the endings and on making combined forms that don't come with crippling flaws.

BiblioRook
2016-07-17, 07:32 PM
While it makes sense in the context of the mechanics I find it hard to believe that many people go into a game with the mentality that their character is an utter amateur in their area of expertise. It's unarguably my least favorite part of starting at level one, more then even the actual mechanical shortcomings. With that mentality it feels like you are kind of pigeonholing yourself, what about trying to explain older characters? Like 'I'm a grizzled old veteran that has seen many battles..." yet still has the stats of a level 1 fighter? Time is also kind of wonky due to how fast a typical adventure might progress, going from like level one to level five in the span of an in-game week for example isn't that odd.

Jormengand
2016-07-17, 07:37 PM
Like 'I'm a grizzled old veteran that has seen many battles..." yet still has the stats of a level 1 fighter?

A level 1 character, by definition, hasn't seen many battles, or at least hasn't participated in many battles enough to get experience from them. It's like saying you want to play an archmage at level 1, or play a thief that has stolen kingdoms'-worth of gold. Of course that's not a level 1 character, by definition. Nor is it meant to be. Level 1 is the point at which you are seeing many battles so you can say you're a grizzled veteran when you actually haul your butt up to level 10.

BiblioRook
2016-07-17, 07:39 PM
I guess what I'm trying to get at is if you let being level 1 dictates your character or do you prepare your character for the bigger picture of what you inevitably will grow into?

Like what if you want to play as the grizzled veteran but just happen to be stuck in a level one game, is that character then just not feasible as a character? Also I'm talking about less in terms of experience and more in terms of age. Sure it makes sense to have a strapping young character when starting at level one but personally I hate trying to role-play as youngsters, But when it comes to low level characters trying to have a character that has more years on them seems... odd.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-17, 07:40 PM
The problem is sort of with D&D's absurd power curve. You have to constantly keep in mind that a level 1 is a perfectly competent and experienced person. And that by level 6 you're a literal superhero.

Thrudd
2016-07-17, 07:41 PM
At low levels, your character is not yet a badass adventurer. You are a novice who has just decided to try their hand at adventuring. Your background should be conceived accordingly. Except in extraordinary circumstances, this means a young character, teens and twenties, maybe early thirties at the oldest. Most likely a newly "graduated" apprentice. If you want to play the already badass adventurer, you should be starting out above level three.

Level one through three is playing out origin story of your badass adventurers (for those who survive past those levels).

That said, I don't really love the way 5e classes are structured, either, from a verisimilitude standpoint. Or rather, in order for it to make sense how new powers appear at different levels, such as the rogue or fighter suddenly getting spells, there should be a mandatory in-game time expenditure for levelling up and a suggestion of returning to teachers, masters, guilds, etc for additional training in between levels. Otherwise, it makes no sense that one day you could be fighting along as a level two with no spell ability, and wake up the next day with spells. Before you get your next level and your spells, the character must return to civilization and get with someone that can teach them the new skills and powers and spend some weeks or months.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-17, 07:47 PM
Genuinely curious: How, exactly? In what areas are they different from, say, a citizen?

A citizen is going to be a level 0 commoner, most likely. Compare a 1st level fighter to a 0th level commoner.

A fighter has d10 hp, +1 bab, a bunch of proficiencies and gear to go along with them.

The citizen has d4 hp, 0 bab, no proficienies and probably no gear.

And the PCs/people with class levels probably have much better stats too.

Cluedrew
2016-07-17, 07:47 PM
To a certain extent if you want to start at level one mechanically, then you should probably start at level one mechanically as well. Now what this means varies on the system. Even within the versions of D&D this has meant anything from "wet behind the eyes green horn" to "1-in-1000 master of their trade". Approximately.

If you are playing the game where level 1 I say, do an appropriate character concept or start at a higher level. Play the game the system was meant to play I guess.

Thrudd
2016-07-17, 07:56 PM
I guess what I'm trying to get at is if you let being level 1 dictates your character or do you prepare your character for the bigger picture of what you inevitably will grow into?

Like what if you want to play as the grizzled veteran but just happen to be stuck in a level one game, is that character then just not feasible as a character? Also I'm talking about less in terms of experience and more in terms of age. Sure it makes sense to have a strapping young character when starting at level one but personally I hate trying to role-play as youngsters, But when it comes to low level characters trying to have a character that has more years on them seems... odd.

Correct. starting at level one, certain character concepts are not appropriate. By definition, at level one you haven't experienced anything in terms of adventuring. A fighter might have been a soldier or mercenary for a while, but probably hasn't seen much serious action. It could be believable for a veteran soldier or mercenary to be in their mid twenties, seen a couple battles, killed a few people, which gave them the experiences and skills necessary to be considered a level one fighter.

Jormengand
2016-07-17, 08:10 PM
The problem is sort of with D&D's absurd power curve. You have to constantly keep in mind that a level 1 is a perfectly competent and experienced person. And that by level 6 you're a literal superhero.

I wouldn't call a level 1 character - who would usually fail the kind of craft check that I could make all the time, and who is immediately knocked out when shot with a gun, unlike practically every real-life human being - "Perfectly competent and experienced". You're looking to be about level 3 by that point. I've gone into the details of why this is the case here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19238077&postcount=18).

goto124
2016-07-17, 08:27 PM
Seems like an unfair comparison, RL and DnD don't work the same way as your linked post has shown. DnD is imperfect when not modelling battle-trained people/creatures, it's not exactly supposed to.

DnD has stats for citizens, comparison to that could be done as a poster above did.

Jormengand
2016-07-17, 08:37 PM
DnD is imperfect when not modelling battle-trained people/creatures, it's not exactly supposed to.

I disagree: it's supposed to be able to model a rogue and a wizard as well as a fighter. That, and the fact that a warrior being taken straight out by the average pistol shot is still a flaw in the combat system.

goto124
2016-07-17, 08:39 PM
In DnD, the rogue and wizard are also combatants.

I suddenly wonder when pistols were introduced into DnD...

NichG
2016-07-17, 08:39 PM
One thing to keep in mind is, D&D is very much a game about growth. You shouldn't really start with a character who has nowhere to grow to. And the lower level you start, the more growth there will be in your future, so the more space you have to leave your initial character concept. If you're starting at Lv1 rather than immediately jumping to 'I'm a bad-ass hero', it should be more like 'I want to become a bad-ass hero' (or alternately 'I used to be a bad-ass hero before this stupid curse/brain injury/reincarnation/etc and now I have to get used to not having even 1% of my previous powers'). If that's unappealing, Lv1 games may just not really be the thing for you.

Now, given that, why do people like starting at Lv1? Personally, I think its better for 'show, don't tell'. If you start at Lv10, all the stuff the characters did to become experienced and awesome is just in each player's head, its not shared. So there's a lot of 'let me tell you this story of how great I was', but its all just whatever the players decide to say - at some level you know it doesn't matter because there's nothing backing it, so it often feels flat as a result. But if you start at Lv1, all the stuff the characters do to become awesome is a shared experience that happened at the table - everyone gets to form their own impression of it as it happens, rather than just being told.

Zman
2016-07-17, 08:52 PM
Well, I usually start at levles 2 or 3 to avoid that very "problem" as in its only a problem if you envision your character as more developed than the starting level.

Jormengand
2016-07-17, 08:58 PM
In DnD, the rogue and wizard are also combatants.

I suddenly wonder when pistols were introduced into DnD...

The wizard isn't, at least not a physical combatant. And the fact that the rules (I think there are guns in the DMG, but I'm just grabbing the pistols from D20 modern because it's a lot easier to research how much damage a pistol deals than a longbow - either way it doesn't add up).

Oh, and if you shoot a first-level wizard? Yeah, he falls unconscious too. First-level rogue? Staggered if his constitution is decent. And the skills for the rogue are wonky too. Everything about characters who are anything above about 5 or below about 3 is massively wonky.

Thrudd
2016-07-17, 08:58 PM
I disagree: it's supposed to be able to model a rogue and a wizard as well as a fighter. That, and the fact that a warrior being taken straight out by the average pistol shot is still a flaw in the combat system.

I would resolve that apparent flaw by reinterpreting what it means when a character takes enough damage to get killed. If the character dies, then the shot was one that would be fatal to a normal person. If the shot did not kill them, then it was not. Some of the more ridiculous or unbelievable results that the system can produce, like small animals dealing enough damage to kill a person, should probably be ignored or the rules outright changed. A cat shouldn't deliver any real damage to a human being, unless it is to deliver scratches that might become infected and cause disease after a couple days (roll on a table to see if you get "cat scratch fever" from claws with bacteria or feces on them). The rules are an abstraction. A dagger can absolutely kill someone, and if the dice roll indicates that it does so, then that 1 HP of damage wasn't just a scratch, it was a slash to the jugular or a stab to vital organs. If 1 HP damage doesn't kill you, then the dagger didn't get you in a vital spot, or it maybe it didn't even hit you at all. IN any case, 1 HP or any specific amount of HP does not reflect an objective amount or type of wound. It reflects characters getting worn down in varying amounts. When a character is out of HP, whatever last attack hit them was an attack capable of causing a mortal wound.

veti
2016-07-17, 09:13 PM
At low levels, your character is not yet a badass adventurer. You are a novice who has just decided to try their hand at adventuring. Your background should be conceived accordingly. Except in extraordinary circumstances, this means a young character, teens and twenties, maybe early thirties at the oldest.

As a rule, yes. But if you want to play an older person who suddenly takes up adventuring, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't.

Example: a shopkeeper, whose shop (and whole town for that matter) has been razed to the ground by demonic invaders, whose family and friends are dead, and who wants some payback. Or maybe he was detected watering his wine, or otherwise disgraced and had to flee the town. Or maybe he was framed. There's no end of worthwhile backstories you could invent, to justify your L1 Rogue being 50 years old.

The only difference, apart from age-related stat modifications, is that he's going to have a lot of background knowledge about - something. But that's not going to make a lot of difference in a typical adventuring career.

RazorChain
2016-07-17, 09:53 PM
The wizard isn't, at least not a physical combatant. And the fact that the rules (I think there are guns in the DMG, but I'm just grabbing the pistols from D20 modern because it's a lot easier to research how much damage a pistol deals than a longbow - either way it doesn't add up).

Oh, and if you shoot a first-level wizard? Yeah, he falls unconscious too. First-level rogue? Staggered if his constitution is decent. And the skills for the rogue are wonky too. Everything about characters who are anything above about 5 or below about 3 is massively wonky.


Well if you compare D&D with real life then D&D is going to look pretty stupid in regards to most everything. D&D isn't modeled after realism, it's more like a superhero world or a cartoon were other rules apply.

BiblioRook
2016-07-17, 09:54 PM
Now, given that, why do people like starting at Lv1?

I typically don't have much of a choice, my gaming group places a lot on keeping things open and newbie friendly so games almost always start at level one and rarely last beyond the span of a single quarter. I get why things are that way and don't necessarily disagree with it, but as a more experienced gamer it does get pretty annoying sometimes.

JenBurdoo
2016-07-17, 10:28 PM
I let my level 1 players try and use whatever they like. The players are total newbies to RPGs, so I don't want to discourage them -- I just give them a minus to their roll. Want to throw a thermonuclear fireball at level 1? Go right ahead and try, but you'll have to roll a 20 first. Two players are effectively arcane tricksters and one a ranger. So far one of the thieves has fallen off several buildings and the ranger has injured himself trying to bash down doors and break into a hospital. They enjoy my humorous recountings of their failures, but are working away at improvement.

OldTrees1
2016-07-17, 11:17 PM
I guess what I'm trying to get at is if you let being level 1 dictates your character or do you prepare your character for the bigger picture of what you inevitably will grow into?
False dichotomy. Level 1 is preparing for the bigger picture they will grow into. Keyword is grow since a Level 1 character cannot mechanically represent a concept that only becomes available later.


Like what if you want to play as the grizzled veteran but just happen to be stuck in a level one game, is that character then just not feasible as a character? Also I'm talking about less in terms of experience and more in terms of age. Sure it makes sense to have a strapping young character when starting at level one but personally I hate trying to role-play as youngsters, But when it comes to low level characters trying to have a character that has more years on them seems... odd.

I described an example Level 1 Warrior as
The Warrior is still practicing art forms and moves. They have mastered the beginnings of many of the sequences but are still working on the endings and on making combined forms that don't come with crippling flaws. and that description works just as well for a Level 1 old warrior as it does for a Level 1 barely an adult warrior. The key is that since mechanically both of those warriors have lots of room for improvement, I would choose fluff that matches. So the Level 1 old warrior is for some reason starting from near the beginning. Why? Perhaps they have gotten old and need to rework all of their forms in order to preform despite the ravages of their old age.

However if you want to have a character that is fluffed as a Level 6+ character, then yes that character is inappropriate for a Level 1 game. Consider the hyperbole of wanting a 1st level character to be an Epic Sorcerer that ascended to become a Deity. Obviously that fluff is not going to work with a 1st level character sheet. Less hyperbolic examples suffer the same problem but merely to a lesser degree.

awa
2016-07-17, 11:27 PM
also depending on your setting most warriors old or or not are just level 1. Considering that warriors don't have automatic max hp at first level a fighter represents a significant upgrade.

So your a veteran warrior who fought in a lot of wars and what not but the skills learned marching in formation are not the same skills learned fighting orcs in a cave.

In fact you could say that your guy is an absolutely great formation fighter and if you had 40 of your buddies to help, you could show off your stuff, but this whole running around in a haphazard skirmish your going to need to learn that almost from scratch

Quertus
2016-07-18, 08:08 AM
Now, given that, why do people like starting at Lv1? Personally, I think its better for 'show, don't tell'. If you start at Lv10, all the stuff the characters did to become experienced and awesome is just in each player's head, its not shared. So there's a lot of 'let me tell you this story of how great I was', but its all just whatever the players decide to say - at some level you know it doesn't matter because there's nothing backing it, so it often feels flat as a result. But if you start at Lv1, all the stuff the characters do to become awesome is a shared experience that happened at the table - everyone gets to form their own impression of it as it happens, rather than just being told.

Most of my early gaming occurred one adventure at a time, with each character being played in many different adventures, with many different groups. So, whether I started at level 1 or level 10, there might still be no shared experiences with the players at the table, let alone with the characters that they are running.

Personally, I think I had more fun with the "sharing your stories around the fire" games than the modern "adventure together for life" mindset. But, yeah, there was still something backing all the stories, even if that something didn't exist in the other players' heads.

Playing the same character in a lot of different groups also had the advantage of giving the character a much broader range of experiences than you're likely to get under a single DM. And sharing those stories could help inform the DM of what everyone enjoys, and broaden people's view of what was possible in the game.

I guess my point is, I don't see the advantage in having known Max Stabbington back when he was still learning to put the pointy end in the other person.

BWR
2016-07-18, 08:58 AM
Playing level one isn't a problem. Playing beginners in any system isn't the problem. It's making character concepts that don't fit beginner levels of power and complaining that it doesn't make sense that is the problem.

Jay R
2016-07-18, 09:30 AM
tl;dr

Play the first level character as a first level character, not a crippled higher-level character.
First level characters have basic skills; they are neither complete amateurs nor people who've seen many battles.
Starting adventuring late in life is perfectly normal.




Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this.

Actually, I would much rather start at first level and develop the character's history through play than just invent it. Level one is a much greater challenge, and gives you the ability to grow the character, rather than just making him up. (I don't want to start a book, movie, or chess game in the middle, either.)


You're weak and limited in both resources and abilities and generally can feel kind of useless.

Then your problem is your internal feeling. A level one fighter facing a goblin is no different from a tenth level Fighter facing his legitimate threat.


Even worst often you even are completely lacking in core class mechanics that are central to how you see yourself as a character.

This problem is how you see yourself as a character. Stop seeing him as already developed.


I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?

I act like a starting adventurer with basic abilities, trying to learn higher level abilities.


Foe example, I rather like Rogues but I enjoy magical Rogue even more, so you can imagine I'm pretty keen on Arcane Tricksters. Character wise I usually like to focus more on the magical side then the Rogue side (like being a failed or runaway wizard apprentice)... but this becomes a problem due to not being able to learn any spells until level three. True you can get a few various magical abilities by other sources like through race, but thatsnotreallythepointofthisthreadthankyou.

Your problem is that you are trying to define yourself as something other than a first level character. Be a rogue who thinks magic would be great.


So how about it? It's kind of hard to confidently play yourself as some sort of bad-ass adventurer when an angry house cat can prove a legitimate threat...

Exactly. So playing as a bad-ass adventurer when you aren't one is as silly as playing yourself as a wizard when the character is a Fighter.

Play what you are - somebody who wants to become (or needs to become) a great adventurer. Many older men have joined the army for the first time when the country is at war.

This is your first football game, your first fencing tourney, or your first mission after basic training. Nervous but determined, you will use the skills you have, and do what it takes to develop more skills to become like your great hero Lancelot.


I guess what I'm trying to get at is if you let being level 1 dictates your character or do you prepare your character for the bigger picture of what you inevitably will grow into?

I prepare my character to learn more and grow stronger. But this is also what I do if I start at 3rd level, or 10th level.


Like what if you want to play as the grizzled veteran but just happen to be stuck in a level one game, is that character then just not feasible as a character?

The same thing you do if you want to be an epic Fighter but you're starting at level 10. You take the time, gain the experience, and earn the levels you want.


Also I'm talking about less in terms of experience and more in terms of age. Sure it makes sense to have a strapping young character when starting at level one but personally I hate trying to role-play as youngsters, But when it comes to low level characters trying to have a character that has more years on them seems... odd.

But it is in fact perfectly normal. D'Artagnan was young, but Athos wasn't. Frodo and Bilbo both started their adventures at 50 (early middle age for a hobbit). Robin Hood's career started when Prince John took over England, not because of Robin's age. Carl Frederickson's adventures (in Pixar's Up) began when he was an old man. Alonso Quijana was an old man when he first went out as a knight errant called Don Quixote. Many older men first join the army when the country goes to war.

The older person with no adventuring experience is a perfectly valid character.


While it makes sense in the context of the mechanics I find it hard to believe that many people go into a game with the mentality that their character is an utter amateur in their area of expertise.

Of course not. First level characters are not utter amateurs, and pretending they are is as silly as pretending that they are grizzled old veterans. The fighter has a sword and knows how to use it. The wizard has spells. Everybody has the basics, and the willingness to try to learn more.


It's unarguably my least favorite part of starting at level one, more then even the actual mechanical shortcomings. With that mentality it feels like you are kind of pigeonholing yourself, what about trying to explain older characters? Like 'I'm a grizzled old veteran that has seen many battles..." yet still has the stats of a level 1 fighter?

You can choose your class, but not your experience or level. "Grizzled old veteran" is fine, but "has seen many battles" is an attempt to choose your experience. Want to play a grizzled old veteran at first level? He's been in the army for decades, quietly doing guard duty or shuffling papers. Many soldiers have done this in peacetime.


Time is also kind of wonky due to how fast a typical adventure might progress, going from like level one to level five in the span of an in-game week for example isn't that odd.

That's true. The way to fix that is to make it take more time to level up, but somehow I get the feeling you won't like that solution, either.

Madokar
2016-07-18, 03:11 PM
My current GM did something different when we started our campaign. We all started out with NPC levels. We were given a very basic task (kill some goblins that attacked the town we were in). And when that was resolved, we were rewarded with proper PC class levels. That took about half a session, but it was a notable way to start an evolution into class levels.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-07-18, 03:41 PM
Something that can be fun to do is start the game with every player playing like 3-5 0th level characters dealing with some major threat to their village. Most of them die in the process and the ones who survive and come out the other side become the shiny new level 1 PCs.

Jay R
2016-07-18, 06:35 PM
Something that can be fun to do is start the game with every player playing like 3-5 0th level characters dealing with some major threat to their village. Most of them die in the process and the ones who survive and come out the other side become the shiny new level 1 PCs.

Oh, that sounds like fun. Among other things, it reinforces the point that your character can die (somewhat) painlessly.

Recherché
2016-07-18, 07:14 PM
I have seen one example of a veteran lvl 1 character that made a lot of sense. The guy was a former soldier that had retired decades ago and become the town drunk. His story was one of getting sober and remembering how to do everything that he'd learned so long ago.

It ended up not only explaining how an elderly veteran was low level but also pulling on all the heartstrings at the same time. Your mileage may vary though.

Thrudd
2016-07-18, 07:14 PM
Something that can be fun to do is start the game with every player playing like 3-5 0th level characters dealing with some major threat to their village. Most of them die in the process and the ones who survive and come out the other side become the shiny new level 1 PCs.

That's explicitly how Dungeon Crawl Classics works, including random tables to decide the professions of all those 0 level villagers.

2D8HP
2016-07-19, 12:06 AM
The old Treasure Hunt (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Hunt_(module)) adventure module, has the PC's start at 0-level and without a class yet.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-07-19, 12:26 AM
Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this. You're weak and limited in both resources and abilities and generally can feel kind of useless. Even worst often you even are completely lacking in core class mechanics that are central to how you see yourself as a character. I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?

Foe example, I rather like Rogues but I enjoy magical Rogue even more, so you can imagine I'm pretty keen on Arcane Tricksters. Character wise I usually like to focus more on the magical side then the Rogue side (like being a failed or runaway wizard apprentice)... but this becomes a problem due to not being able to learn any spells until level three. True you can get a few various magical abilities by other sources like through race, but thatsnotreallythepointofthisthreadthankyou.

So how about it? It's kind of hard to confidently play yourself as some sort of bad-ass adventurer when an angry house cat can prove a legitimate threat...

As a fellow rogue-lover, I feel your pain. I want nothing more than to play a canny, resourceful character who wins by guile as much as raw power but the nature of roleplaying games really doesn't lend itself overmuch to rewarding strategy if you rolled a 2 and an orc with a greataxe critted your face. When you have a spectrum of possible results 1-20 the result of any direct contest is so randomized that the best lain plans are inevitably dashed.

Of course, when you truly manage to create a light-armored, more Errol Flynn (or Edward Elric!) type character who truly kicks ass, it's all that much more special in that you had to put some real work into the build and probably actually read on the terrain and vision rules and pointedly remind your DM to use them in order to make that character rock.

In fact, this is a fundamental failing of so many games in the 3.5-PF group---people tend to play "spherical cow D&D" (this is my own term that I just coined, I'm brilliant) where they ignore terrain, they ignore lighting, they ignore elevation, because those rules are fiddly and boring, and then they complain the guy with the biggest sword always wins. DMs, you can't do this. Read those terrain rules, read the rules on the distance at which encounters begin, and use them and I promise it's like a whole different game.

Uh, anyway about level 1.

Okay, so, in the games I usually play, we go with the rule that PCs begin with their full HD+Con bonus in HP while NPCs get half HD+Con. So, your average starting human fighter's rocking 11-12 HP while your town guard recruit's got six. This comes down in some ways to what you feel HP represents: I prefer to think of it as a kind of "luck meter" as much as anything, so I always describe damage taken which doesn't take a huge chunk out of the HP total as being a bruise or a very shallow cut or something. So basically, your level 1 fighter twists away from a broadsword at the last moment and only takes a bloody but shallow slash where the guard recruit would just be Rob Roy'd, hork up a lot of blood and die. Level 1 characters are absolutely mathematically better than, like, the average beat cop, or the mafioso's thugs.

As a 3.5/PF player I come from the perspective that your characters start out measurably tougher than the guy in the street, but still very much in the realm of Mike Tyson could punch you in the side of your temple and you're just dead, because the brain doesn't react well to getting punched. This to me seems like the best place to begin because your characters have room for cool backstories, reasons why they're measurably tougher than the average guy in the street, but are still very similar to regular humans and the world they experience where you can seriously slip in the shower and just die. As you level up, the world turns into Kill la Kill, but you begin in a very human frame and I like that.

Yora
2016-07-19, 11:11 AM
Foe example, I rather like Rogues but I enjoy magical Rogue even more, so you can imagine I'm pretty keen on Arcane Tricksters. Character wise I usually like to focus more on the magical side then the Rogue side (like being a failed or runaway wizard apprentice)... but this becomes a problem due to not being able to learn any spells until level three.

And this is why the whole d20 system is fundamentally flawed, can not really be fixed, and why it's a wonderful thing that people finally stopped using it for all kinds of licensed games.

Spending the entire campaign waiting until you finally have the character you want to play and you are able to fight the cool monsters, only for the campaign to end because the system goes whack is what made me dump the d20 system for good.
If only I had looked into other games 10 years earlier...

Jay R
2016-07-19, 01:24 PM
And this is why the whole d20 system is fundamentally flawed, can not really be fixed, and why it's a wonderful thing that people finally stopped using it for all kinds of licensed games.

Spending the entire campaign waiting until you finally have the character you want to play and you are able to fight the cool monsters, only for the campaign to end because the system goes whack is what made me dump the d20 system for good.
If only I had looked into other games 10 years earlier...

Wow. I've never felt my character wasn't the player I wanted to play. Growing into a hero is a fun process.

There's a difference between "fundamentally flawed" and "isn't what Yora likes".

I guess I agree that if people don't want to play unless they have high level power, then you shouldn't play low levels, but that has nothing to do with d20. 1st level characters in original D&D, BECMI, and AD&D 1e and 2e are also low level. D20 didn't invent the idea of playing out character growth.

Tobtor
2016-07-19, 01:35 PM
I wouldn't call a level 1 character - who would usually fail the kind of craft check that I could make all the time, and who is immediately knocked out when shot with a gun, unlike practically every real-life human being - "Perfectly competent and experienced". You're looking to be about level 3 by that point. I've gone into the details of why this is the case here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19238077&postcount=18).

Well as others have said DnD is crazy sometimes, and can never be compared to real life. Sometimes you can do a lot better (like everyone could in theory pick up a sword and manage to hurt someone really bad - in DnD you need a proficiency), other times the DnD character can do crazy stuff (some of the carrying capacity rules are a bit off).

Yor examples with guns is also off, as others have said, as it is not really DnD. Think of it another way: A 1 lvl 3rd edition DnD fighter character (or barbarian etc) will typically shake of even the most powerfull blow of a short sword wielded by an average person (10 in strength) which gives 1d4 (so maximum 4 times 2 if it crits). The fighter has a standard of 1d10+con bonus (or 10+con depending on have your group does it). Even normal attacks with a long sword are pretty safe (1d6), though crits can send you to 0.

How many people can in real life stand a good attack (a roll of 6...) with a sword and keep fighting?

The skill thing in your referenced post is a double problem:

1. It is meant to be used in emergencies (adventuring), not in everyday situations. This explains the climbing a tree. I would allow a player to take 20 on that if he had plenty of time (he want to reach the apple in the top branch and no-one is bothering him), but not if followed by angry dogs - here he needs to do his check.

This also explains the chemistry: I consider the listed lvls to be with simple equipment and on a rush, doing it in a lab would give you both a bonus and allow you to take 20 (measure and remeasure as many times as you are comfortable, check books, have an assistent/teacher to notice if you miss something etc). This is why your chemstry class all managed. They would all manage if they in two years of not doing chemstry suddenly was ask to do so with basic equipment in a medieval lab they didn't know, but stumbled upon in a dungeon....

2. Some of the others are of course more problematic, but the thing is DnD have all parts of your "power/ability" go up according to one core thing: lvl. So if you want to be better at knowledge, you automatically need to become better at wielding a weapon (all PC classes go up in BAB as they lvl, and levelling is the only way to get more skill points).

So you cannot be a lvl 1 character who are an expert in Kantian ethics. Professors in philosophy are clearly better at fighting than their students (assuming they are the same class). This is not a problem with lvl 1, it is the problem with using DnD to represent reality. DnD can be fun if you want to do epic quest and dungeon crawls etc, but sucks at represent real world characters - for this use a different system.

Note: realising I am saying the same as Yora but with more words.... so I stop here.

NichG
2016-07-19, 10:10 PM
Actually, why not be an expert in Kantian ethics at level 1? There's no skill controlling that or game-mechanical consequence of it, so you're free to RP it as you like.

2ed D&D had a Lv0 NPC running a faction of scholars in Planescape. It just meant no adventuring ability, not no ability period.

JenBurdoo
2016-07-19, 10:15 PM
This is one reason why the All Guardsmen Party is one of my favorite campaigns - the players played through their backstory and converted the survivors into their higher-level PCs. I'm considering converting it for fantasy use. ("Build a hundred zero-level NPCS. Now off to the orc-front with you, see you on the flip side!")

BWR
2016-07-20, 06:15 AM
There's a difference between "fundamentally flawed" and "isn't what Yora likes".


Really? And all these threads he's been doing almost had me believing it was.
Weird.


Well as others have said DnD is crazy sometimes, and can never be compared to real life. Sometimes you can do a lot better (like everyone could in theory pick up a sword and manage to hurt someone really bad - in DnD you need a proficiency)

Erm, what? To my knowledge, no edition of D&D said you are incapable of using weapons you don't have proficiency with. You may get penalties to using it but a 0th level sod picking up a sword still has a decent chance of hitting another 0th level sod and doing serious damage in every edition I am familiar with, even if they have non-proficiency penalties.

Brion
2016-07-20, 07:37 AM
Low levels are my favorite to roleplay, actually, because there are challenges to it and character growth comes out of it. The whole world is literally opening before your eyes, and/or your world is being turned upside down, and/or you're escaping slavery, etc, etc. My last thought is "oh I can't literally slaughter an entire army yet. BORING."

Takewo
2016-07-20, 08:37 AM
I guess I agree that if people don't want to play unless they have high level power, then you shouldn't play low levels, but that has nothing to do with d20. 1st level characters in original D&D, BECMI, and AD&D 1e and 2e are also low level. D20 didn't invent the idea of playing out character growth.

I don't think this is an accurate representation of what Yora said. I believe that the argument is more like that first you need to get through the process of leveling your character up to the concept that you want to play and then the system becomes wonky. It's not about whether low levels should be player or not but about problems that arise in high levels.

PersonMan
2016-07-20, 09:58 AM
Low levels are my favorite to roleplay, actually, because there are challenges to it and character growth comes out of it. The whole world is literally opening before your eyes, and/or your world is being turned upside down, and/or you're escaping slavery, etc, etc. My last thought is "oh I can't literally slaughter an entire army yet. BORING."

I think that the people who dislike the level one (or just very low level in general) experience would say that the problem lies in the fact that the world isn't really opening, because you're still so weak that your ability to explore, etc. is severely limited.

SirBellias
2016-07-20, 10:00 AM
For me, level one is an actual lack of experience in dangerous situations, or using their power. For games where the DM says "y'all start at level one," I'm keeping in mind that this character probably hasn't been in too many real life or death situations, or if they have, they got considerably lucky. I usually let my players pick where they start within a specific range (usually 1-10), and they know that if they pick level one, they're not going to be grizzled veterans. They might be young upstart mercenaries, or people who have started to dabble in things beyond the mundane, but they have no real stopping power without a lot of luck.

Thrudd
2016-07-20, 10:19 AM
I think that the people who dislike the level one (or just very low level in general) experience would say that the problem lies in the fact that the world isn't really opening, because you're still so weak that your ability to explore, etc. is severely limited.

That really depends on the DM. Because it is a game, there should be adventures and exploration which 1st level characters are capable of succeeding at.

Playing low level characters just requires the understanding that the game is about discovering who the heroes (or villains) are and playing out their career from start to finish. You are creating the story of the heroes starting at the beginning of their career, before they were heroes. Somewhere along the way between OD&D and 5e, people have gotten in their heads that the game is always about badass, chosen-one action heroes performing impossible feats and saving the world. The game is only about that once your characters get up in levels.

PersonMan
2016-07-20, 10:44 AM
Playing low level characters just requires the understanding that the game is about discovering who the heroes (or villains) are and playing out their career from start to finish. You are creating the story of the heroes starting at the beginning of their career, before they were heroes. Somewhere along the way between OD&D and 5e, people have gotten in their heads that the game is always about badass, chosen-one action heroes performing impossible feats and saving the world. The game is only about that once your characters get up in levels.

Some stories, though, begin at the start of a career, but involve people who are already badasses - even if they need to step up to solve the crisis, they're still experts. Less 'the guy who went through militia training and has taken the family sword out to emulate his grandfather's heroic deeds' and more 'the guy who went through six years of Training From Hell to become really good and is now journeying out to test his skills'.

There's a gradient between "PCs start as newbies" and "PCs start as chosen-one actions heroes saving the world" and I think you lose a lot of possibilities by seeing it as a black-and-white thing rather than something to be fiddled with. Some stories just aren't interesting until a certain point - just like you won't play through the fighter's time as a kid who likes who hit people with sticks, you might want to skip over the rogue's years of training that make them worthy of being called up for the first quest the game begins with.

Almost everyone, in my experience, has a preference, and because of how we tend to communicate these get voiced as judgements of a system or playstyle - "level one sucks because..." generally means "I don't like level one because...", but it can result in a disagreement that boils down to "I don't think a story about characters with this level of skill is interesting" or "I don't think playing characters of this level of skill is interesting" versus "I do think a story about characters with this level of skill is interesting" and such. Assuming, of course, that it's not a matter of "oh no you're playing it wrong you have to do it this way otherwise you're playing it wrong".

Thrudd
2016-07-20, 01:55 PM
Some stories, though, begin at the start of a career, but involve people who are already badasses - even if they need to step up to solve the crisis, they're still experts. Less 'the guy who went through militia training and has taken the family sword out to emulate his grandfather's heroic deeds' and more 'the guy who went through six years of Training From Hell to become really good and is now journeying out to test his skills'.

There's a gradient between "PCs start as newbies" and "PCs start as chosen-one actions heroes saving the world" and I think you lose a lot of possibilities by seeing it as a black-and-white thing rather than something to be fiddled with. Some stories just aren't interesting until a certain point - just like you won't play through the fighter's time as a kid who likes who hit people with sticks, you might want to skip over the rogue's years of training that make them worthy of being called up for the first quest the game begins with.

Almost everyone, in my experience, has a preference, and because of how we tend to communicate these get voiced as judgements of a system or playstyle - "level one sucks because..." generally means "I don't like level one because...", but it can result in a disagreement that boils down to "I don't think a story about characters with this level of skill is interesting" or "I don't think playing characters of this level of skill is interesting" versus "I do think a story about characters with this level of skill is interesting" and such. Assuming, of course, that it's not a matter of "oh no you're playing it wrong you have to do it this way otherwise you're playing it wrong".

Oh, of course. That's why some people start the game with characters at level 3 or 5 or 10. You can have whatever stories you like. If you do play from level 1, however, you are going to have a certain kind of story and characters, based on the abilities the game gives those characters. If you start at level 10, your character isn't a newly minted acolyte leaving the temple for the first time, you can't play out that story. If you start at level 1, your character isn't a seasoned holy warrior that has survived a trip to hell and back.

Cluedrew
2016-07-20, 09:19 PM
If you start at level 10, your character isn't a newly minted acolyte leaving the temple for the first time, you can't play out that story.Dude, my temple has some real high standards.

Or more formally: how "strong" each level actually is, is subjective. Not entirely, because a lot of markers can be used to judge how it maps to real life, but they do so inconsonantly (if we go by the number of cat scratches one can take without dying, I'm at least an epic level barbarian). Personally I am in the camp that a level 1 character is already noticeably above average, just look at the number of weapons the level 1 fighter knows how to wield, or how a level 1 wizard can use actual magic, or a level 1 cleric can channel the will of a god.

NichG
2016-07-20, 10:45 PM
Dude, my temple has some real high standards.

Or more formally: how "strong" each level actually is, is subjective. Not entirely, because a lot of markers can be used to judge how it maps to real life, but they do so inconsonantly (if we go by the number of cat scratches one can take without dying, I'm at least an epic level barbarian). Personally I am in the camp that a level 1 character is already noticeably above average, just look at the number of weapons the level 1 fighter knows how to wield, or how a level 1 wizard can use actual magic, or a level 1 cleric can channel the will of a god.

It gets weird when different players have characters of the same level, but interpret that level wildly differently. Especially if the DM also interprets it differently. If every city guard is level 15, that paints one picture of the world. If every city guard is level 0, its a very different image. Neither is wrong, but a mismatch in expectations will be noticeable.

Thrudd
2016-07-21, 12:11 PM
Dude, my temple has some real high standards.

Or more formally: how "strong" each level actually is, is subjective. Not entirely, because a lot of markers can be used to judge how it maps to real life, but they do so inconsonantly (if we go by the number of cat scratches one can take without dying, I'm at least an epic level barbarian). Personally I am in the camp that a level 1 character is already noticeably above average, just look at the number of weapons the level 1 fighter knows how to wield, or how a level 1 wizard can use actual magic, or a level 1 cleric can channel the will of a god.

I would also say level 1 is above average, but just. Not superhumanly so, just a skilled person with a number of years of specialized training. A level 1 fighter is a skilled guy who has studied the use of arms and armor, like Jon Snow compared to most of the other recruits in the Night's Watch.

Yes, it is all relative to what edition is used and how the DM sets the demographics and power level of the world. Yet, even given the flexibility of DM interpretation, this issue still comes down to matching your expectations of the character's abilities with the reality of the game mechanics. A first level character doesn't have a lot of abilities in most systems, and this must inform how you envision your character's background. In 1e, a first level fighter that knows how to use four weapons proficiently must have had more extensive training than your average level 0 soldier that probably knows one or two at the most, and they might have a few more HP and slightly better saving throws. Their actual fighting ability is also only slightly better than level 0. So seeing your guy as a Conan or an Aragorn is probably overestimating the character's skill.

awa
2016-07-21, 12:58 PM
its not just mechanics their also interpretations of mechanics and depending on what mechanics you look at can wildly alter your end result.
So let look at a very small sample what is a soldier someone with some real military training who has seen some action fought in a battle or two.

You could very reasonably say level 1 fighter, but you could also say level 1 commoner who spent his feats on armor proficiency and weapon proficiency. And the civilian commoners are just shaken because well their commoners in a fight.

Those two things are going to play out real differently cause then what's a hardened veteran level 3 fighter or level 1 warrior, what's an elite commando level 6+ with a prestige class or level 1 fighter.

If your level 5 war blade walks into town and the kings guard are level 1 fighters it will look a lot different then if they all have a few levels in the royal guard prestige class

I've seen arguments that level 6 is peak human ability and I've seen source books that assume generic beat cops are level 5 and detectives are level 10.

2D8HP
2016-07-21, 05:28 PM
In 1970's D&D the levels had "titles" (a 6th level Ranger was a "Pathfinder").
A first level Fighter was a "Veteran".

Thrudd
2016-07-21, 07:11 PM
In 1970's D&D the levels had "titles" (a 6th level Ranger was a "Pathfinder").
A first level Fighter was a "Veteran".

That's true. Which I always found strange because the recommended age range for level 1 fighters was 15-19. Which technically could be a veteran, anyone who was in an army for any amount of time and got out if it alive could be a veteran, but a 16 year old isn't the picture most people have associated with the title, let alone a "grizzled" one.

Kish
2016-07-21, 07:21 PM
I would also say level 1 is above average, but just.
The Eberron version of this, is that PC classes are rare. If you spent a long time in the guard before you started adventuring, but you're a first-level fighter--that means the time you spent in the guard, you were learning to be a fighter rather than a warrior. If you're a cleric, your faith is remarkable when you cast your first first-level spell; most priests are experts, who can teach about the faith and provide spiritual guidance, but don't have actual magic.

Which for the average 19-year-old first-level character means "remarkable aptitude" rather than "years of dedication," but there's no reason you can't treat it as "years of dedication," if your concept is of an older character.

OldTrees1
2016-07-21, 11:08 PM
In 1970's D&D the levels had "titles" (a 6th level Ranger was a "Pathfinder").
A first level Fighter was a "Veteran".

True, but to return it to the OP's initial question:
You have a character concept that only matures at 6th level but the campaign starts at 1st level. What do you do?
A) Play as growing into those powers
B) Pretend those powers were always there but not use them until 6th
C) Other (details?)

NichG
2016-07-21, 11:13 PM
True, but to return it to the OP's initial question:
You have a character concept that only matures at 6th level but the campaign starts at 1st level. What do you do?
A) Play as growing into those powers
B) Pretend those powers were always there but not use them until 6th
C) Other (details?)

C) Play a different character

You should always make your character after hearing the campaign premise, and then make your character to fit that premise. Otherwise the entire game is usually going to be a struggle to make your character make sense/care about the stuff in the campaign/etc.

HidesHisEyes
2016-07-22, 09:01 AM
The wizard isn't, at least not a physical combatant. And the fact that the rules (I think there are guns in the DMG, but I'm just grabbing the pistols from D20 modern because it's a lot easier to research how much damage a pistol deals than a longbow - either way it doesn't add up).

Oh, and if you shoot a first-level wizard? Yeah, he falls unconscious too. First-level rogue? Staggered if his constitution is decent. And the skills for the rogue are wonky too. Everything about characters who are anything above about 5 or below about 3 is massively wonky.

It's not realistic but that doesn't make it a flaw, since D&D has never had realism as a big design goal. If you think there's not enough verisimilitude then it's not the perfect system for you, but it's not because WotC ****ed up.

Jormengand
2016-07-22, 11:44 AM
It's not realistic but that doesn't make it a flaw, since D&D has never had realism as a big design goal. If you think there's not enough verisimilitude then it's not the perfect system for you, but it's not because WotC ****ed up.

Of course, but not being realistic may not hamper it as a game but will hamper comparisons to real life. It just turns out that at a slightly higher level than 1, it does a lot better of a job of being realistic with regards to the vast majority of people.

DrStubbsberg
2016-07-22, 12:09 PM
True, but to return it to the OP's initial question:
You have a character concept that only matures at 6th level but the campaign starts at 1st level. What do you do?
A) Play as growing into those powers
B) Pretend those powers were always there but not use them until 6th
C) Other (details?)

Typically I'd choose either A or B - in the specific example of the OP (on the path to Arcane Trickster, or whatever the Rogue/Spell-caster was), option A could be someone learning slowly from a (probably stolen) spellbook, a process that could take a long time without a tutor, especially if it's not a foundational text (imagine having no knowledge of even basic mathematics and only having an advanced calculus textbook to learn from).
For B I'd probably go with the washed-out apprentice, and fluff it that the tutor/academy/whatever has all apprentices branded with a spell that prevents them from casting outside the grounds (so they can't just go off and throw fireballs around until they are deemd ready) - and then either have it that the mark fades over time, or requires a high-level caster with specific knowledge to remove and ask the DM to provide them with access to such an NPC at the appropriate time.

Jay R
2016-07-22, 02:46 PM
True, but to return it to the OP's initial question:
You have a character concept that only matures at 6th level but the campaign starts at 1st level. What do you do?
A) Play as growing into those powers
B) Pretend those powers were always there but not use them until 6th
C) Other (details?)

C) Stop treating power level as part of character conception. A character conception is somebody who wants to be the greatest warrior in the world, not somebody who already is.

Similarly, you can play a character who wants to become a great king, but if you start off as a great king, the game is over. A can invent a wizard who wants to learn Wish so he can undo some injustice, or a Cleric who wants to Resurrect his dead parent, but you can't decide to start at that level.

You want a power level greater than first level? Cool. That desire is the start of a character conception. Now take that first level character and earn the power she wants.

OldTrees1
2016-07-22, 03:11 PM
C) Stop treating power level as part of character conception. A character conception is somebody who wants to be the greatest warrior in the world, not somebody who already is.

Similarly, you can play a character who wants to become a great king, but if you start off as a great king, the game is over. A can invent a wizard who wants to learn Wish so he can undo some injustice, or a Cleric who wants to Resurrect his dead parent, but you can't decide to start at that level.

You want a power level greater than first level? Cool. That desire is the start of a character conception. Now take that first level character and earn the power she wants.

Would you further clarify that by applying it to the OP's specific example.
That being the example of a magical rogue in a system that does not mechanically represent magical rogues at 1st level?

CharonsHelper
2016-07-22, 03:22 PM
Would you further clarify that by applying it to the OP's specific example.
That being the example of a magical rogue in a system that does not mechanically represent magical rogues at 1st level?

A rogue who is intrigued with magic and is studying up. Maybe he can do tiny things which have no mechanical effect. (in fluff it helps him with Sleight of Hand)

Knaight
2016-07-22, 03:46 PM
Actually, I would much rather start at first level and develop the character's history through play than just invent it. Level one is a much greater challenge, and gives you the ability to grow the character, rather than just making him up. (I don't want to start a book, movie, or chess game in the middle, either.
This isn't starting a book in the middle, this is a book that starts with the character somewhere other than the beginning of their career. There are books which follow characters from birth - an obvious classical example* would be most depictions of the Matter of Britain, which start with Arthur as a child and go until he dies (although plenty of other characters are introduced much older). There are also books which follow characters who have already reached greatness, with the Odyssey being a particularly good classical example*. Odysseus was presumably an untested neophyte at some point, but at the beginning of the Odyssey he's someone who just got finished with a ten year war.


C) Stop treating power level as part of character conception. A character conception is somebody who wants to be the greatest warrior in the world, not somebody who already is.

Similarly, you can play a character who wants to become a great king, but if you start off as a great king, the game is over. A can invent a wizard who wants to learn Wish so he can undo some injustice, or a Cleric who wants to Resurrect his dead parent, but you can't decide to start at that level.

Not necessarily. Depending on iteration, Gawain or Lancelot usually are the greatest warrior in the world to begin with. Odysseus is already a competent warrior with all the guile he may ever need. 75% of the major protagonists in The Three Musketeers are extremely competent to begin with, and only one is a comparative neophyte who falls in with greatness. Le Morte d'Arthur doesn't end with Arthur's coronation, and he's depicted as a great king. There's plenty of storytelling that can still happen here, and the same can be done in RPGs.

1st level D&D games are the wrong sort of game to try and do this in, much the same way they are the wrong sort of game to try out a new space marine or superhero character. That doesn't mean that they aren't things that fit just fine in RPGs as a whole, and higher level D&D in particular.

*I can also provide more modern examples, but I expect they'd be summarily dismissed as inferior modern storytelling. The Odyssey should be pretty immune to that.

Jay R
2016-07-22, 04:37 PM
Would you further clarify that by applying it to the OP's specific example.
That being the example of a magical rogue in a system that does not mechanically represent magical rogues at 1st level?

She's a rogue who wants to learn magic, of course. What else could this mean? "You want a power level greater than first level? Cool. That desire is the start of a character conception. Now take that first level character and earn the power she wants." Clearly it means to start at 1st level power and work toward greater power.

--------------------


This isn't starting a book in the middle, this is a book that starts with the character somewhere other than the beginning of their career. There are books which follow characters from birth - an obvious classical example* would be most depictions of the Matter of Britain, which start with Arthur as a child and go until he dies (although plenty of other characters are introduced much older). There are also books which follow characters who have already reached greatness, with the Odyssey being a particularly good classical example*. Odysseus was presumably an untested neophyte at some point, but at the beginning of the Odyssey he's someone who just got finished with a ten year war.

Agreed - such stories exist. But I was responding to the OP's statement "Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this." You are correct that stories that don't start at level one don't stink. My point, that stories that start at level one don't stink, and I'd rather play that way, is not affected by your true statement.


Not necessarily. Depending on iteration, Gawain or Lancelot usually are the greatest warrior in the world to begin with.

Agreed - such stories exist. In this post, I was answering the specific question, "You have a character concept that only matures at 6th level but the campaign starts at 1st level. What do you do?" None of your (correct) examples disagree with my statement about what to do in that situation.

I agree that my statements could be read like they were more general than I intended, or than the context implied (at least to me).

2D8HP
2016-07-22, 07:35 PM
Would you further clarify that by applying it to the OP's specific example.
That being the example of a magical rogue in a system that does not mechanically represent magical rogues at 1st level?
Sounds like the "Gray Mouser" (http://www.stormbringer.net/mouser.html), which (unless I miss my guess) would be the inspiration of the "Thief" classes ability to read magic scrolls.

To get what inspired D&D, read a little Howard, a little Tolkien, maybe even a little Anderson, LeGuin, and Smith, but mostly read a big heaping helping of:
Induction (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0087/ERBAEN0087___1.htm)

The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)

The Bleak Shore (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781625791528/9781625791528___2.htm)

Lean Times in Lankhmar (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm)

In the Witch's Tent (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0090/ERBAEN0090___1.htm)

The Circle Curse (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___1.htm)

The Sadness of the Executioner (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___1.htm)

Beauty and the Beasts (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___2.htm)

The Cloud of Hate (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___1.htm)

Sea Magic (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0093/ERBAEN0093___1.htm)

Kish
2016-07-23, 12:41 PM
Sounds like the "Gray Mouser" (http://www.stormbringer.net/mouser.html), which (unless I miss my guess) would be the inspiration of the "Thief" classes ability to read magic scrolls.
If it is, that's quite ironic.

(Every official D&D writing for him--and there are multiple ones--made him, whether by the dual-classing system of 1ed and 2ed or the multiclassing system of 3ed, part wizard.)

vasilidor
2016-07-28, 07:54 PM
I generally go about that yes a level 1 player character has some experience, and maybe a lot of training under their belt. I am perfectly OK with that for two reasons: one my npc's almost always use npc classes and two a level 10 (i rarely play or run levels higher than 12) character is generally described as a hero of legend.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-04, 05:20 AM
I think the main point to take away from this thread is that the game system doesn't guarantee you thee freedom to make absolutely any character you want. You need to work within the limits of the system. A "magical rogue" in D&D (5E) terms *is* a character of at least level 3 (or level 2, I guess, if you do it by multiclassing). A level 1 magical rogue is no more a viable character concept in D&D than a time-travelling cyborg or a hard-boiled detective from 1930s Los Angeles. Other systems exist that let you play such characters.

I like some of the creative work-arounds suggested here, but if you start from the assumption that your character concept can be anything at all and still gel with the game's mechanics then you're really going to have your work cut out for you.

Of course, there's no reason not to start the game with the PCs at level 3, 5, 10 or 20. I'd argue though that there's a lot of satisfaction to be gained from the "whole career of an adventurer" style of game that others here have mentioned. Let go of your precious unique detailed character concept, tuck it in a folder and save it for a game of FATE or a novel you'll write one day, make a level 1 D&D character and see where that character's adventures take them. Just my preference, not for everyone, but I do feel that this approach is largely what WotC had in mind, for what that's worth.

Herobizkit
2016-08-04, 05:48 AM
I, too, often suffer from #LowLevelBlues. 5e's been out over two years now and I still have yet to play a character higher than 3rd level.

Now, granted, some of that time was trying to rein in the insanity that became my 4e group's Epic (Tier) campaign, and after that joyous mess of powers, feats, abilities and boons, we were aching for some simplicity.

That was 5 months ago.

Also during that time our group and I tried (and failed) to launch a few 5e side-games to keep our appetite.

But now, we're running a hyper-story focused campaign. We've already played three sessions and we're still level 1. I feel as though we should be 3rd by now, had we encountered the "expected" amount of adversity 'twixt then and now.

Playing low-level bums is fine and all, but I've also been playing D&D for nearly 30 years. Let's get to the good parts already! ^_^

Lorsa
2016-08-04, 07:28 AM
C) Stop treating power level as part of character conception. A character conception is somebody who wants to be the greatest warrior in the world, not somebody who already is.

Similarly, you can play a character who wants to become a great king, but if you start off as a great king, the game is over. A can invent a wizard who wants to learn Wish so he can undo some injustice, or a Cleric who wants to Resurrect his dead parent, but you can't decide to start at that level.

You want a power level greater than first level? Cool. That desire is the start of a character conception. Now take that first level character and earn the power she wants.

I've found a significant portion of players, regardless of system, have a rather poor approach to character concept creation.

They seem to start with a concept first, then work backwards to try and get the mechanics to fit with it, and they frustrated when it doesn't. Most of the time this is because the basic starting character isn't powerful enough for their vision.

I've always been curious how they can do this time and time again. To me, the obvious way to go about things is to look at the starting power level and let that limit my available concepts. Imagination is endless, game mechanics are not (even though some people seem to think it's the other way around).

As mentioned, this seems to happen in all systems, not just D&D. I guess it's because some people decide on a character concept before they're read and understood the character creation rules. The problem that Jormengand brings up about starting characters not being able to model the skills of an ordinary person is also not exclusive to D&D. Understanding the power level of a starting character is thus extremely important.


To the OP: If you are supposed to start at level 1, you can't play a Magical Rogue. So forget it, and pick something that is possible (like a Rogue that wants to be magical or a Wizard that wants to be a rogue). The game mechanics obviously set limitations, but there are still an infinite number of character concepts remaining.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-04, 08:24 AM
I've found a significant portion of players, regardless of system, have a rather poor approach to character concept creation.

They seem to start with a concept first, then work backwards to try and get the mechanics to fit with it, and they frustrated when it doesn't. Most of the time this is because the basic starting character isn't powerful enough for their vision.

I've always been curious how they can do this time and time again. To me, the obvious way to go about things is to look at the starting power level and let that limit my available concepts. Imagination is endless, game mechanics are not (even though some people seem to think it's the other way around).

As mentioned, this seems to happen in all systems, not just D&D. I guess it's because some people decide on a character concept before they're read and understood the character creation rules. The problem that Jormengand brings up about starting characters not being able to model the skills of an ordinary person is also not exclusive to D&D. Understanding the power level of a starting character is thus extremely important.


To the OP: If you are supposed to start at level 1, you can't play a Magical Rogue. So forget it, and pick something that is possible (like a Rogue that wants to be magical or a Wizard that wants to be a rogue). The game mechanics obviously set limitations, but there are still an infinite number of character concepts remaining.

Yes, exactly! I really think it's down to this idea that player freedom in character conception trumps everything else, including strong gameplay. It seems to be the prevailing attitude in RPGs nowadays.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-04, 10:26 AM
Yes, exactly! I really think it's down to this idea that player freedom in character conception trumps everything else, including strong gameplay. It seems to be the prevailing attitude in RPGs nowadays.

I wouldn't say that it's the prevailing one (or those diceless systems would actually be selling) but it is said very loudly.

I think sometimes it's said loudly by people who take other aspects of RPGs for granted, and therefore they don't get the sometimes tug-of-war between more potential concepts and gameplay etc.

Jay R
2016-08-04, 12:01 PM
Yes, exactly! I really think it's down to this idea that player freedom in character conception trumps everything else, including strong gameplay. It seems to be the prevailing attitude in RPGs nowadays.

This is a crucial observation, just a little bit overstated.

When I started with original D&D, we rolled the dice and built a character out of the stats rolled. If you rolled a low INT, then you couldn't build a wizard, and you played something else instead. This wasn't considered an issue. We didn't assume a "right" to a particular character conception in D&D, any more than we assumed we could choose which chessmen we'd use in chess, or which properties we could buy in Monopoly.

This changes somewhat over the development of AD&D 1e and 2e, but by the time we got to 3e, there was an assumption that an entire character conception was up to the player, and the game needed to allow it.

It's not that player freedom in character creation "trumps everything else," but it is certainly assumed to be far more important than in the game I started playing.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-04, 12:33 PM
This is a crucial observation, just a little bit overstated.

When I started with original D&D, we rolled the dice and built a character out of the stats rolled. If you rolled a low INT, then you couldn't build a wizard, and you played something else instead. This wasn't considered an issue. We didn't assume a "right" to a particular character conception in D&D, any more than we assumed we could choose which chessmen we'd use in chess, or which properties we could buy in Monopoly.

This changes somewhat over the development of AD&D 1e and 2e, but by the time we got to 3e, there was an assumption that an entire character conception was up to the player, and the game needed to allow it.

It's not that player freedom in character creation "trumps everything else," but it is certainly assumed to be far more important than in the game I started playing.

Well yes, and being constrained by my actual dice rolls in character creation seems odd to me - I guess it's all about what you're familiar with and used to. But even if the trend - from both the designers' end and the players' - has been towards more freedom, there will always be limits set by the game and its mechanics, that's an unavoidable fact.

Knaight
2016-08-04, 12:46 PM
I've found a significant portion of players, regardless of system, have a rather poor approach to character concept creation.

They seem to start with a concept first, then work backwards to try and get the mechanics to fit with it, and they frustrated when it doesn't. Most of the time this is because the basic starting character isn't powerful enough for their vision.

I've always been curious how they can do this time and time again. To me, the obvious way to go about things is to look at the starting power level and let that limit my available concepts. Imagination is endless, game mechanics are not (even though some people seem to think it's the other way around).

I have found that in a lot of systems you can start by doing that, and it tends to produce better characters. Some flexibility is needed, but most systems aren't as limited in D&D as to what characters can be portrayed.

Jay R
2016-08-04, 04:11 PM
Well yes, and being constrained by my actual dice rolls in character creation seems odd to me - I guess it's all about what you're familiar with and used to.

Yup. I have difficulty understanding that anyone would be surprised at being constrained by starting dice rolls. It feels no different to me from being constrained by having short arms when I fence. I'll work to be the best fencer I can, but I'll always have short arms. That's who I am.

Similarly, the die rolls in character creation are who I will play in this game. He'll be the best I can make him, but this is who he is.

I didn't get to decide how many rooks I have in chess, or how many aces I have in poker. I don't really get why how many points of STR I have in D&D should be any different. It never crossed my mind to assume that I should even have a character conception before seeing what rolls I had, any more than I decide whether to bluff or check in poker before looking at my cards.

But I'm aware that mine is a minority viewpoint. And that a game with the huge number of class and character options that 3.5 has will always lead to the infinite customization approach to character creation. (It's what I do in 3.5 as well.)

And there's nothing wrong with that approach. But one of the consequences is the annoyance of the OP, who is annoyed that he can't play a third level character conception at first level.

I sympathize. I really do. But I also recognize that his pain comes from the modern notion that players shoudl have unlimited immediate access to their ideal character conception.


But even if the trend - from both the designers' end and the players' - has been towards more freedom, there will always be limits set by the game and its mechanics, that's an unavoidable fact.

Yes, that's the trend, so that's the current expectation.

And yes, some limits will still be there, or we all start out omnipotent, and there's no game to play. In this case, the limit is that a first level character doesn't have third level abilities, just as a 1st level who is conceived as a Mystic Theurge won't have both arcane and divine spells yet.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-04, 04:40 PM
Yup. I have difficulty understanding that anyone would be surprised at being constrained by starting dice rolls. It feels no different to me from being constrained by having short arms when I fence. I'll work to be the best fencer I can, but I'll always have short arms. That's who I am.

Similarly, the die rolls in character creation are who I will play in this game. He'll be the best I can make him, but this is who he is.

I will say though, from what I understand, ability scores weren't as large a part of your character's potency as they are in 3.x systems. (admittedly - the only way I ever played pre-3.x D&D was playing Baldur's Gate etc.)

BayardSPSR
2016-08-04, 05:11 PM
I've found a significant portion of players, regardless of system, have a rather poor approach to character concept creation.

They seem to start with a concept first, then work backwards to try and get the mechanics to fit with it, and they frustrated when it doesn't.

I strongly disagree - I've consistently had the best results with players when their character concepts precede their analysis of the game mechanics (as opposed to the game's setting and theme). If the game system can't allow for the full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level, that's a fault of the system, not a fault of the player.

That said, "you can't start as the character you want to play" might be inherent to games that assume steady character progression. I do believe that better character creation results results from abandoning character progression, but that's trading away something that people may want to keep in their game for other reasons.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe it's tautological to say "you don't have to worry about level one not working when you don't have a level system."

Milo v3
2016-08-04, 07:03 PM
If the game system can't allow for the full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level, that's a fault of the system, not a fault of the player.
It is the fault of the player though if the game system allows for the full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level and then the person complains that they can't make a character that is a different power level. It's like going into Call of Cthulhu and complaining you aren't an Exalted character @_@


EDIT: On second thought, maybe it's tautological to say "you don't have to worry about level one not working when you don't have a level system."
Nah, since nearly all systems have some method of advancement, but now where near all have level systems. And the "level one not letting you play concepts that aren't level one" problem happens in nearly any game with advancement.

Jay R
2016-08-04, 08:17 PM
I will say though, from what I understand, ability scores weren't as large a part of your character's potency as they are in 3.x systems. (admittedly - the only way I ever played pre-3.x D&D was playing Baldur's Gate etc.)

They didn't make the difference between a good Magic-User and a great one - which is one reason there was much less angst about rolls determining power level. But they certainly determined whether you would play a Magic-User or a Fighting Man (sic).

BayardSPSR
2016-08-04, 08:26 PM
Nah, since nearly all systems have some method of advancement, but now where near all have level systems. And the "level one not letting you play concepts that aren't level one" problem happens in nearly any game with advancement.

Well, read "level" as an inappropriate placeholder for "character progression system," then, and it's still tautological: games with character progression systems have problems regarding the fact that a character who hasn't progressed isn't always the one a player wants to play, because the game assumes that their character will progress and has a character progression system.

Lorsa
2016-08-05, 06:25 AM
I have found that in a lot of systems you can start by doing that, and it tends to produce better characters. Some flexibility is needed, but most systems aren't as limited in D&D as to what characters can be portrayed.

I have yet to play or read any single published system that does not have a character creation system.

While there may be those that simply give you a blank character sheet and says "fill it in however you like", those HAS to be the minority (and certainly not "a lot").

Also, for clarity's sake, what is your definition of "better" here? Higher skills or with deeper / more interesting personality?



I strongly disagree - I've consistently had the best results with players when their character concepts precede their analysis of the game mechanics (as opposed to the game's setting and theme). If the game system can't allow for the full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level, that's a fault of the system, not a fault of the player.

That said, "you can't start as the character you want to play" might be inherent to games that assume steady character progression. I do believe that better character creation results results from abandoning character progression, but that's trading away something that people may want to keep in their game for other reasons.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe it's tautological to say "you don't have to worry about level one not working when you don't have a level system."

Why would you put analysis of game mechanics in opposition to setting and theme? Surely they are both important when forming character concepts.

So what you are saying is that players who know absolutely nothing of the game mechanics make what? More interesting characters than the ones that do? So first time roleplayers always makes the best characters? While I highly doubt that is true even for you, if it is, your experience is in contradiction to mine. While people new to a system certainly can make interesting characters, it is hardly a downward slope with increased system experience.

Also, like I said above, I have yet to find any system that does not have character progression. What would that be? A system where your character never gains any skills, attributes or whatever? Give me the list of those systems, and then we can compare it to the list of systems that do have progression.

Lastly, your argument is rather weird. I said "it is important to know the power level restriction for your character when you make a concept". Then you said "it's important for a game to allow for a full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level" (bold emphasis mine). Well, obviously ANY game allows for a full range of options for characters within its power level restriction. THAT is tautological. Is there any reason why a player shouldn't be aware of the power level restriction when forming their concept, in order not to be disappointed when it does not fit?

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-05, 07:19 AM
I strongly disagree - I've consistently had the best results with players when their character concepts precede their analysis of the game mechanics (as opposed to the game's setting and theme). If the game system can't allow for the full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level, that's a fault of the system, not a fault of the player.

That said, "you can't start as the character you want to play" might be inherent to games that assume steady character progression. I do believe that better character creation results results from abandoning character progression, but that's trading away something that people may want to keep in their game for other reasons.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe it's tautological to say "you don't have to worry about level one not working when you don't have a level system."

It's the system's fault if you start with the goal "let's play an RPG where everyone gets to play exactly the character concept they want". It's the player's fault if you start with the goal "let's play Dungeons and Dragons", which I do if I'm DMing, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If you organise a poker night and one player is frustrated because they'd rather be playing blackjack, that's their problem.

Thrudd
2016-08-05, 10:42 AM
I have yet to play or read any single published system that does not have a character creation system.

While there may be those that simply give you a blank character sheet and says "fill it in however you like", those HAS to be the minority (and certainly not "a lot").

Also, for clarity's sake, what is your definition of "better" here? Higher skills or with deeper / more interesting personality?




Why would you put analysis of game mechanics in opposition to setting and theme? Surely they are both important when forming character concepts.

So what you are saying is that players who know absolutely nothing of the game mechanics make what? More interesting characters than the ones that do? So first time roleplayers always makes the best characters? While I highly doubt that is true even for you, if it is, your experience is in contradiction to mine. While people new to a system certainly can make interesting characters, it is hardly a downward slope with increased system experience.

Also, like I said above, I have yet to find any system that does not have character progression. What would that be? A system where your character never gains any skills, attributes or whatever? Give me the list of those systems, and then we can compare it to the list of systems that do have progression.

Lastly, your argument is rather weird. I said "it is important to know the power level restriction for your character when you make a concept". Then you said "it's important for a game to allow for a full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level" (bold emphasis mine). Well, obviously ANY game allows for a full range of options for characters within its power level restriction. THAT is tautological. Is there any reason why a player shouldn't be aware of the power level restriction when forming their concept, in order not to be disappointed when it does not fit?

Exactly. You just need to know what game you're playing. "Character concept" can't be divorced from the rules of the game and knowledge of the setting. We're playing D&D starting at level 1: you know what level 1 characters are capable of and what's available, base your concept on that.

There's no "better" or "worse" here. That is just opinion based on what type of game one wants to play. If you want to play epic level D&D or Exalted, then play that.

Every game I can think of has rules for advancing characters, some more quickly and with larger jumps in power, and some slowly and in tiny steps. Of course, any game can be played as a one-off, with characters starting at a certain power level. They complete the adventure/story and then the game is over, no bothering with awarding xp or advancing.

Old D&D is a much different game than what modern RPGs have evolved into. Everyone knows that or should know that. In that family of games, it is inappropriate to consider a "concept" before you've rolled to see what you get. The idea that you think up a character and then tell stories about them is not D&D. In D&D, the dice give you characters and you are challenged to use them as best you can to overcome the obstacles of the dungeon and wilderness. If they survive long enough, the characters may become story-worthy heroes.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-05, 04:28 PM
Also, for clarity's sake, what is your definition of "better" here? Higher skills or with deeper / more interesting personality?

"Best results," for me, refers to characters being interesting and players interacting with each other in interesting ways. "Better" means I'm running a game with a bunch of characters who I wouldn't have created if I were a player.

People also tend to create characters faster (mechanically) when they know what they're trying to produce.


Why would you put analysis of game mechanics in opposition to setting and theme? Surely they are both important when forming character concepts.

To clarify, I'm not saying that people should willfully blind themselves to game mechanics - just that game mechanics ought to be the last thing considered when coming up with a character concept. Both are relevant, but they are in opposition: one is what you want to do, and the other is what the game rules permit you to do. I don't like it when the latter restricts the former, especially during character creation, which is one of the most important parts of any RPG in terms of the effect it has on what players do.


So what you are saying is that players who know absolutely nothing of the game mechanics make what? More interesting characters than the ones that do? So first time roleplayers always makes the best characters? While I highly doubt that is true even for you, if it is, your experience is in contradiction to mine. While people new to a system certainly can make interesting characters, it is hardly a downward slope with increased system experience.

I have not said and am not saying that understanding game mechanics makes people create less interesting characters. That said, I have seen totally new roleplayers make fascinating characters - and seen them consistently do better at it when they come up with an idea for the character before you start throwing the character creation rules at them. It also cuts down on metagamey optimizing (that is, the bad kind), and creates the assumption that who the character is is more important than what the character is.


Lastly, your argument is rather weird.

Thank you.


I said "it is important to know the power level restriction for your character when you make a concept". Then you said "it's important for a game to allow for a full range of characters appropriate to its premise/setting/theme and power level" (bold emphasis mine).

Yes, we are in agreement here.


Well, obviously ANY game allows for a full range of options for characters within its power level restriction. THAT is tautological.

It might be tautological... But it's not actually true. Old school D&D forces players to make characters at specific, random power levels within the bounds of a level one character. Many games (-World games come to mind) have characters start at a specific power level, too. Even with later versions of D&D, it's something of an axiom that "you can start the game at any level," but in practice that seems rarely to be the case - but that's not the most salient example.


Is there any reason why a player shouldn't be aware of the power level restriction when forming their concept, in order not to be disappointed when it does not fit?

Sure. I haven't often seen people say "I want to play a powerful character" before becoming aware of mechanical power level restrictions. And if they're not saying that, if they're saying something more specific about what their character is (an immortal wizard, servant of the Maiar, whatever), then it will hopefully be possible for them to make a character appropriate to the power level of that game, assuming the game itself doesn't break down. Character concepts don't have to have power levels associated with them.

Taking the point more broadly: we have different assumptions when it comes to "power level." D&D tends to make it the case that certain character concepts that don't have an association of extremely high power (for instance, a monastic shamanic woods-dwelling hunter) must be a certain minimum level in order to exist. "Magical thief," since that's the example being used, ought not inherently be more powerful than "mighty warrior." This is why I assign the problem to the game system, not to the player. Yes, a player with more knowledge of the system would know that's not possible - but should they have to?


I have yet to play or read any single published system that does not have a character creation system.

While there may be those that simply give you a blank character sheet and says "fill it in however you like", those HAS to be the minority (and certainly not "a lot").


Also, like I said above, I have yet to find any system that does not have character progression. What would that be? A system where your character never gains any skills, attributes or whatever? Give me the list of those systems, and then we can compare it to the list of systems that do have progression.

I exclusively play systems that don't have character progression, if mostly of my own devising. They work fine and lose nothing. I have no idea why so few of them exist on the market. Dogs in the Vineyard might not, but I haven't played it. The concept is, unfortunately, something of a resilient sacred cow.

Also, you seem to have conflated "character creation" with "character progression." And I don't know where you're picking up "a lot" from.


It's the player's fault if you start with the goal "let's play Dungeons and Dragons", which I do if I'm DMing, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If you organise a poker night and one player is frustrated because they'd rather be playing blackjack, that's their problem.

Well, even then, you have the problem that there are many different editions and playstyles of D&D, and that the people coming to the table are going to arrive with very different sets of assumptions unless they've played with each other extensively.

If D&D is pitched to a group as "a game of fantasy treasurehunting," or "a game of magic, warriors, and thieves" (both of which I believe to be reasonable descriptions of things it's intended to apply to) and a player says "I want to play a magical thief" and that doesn't work, that's not the player's fault.


Exactly. You just need to know what game you're playing. "Character concept" can't be divorced from the rules of the game and knowledge of the setting. We're playing D&D starting at level 1: you know what level 1 characters are capable of and what's available, base your concept on that.

...

Old D&D is a much different game than what modern RPGs have evolved into. Everyone knows that or should know that. In that family of games, it is inappropriate to consider a "concept" before you've rolled to see what you get. The idea that you think up a character and then tell stories about them is not D&D. In D&D, the dice give you characters and you are challenged to use them as best you can to overcome the obstacles of the dungeon and wilderness. If they survive long enough, the characters may become story-worthy heroes.

This is why I'm framing it as a problem inherent to the D&D franchise as RPGs (and games closely related to them), and not something that a new player is just doing wrong. The player ought not be blamed for something out of whack about the game - made aware of it, sure.

Thrudd
2016-08-05, 05:27 PM
This is why I'm framing it as a problem inherent to the D&D franchise as RPGs (and games closely related to them), and not something that a new player is just doing wrong. The player ought not be blamed for something out of whack about the game - made aware of it, sure.

Why is it a problem? There's nothing "out of whack" about it, that is what the game is. The player ought to know what game they are playing. RPGs are now an incredibly broad category, and it is a mistake to believe that they all operate on the same assumptions or that they ought to. A new player not understanding the premise of the game they are playing is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with communication or incorrect assumptions.

Milo v3
2016-08-05, 06:20 PM
This is why I'm framing it as a problem inherent to the D&D franchise as RPGs (and games closely related to them), and not something that a new player is just doing wrong. The player ought not be blamed for something out of whack about the game - made aware of it, sure.
But there is nothing "out of whack" about a game not having Every Single Possible Character Option In Creation at level one....

BayardSPSR
2016-08-05, 06:45 PM
But there is nothing "out of whack" about a game not having Every Single Possible Character Option In Creation at level one....

Why not? (Assuming we're talking about the characters thematically appropriate to the game.)

I mean, maybe if the assumption is that "the character" is the state the character is at after fifteen levels or so, but that still leaves (often) fourteen levels of players playing characters other than the character they want to play. If the purpose of the game is "we're going to play an RPG for six weeks, where our collective goal is to eventually have created characters that we want to play," sure, that works (or even a less exaggerated version of that). If slow character progression to an enjoyable point isn't necessary to the game, why have it?

Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.

Milo v3
2016-08-05, 06:53 PM
Why not? (Assuming we're talking about the characters thematically appropriate to the game.)

I mean, maybe if the assumption is that "the character" is the state the character is at after fifteen levels or so, but that still leaves (often) fourteen levels of players playing characters other than the character they want to play. If the purpose of the game is "we're going to play an RPG for six weeks, where our collective goal is to eventually have created characters that we want to play," sure, that works (or even a less exaggerated version of that). If slow character progression to an enjoyable point isn't necessary to the game, why have it?

Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.
Then there would be no point to advancement at all, because you could your entire concept from level one and then be forced to dilute the concept when you do advance. Just because say, a mage who can raise armies of the dead is definitely an archetype in fantasy, doesn't mean that a level one character should be able to raise whole armies of the dead. It's a ridiculous suggestion that you should be able to cover all the thematic concepts in the first level.

Having some concepts require either advancement to reach or deciding start the game at the appropriate power level is not "a problem". If you choose to start at the wrong power level, it's your fault, not the games.

Thrudd
2016-08-05, 07:26 PM
Why not? (Assuming we're talking about the characters thematically appropriate to the game.)

I mean, maybe if the assumption is that "the character" is the state the character is at after fifteen levels or so, but that still leaves (often) fourteen levels of players playing characters other than the character they want to play. If the purpose of the game is "we're going to play an RPG for six weeks, where our collective goal is to eventually have created characters that we want to play," sure, that works (or even a less exaggerated version of that). If slow character progression to an enjoyable point isn't necessary to the game, why have it?

Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.

A character is not thematically appropriate for a game if it isn't mechanically possible to create that character. The player having unreasonable expectations of what a character is supposed to be able to accomplish in the game is a failure to understand the game, not a failure of the rules.

Gradual character progression over a series of adventures, from fragile beginning to super heroic ending, is the format of D&D. "The character" is not the way you want them to end up, they are whoever they are right now: you can't entirely control how they end up.
You can start at the super hero level and only play high level adventures if you want to, wanting that doesn't mean the rest of the game shouldn't exist or is a bad game.

I reemphasize, a player who misunderstands the premise or format of the game does not indicate a failure of the game.

awa
2016-08-05, 08:08 PM
now that i think about it actually would be possible to play a magic thief in all versions of d&d i have actually played from level 1.
Second edition multi classing had two classes combined at level 1, third edition had a variant rule that let you start a game with 2 1/2 levels and by level 2 you were just multi class (also now that i think about it beguile and spell thief were kinda mage thieves.) and in 5th edition you can play a human and use your feat to pick up a cantrip.

never played 4th don't know about it,

2D8HP
2016-08-05, 08:28 PM
now that i think about it actually would be possible to play a magic thief in all versions of d&d i have actually played from level 1.....
-
and in 5th edition you can play a human and use your feat to pick up a cantrip.
High Elves also get a Cantrip in 5e (and now I'm imagining the "Legolas" from DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14) going "I Firebolt him in the eye!").

Cluedrew
2016-08-05, 09:11 PM
Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.As I see it a character concept in D&D is not a snapshot of a person you build in character creation. It is more like twenty snapshots, one for each level as they do the "zero-to-hero" journey that the level system is supposed to represent.


I reemphasize, a player who misunderstands the premise or format of the game does not indicate a failure of the game.No, but if a notable portion of the player base doesn't really understand what the premise or format of the game is then the game might want to improve its communication. And no I do not have the stats on this so I can't say for sure that it applies here, but good communication requires the message to be send and received.

Lorsa
2016-08-06, 04:23 AM
"Best results," for me, refers to characters being interesting and players interacting with each other in interesting ways. "Better" means I'm running a game with a bunch of characters who I wouldn't have created if I were a player.

People also tend to create characters faster (mechanically) when they know what they're trying to produce.

Well, yes, of course people create characters faster when they know what they're trying to produce. When making characters in a group, I see many people spending 10% of their time thinking of the concept and 90% of the time fiddling with the stats. I usually do the opposite, it can take me hours to get started, but once I do I usually finish in minutes.

However, I've always found it useful to know the power level of the character I am supposed to envision. When I don't, I may have to redo the entire process from beginning once I find it wasn't fitting.



To clarify, I'm not saying that people should willfully blind themselves to game mechanics - just that game mechanics ought to be the last thing considered when coming up with a character concept. Both are relevant, but they are in opposition: one is what you want to do, and the other is what the game rules permit you to do. I don't like it when the latter restricts the former, especially during character creation, which is one of the most important parts of any RPG in terms of the effect it has on what players do.

Not liking there being any constraint on character concept is a preference of yours. It's perfectly valid, and you should then choose to play with groups that are like-minded. Many groups I have played in prefer there to be some form of power level constraint on starting characters.



I have not said and am not saying that understanding game mechanics makes people create less interesting characters. That said, I have seen totally new roleplayers make fascinating characters - and seen them consistently do better at it when they come up with an idea for the character before you start throwing the character creation rules at them. It also cuts down on metagamey optimizing (that is, the bad kind), and creates the assumption that who the character is is more important than what the character is.

I thought you said the best results came about when people did not consider / was not aware of the mechanics for character creation? That seems to imply that more knowledge creates worse results, no?

So you've never had the problem described by the OP then? That the idea for the character is of a power level not fitting for the game envisioned by the group?



Thank you.

That was poorly phrased, I apologize. I should have said it seems weird to me.



Yes, we are in agreement here.

Great!



It might be tautological... But it's not actually true. Old school D&D forces players to make characters at specific, random power levels within the bounds of a level one character. Many games (-World games come to mind) have characters start at a specific power level, too. Even with later versions of D&D, it's something of an axiom that "you can start the game at any level," but in practice that seems rarely to be the case - but that's not the most salient example.

If old school D&D forces players to make characters at random power levels, then the power level constraint set by the game is random, so it's still tautological.

You CAN start the game at any level. The system allows it. It might not be what the group has decided on; which is the ultimate arbiter of starting power level.



Sure. I haven't often seen people say "I want to play a powerful character" before becoming aware of mechanical power level restrictions. And if they're not saying that, if they're saying something more specific about what their character is (an immortal wizard, servant of the Maiar, whatever), then it will hopefully be possible for them to make a character appropriate to the power level of that game, assuming the game itself doesn't break down. Character concepts don't have to have power levels associated with them.

Taking the point more broadly: we have different assumptions when it comes to "power level." D&D tends to make it the case that certain character concepts that don't have an association of extremely high power (for instance, a monastic shamanic woods-dwelling hunter) must be a certain minimum level in order to exist. "Magical thief," since that's the example being used, ought not inherently be more powerful than "mighty warrior." This is why I assign the problem to the game system, not to the player. Yes, a player with more knowledge of the system would know that's not possible - but should they have to?

Technically, a "mighty warrior" is hardly a level 1 character either, but that's beside the point.

But let's expand upon the "magical thief" concept. There are some ways to do it even at level one. You could, for example, play a Wizard or Sorcerer with skill points in Open Locks / Move Silently / Sleight of Hand (or whatever skills you want your thief to have).

Alternatively, I would argue the best fit for the "magical thief" concept is the Bard class. It has spells and gets plenty of skill points, certainly enough to be a thief.

One could even consider a Cleric following some thief-ish deity and taking the appropriate domains.

However, that is not what the OP actually said. The request was "I want to play an arcane trickster" or maybe "I want to play a rogue with spells". That is an added power level requirement that the game does not allow for a level 1 character (the power level the group has decided on playing).

There is amply room for a "magical thief" general concept at level 1 in D&D. It is not possible however, for such a character at the power level requested by the OP. Nor should it need to be.




I exclusively play systems that don't have character progression, if mostly of my own devising. They work fine and lose nothing. I have no idea why so few of them exist on the market. Dogs in the Vineyard might not, but I haven't played it. The concept is, unfortunately, something of a resilient sacred cow.

Well, if you are talking about games of your own devising that have not reached the larger market, you can hardly blame me for not being aware of them.



Also, you seem to have conflated "character creation" with "character progression." And I don't know where you're picking up "a lot" from.

"A lot" was mentioned by another posted I replied to. I have not seen many games that lack either a character creation or a character progression system. I do not mean to conflate the two, I was responding to two different posters, but both are equally present in the games I've seen.

The character creation rules are what sets the power level restriction of the game. Character progression is just something that's usually there because people like for their character to, well, progress.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-06, 06:34 AM
Why not? (Assuming we're talking about the characters thematically appropriate to the game.)

I mean, maybe if the assumption is that "the character" is the state the character is at after fifteen levels or so, but that still leaves (often) fourteen levels of players playing characters other than the character they want to play. If the purpose of the game is "we're going to play an RPG for six weeks, where our collective goal is to eventually have created characters that we want to play," sure, that works (or even a less exaggerated version of that). If slow character progression to an enjoyable point isn't necessary to the game, why have it?

Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.

I think you're still starting with the assumption that the number one priority is everyone getting to dream up a character concept and play that. This seems to have become a very popular assumption about what all RPGs are for without WotC or anyone else ever saying it's what D&D is for. I think the assumptions that underlie the design of the game are left deliberately vague in the rule books (because they recognise that different people get different things out of the game and don't want to be overly prescriptive) but you can sort of glean what the assumptions (including assumptions about themes and settings) are, based on the mechanics and rules. The fact that you can't easily make a "magical thief" from level 1 should tell you that in the worlds of D&D, magical thief is something that only more seasoned characters become. Similarly, the fact that a large part of the game is the progression from level 1 rookie adventurer to level 20 near-godlike hero should tell you that the game you're expected to play is one about a series of adventures over the course of which a party of rookies become a party of near-godlike heroes. Can you use D&D to play a different type of game? Of course - but your mileage may vary.


A character is not thematically appropriate for a game if it isn't mechanically possible to create that character. The player having unreasonable expectations of what a character is supposed to be able to accomplish in the game is a failure to understand the game, not a failure of the rules.

Gradual character progression over a series of adventures, from fragile beginning to super heroic ending, is the format of D&D. "The character" is not the way you want them to end up, they are whoever they are right now: you can't entirely control how they end up.
You can start at the super hero level and only play high level adventures if you want to, wanting that doesn't mean the rest of the game shouldn't exist or is a bad game.

I reemphasize, a player who misunderstands the premise or format of the game does not indicate a failure of the game.

Exactly. Again, mechanics imply thematics.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-06, 06:45 AM
I guess I'm arguing that D&D occupies one end of a spectrum, so this is a good example of an RPG from other end:
http://www.mimgames.com/window/

If you look at character creation, it gives you much, much more freedom to realise your concept. It also seems to assume that players and GM will sit down and figure out the power level of the game before they play. The mechanics are all relative to the type of story being played out, and that type of story is decided on by the players. This is in contrast to D&D where the type of story is, to a very large extent, prescribed by the game's rules and the mechanics are fixed based on that. I notice that although The Window does have character progression, it is very much presented as an optional extra and looks like it wouldn't have a massive effect on gameplay even if you did include it. That's because this system does start from the assumption that players will create exactly the character they want to play.

I think this is great, by the way, and I'd play this game if the opportunity arose. Risus is another similar one which I've been meaning to play for ages. But as far as my core preferences go, I like me a bit of gamey, dungeon-based monster-bashing and as such I'm mainly interested in D&D, restrictive character options and all.

Pugwampy
2016-08-06, 07:41 AM
Level 1 games is like a newborn baby . A fresh start , so much potential .
The fights are faster , everything is simpler . Your average Dm will treat you with kiddy gloves .
Players are nervous and excited . DM is in a good mood and has no stress .
Level one tavern keeper will give you weeks worth of bed and breakfast for a 1 gold piece .
Level one temple will ask for a donation for any kind of healing or raise dead .

Jay R
2016-08-06, 09:23 AM
If D&D is pitched to a group as "a game of fantasy treasurehunting," or "a game of magic, warriors, and thieves" (both of which I believe to be reasonable descriptions of things it's intended to apply to) and a player says "I want to play a magical thief" and that doesn't work, that's not the player's fault.

It's not anybody's fault. It's not a fault at all.

Somebody who wants to start with hotels on Boardwalk shouldn't play Monopoly, which doesn't allow that.
Somebody who wants to start with five queens shouldn't play chess, which doesn't allow that.
Somebody who wants more than 11 players on his side shouldn't play football.
And somebody who wants to have more power than a level one character (fireballing wizard, warrior with magic sword, magical thief) shouldn't play a game of D&D that starts at first level.

These are simple facts, and aren't the fault of Monopoly, chess, football, or D&D. It just means that games have rules, and if you don't want to play with those rules, play another game.

If the player thinks he's been mistreated because of the description you gave above, then the misunderstanding (not "fault") came from believing that a single inadequate phrase or concept universally trumps the rules.

And the correct response should be, "Great! That's not how the game starts, but here, let me show you how your thief can work towards magical ability." This is no different from the person who wants to play a wizard who casts fireballs, or a warrior with a magical sword - or wants a hotel on Boardwalk.


This is why I'm framing it as a problem inherent to the D&D franchise as RPGs (and games closely related to them), and not something that a new player is just doing wrong. The player ought not be blamed for something out of whack about the game - made aware of it, sure.

We are not arguing with your framing it as a problem with D&D. We are arguing with you framing it as a problem at all.

Nobody is blaming the player, because nobody but you is blaming anybody, because nobody but you thinks that there's anything wrong to blame somebody for.

And please stop framing it as about a "new player". This has been about you from the initial post, and you're not new. You talked about your specific annoyance at not getting magical abilities as a thief from the start, and asked us, "I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?"

We've been trying to answer how we handle it. And you are arguing with that. But there's no possible argument. How we handle it really is how we handle it.

You can say, "OK, that's how you handle it, but that doesn't work for me, for the following reasons," in which case we will recommend a different game - without blaming D&D for being D&D instead of something else.

But the real answer to the question of "how people handle this" is that we handle it by playing level one with only first level abilities. Really.

Thrudd
2016-08-06, 09:57 AM
As I see it a character concept in D&D is not a snapshot of a person you build in character creation. It is more like twenty snapshots, one for each level as they do the "zero-to-hero" journey that the level system is supposed to represent.

No, but if a notable portion of the player base doesn't really understand what the premise or format of the game is then the game might want to improve its communication. And no I do not have the stats on this so I can't say for sure that it applies here, but good communication requires the message to be send and received.

That is true. I don't dispute that D&D's writers (at least since WoTC took over) have done a poor job of this, in some cases even misrepresenting their own game.

Knaight
2016-08-06, 10:44 AM
I have yet to play or read any single published system that does not have a character creation system.

While there may be those that simply give you a blank character sheet and says "fill it in however you like", those HAS to be the minority (and certainly not "a lot").

Also, for clarity's sake, what is your definition of "better" here? Higher skills or with deeper / more interesting personality?

Plenty of systems have character creation systems that are much broader than in D&D, and can cover a whole range of concepts D&D struggles with. For instance, D&D just doesn't do noncombatants well at all.

As for "better", that would be a more interesting character. Higher skills have nothing to do with how good a character is, just how competent they are in their area of expertise.

The Insanity
2016-08-06, 11:16 AM
1st level is for children. 2nd level is for teens. 3rd level is for adults. Adventurers and special NPCs can (and often) break those guidelines.

awa
2016-08-06, 11:26 AM
1st level is for children. 2nd level is for teens. 3rd level is for adults. Adventurers and special NPCs can (and often) break those guidelines.

that's quite the assertion, with out specifying an edition I'm gonna have to disagree. In second and third edition this is definitely not how the game designers envisioned it.

OldTrees1
2016-08-06, 11:32 AM
that's quite the assertion, with out specifying an edition I'm gonna have to disagree. In second and third edition this is definitely not how the game designers envisioned it.

:smallconfused:
Perhaps they are answering the OP's question of "How do you handle it?" Normally stating how one personally handles things is a readily accepted assertion. After all only they can read their mind.

2D8HP
2016-08-06, 12:14 PM
For Dungeons and Dragons I'm only familiar with 1970's, and 5e D&D, with just a passing glance at 3e, and ignorance of other "editions" of D&D.
For the "Magical Thief" requested, in 1970's rules AD&D, you could have a multi-class Magic-User/Thief at first level if you play an Elf or half-elf (page 33 of the 1978 PHB), similarly in 5e you can have a first level Rogue that can cast a Cantrip if your PC is a High Elf (page 24 of the 2014 PHB), or you can have a first level Wizard with some Thieves skills by having a Charlatan (page 128), Criminal (page 129), or an Urchin (page 141) background. If your DM allows variant humans than you can have a Rogue that can cast Cantrips with the Magic Initiate Feat (page 168), or Spells with the Ritual Caster Feat (page 169). The high power lever and variety of abilities of a 1st level 5e DnD PC seems to me to be at least as much as any 100 point GURPS, or lucky roll Runequest/Stormbringer! PC.
My "concept" (stuff that seems cool to me) are PC's with outdoor survival and tracking skills like a Ranger, sneak skills like a Rogue, and martial skills like a Fighter, I've always been able to have that in 5e DnD by having either an Outlander or Urchin background, human, half-elf, or elf as a race, and starting 1st level as a Fighter or Rogue.
All of my 5e DnD PC's have been proficient with a bow and sword, had the Stealth skill, and all but one have also had the Survival skill as well, and I just made a PC that has all that plus the ability to cast the Firebolt Cantrip at first level!
What am I missing here?

SMWallace
2016-08-06, 03:28 PM
In an odd twist, I think the biggest weakness of D&D has been outlined here without anybody specifically calling it out, probably because it's only a weakness as it pertains to the RPG community rather than as it pertains to the game itself.

See, D&D isn't a bad game. In fact, it's a pretty good game. It's got just the right combination of traditionalism, solid mechanics, and a balance of focus/specificity and generic applicability that it's appealed to a gigantic audience, and a fair majority of people in the TTRPG community can be assumed to play it exclusively. In other words, D&D's "weakness" is that it's way too broadly popular and makes pains to look way more like "generic fantasy" than it actually is. People treat D&D as sort of a more focused version of GURPS or Fate - "if you're looking for medieval-flavored fantasy covering a wide range of power levels, this is the game for you" - and WotC, likely to avoid discouraging customers, has fed this complete and utter misconception.

D&D has a variable setting element, but it does not have an open setting element. D&D is designed for very specific types of games, and gives a frustratingly silent shutdown to people trying to modify those base assumptions even slightly. It's so silent, in fact, that most people don't even notice, and thus think it's perfectly reasonable to make such suggestions as "the game should allow me to make characters fitting the thematic mold of my GM's setting and campaign style" without noticing that the system doesn't actually mesh with you trying to change the setting and style assumptions of the core game. I'm not even talking about people using huge sweeping limitations like "no magic" or trying to run it in a modern setting or whatever, I'm talking about people thinking "well, my setting's a medieval fantasy kitchen sink with high magic and characters of widely varying power, and D&D looks pretty form-fitting, so I should be able to mess with the more specific details as I see fit for my game" when D&D really can't account for people fiddling around very much at all.

And people's assumptions that D&D can effectively cover more options than it actually can make them hesitant to move away from it, leading to it being incredibly difficult for people who realize that they need a system with different constraints to actually find players willing to move outside their "game comfort zone" even if they're intrigued by the premise of the campaign; they're more likely to take the idea and try to cludge it into D&D, then assume the idea is bad when D&D doesn't cope with it rather than appreciating D&D's limits.

And yes, this applies to the first-level characters thing too. D&D laughs at your notion of having characters who are mechanically distinct prior to, say, level 5, because one of the core assumptions of the game's design is that lower-level characters are fairly insignificant and exist as a grounding and bouncing point into a journey of self-discovery as the character builds up their hero potential. The early levels are the time where, in a 1-20 campaign, the DM sets the plot threads and you figure out your characters' personalities and core motivations at the table rather than just in your head, and you see which parts of your generic mechanics you'd like to flesh out and add neat extensions to. D&D was not made for people who expect to have a unique experience from anyone else of the same starting class at level 1. If you want that, find another system.

tl;dr: D&D's weakness isn't its system constraints, it's that it has an extremely thorough facade of "oh what yeah sure this is totally generic fantasy, you can play in whatever world you dream up, uh huh" when, plot twist, it is not at all designed to be generic or malleable.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-06, 03:39 PM
I'm talking about people thinking "well, my setting's a medieval fantasy kitchen sink with high magic and characters of widely varying power, and D&D looks pretty form-fitting, so I should be able to mess with the more specific details as I see fit for my game" when D&D really can't account for people fiddling around very much at all.

And people's assumptions that D&D can effectively cover more options than it actually can make them hesitant to move away from it, leading to it being incredibly difficult for people who realize that they need a system with different constraints to actually find players willing to move outside their "game comfort zone" even if they're intrigued by the premise of the campaign; they're more likely to take the idea and try to cludge it into D&D, then assume the idea is bad when D&D doesn't cope with it rather than appreciating D&D's limits.

It depends upon how people tweak it. If people tweak the mechanics, it'll probably break pretty hard, but that's basically true of any game with much crunch. (Though I'll agree that D&D doesn't make a point of it.)

If you just re-skin it, there are enough different classes etc that it's not hard to make it fit into most fantasy settings.

I think in the OP's case, he's too into the idea that a class named Rogue is the only thief class. Many classes can do 'thief' well, and quite a few of them are magical.

Jay R
2016-08-06, 04:19 PM
1st level is for children. 2nd level is for teens. 3rd level is for adults. Adventurers and special NPCs can (and often) break those guidelines.

"is for" is an undefined term in this context. I can't even tell if you are talking about child-age and teen-aged players or characters.

Certainly when 1st level was created for original D&D, very few children were expected to play the game, and all players were expected to play starting at first level.

If you are maintaining that delayed gratification is primarily an adult phenomenon, then this conclusion does not match the world as I've seen it.

If you are maintaining that adults do not enjoy playing first level, then it's just not true, at least in my case.

If you are maintaining that most first level characters in D&D universes are in fact children, then every published module I've ever seen proves you wrong.

In any event, the statement is simply false. First level, like all levels, are intended for all D&D players, not just some of them. And many adult PCs and NPCs are first level. Never in any edition or article have any creators of the game said otherwise.


Condensing my position: if a character concept is thematically appropriate to a game, it ought to be mechanically possible to play that character from the beginning of that game. I know some people disagree with me, and I'm certain they have good reasons for that. I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are.

OK. My reasons for disagreeing with that statement are that the incredibly large number and variety of counter-examples prove that the statement is false, added to the obvious fact that the game is built around growing into stronger and more varied roles.

A fighter who can cleave through goblins with one great cleave, or a Wizard casting fireballs, or a druid in wild shape, or a barbarian with three favored enemies, or a wealthy character, are all thematically appropriate for D&D, and none of them are possible at first level. Several templates or races are thematically appropriate and not available at first level.

None of these are inherently different from a Rogue with the added abilities of an Arcane Trickster. *No* Prestige classes are available at first level, nor (in 3.5e) are any multi-classes.

There is no equivalence between "thematically appropriate" and "available at the beginning of the game". None. Not in any ruleset, not in any creator's notes, not in any well-established approach to the game. Yhis is your own new idea, and it is disagrees with the history and rules of the game.

You are trying to re-define "character conception" to include a certain level of powers and abilities beyond what the game establishes for new characters, rather than a conception of the sort of character who would desire that set of abilities and work for them. I agree that your definition of "character conception" is inconsistent with first level. But my conclusion is not that first level and over forty years of enjoyment of the game are broken, but that your definition of "character conception" is not consistent with the game as played for decades.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-08-06, 04:24 PM
In an odd twist, I think the biggest weakness of D&D has been outlined here without anybody specifically calling it out, probably because it's only a weakness as it pertains to the RPG community rather than as it pertains to the game itself.

While I agree with the post in general I think D&D shares blame for this. There's a reason I think OD&D was the strongest version of the game and that's because it knew exactly what it wanted to be.

Subsequent editions are all over the place trying to be that kitchen sink fantasy and not really accomplishing anything other than watering itself down.

Milo v3
2016-08-06, 07:32 PM
1st level is for children. 2nd level is for teens. 3rd level is for adults. Adventurers and special NPCs can (and often) break those guidelines.

I do this in my settings as well, makes things a lot easier.

Thrudd
2016-08-06, 07:36 PM
In an odd twist, I think the biggest weakness of D&D has been outlined here without anybody specifically calling it out, probably because it's only a weakness as it pertains to the RPG community rather than as it pertains to the game itself.

See, D&D isn't a bad game. In fact, it's a pretty good game. It's got just the right combination of traditionalism, solid mechanics, and a balance of focus/specificity and generic applicability that it's appealed to a gigantic audience, and a fair majority of people in the TTRPG community can be assumed to play it exclusively. In other words, D&D's "weakness" is that it's way too broadly popular and makes pains to look way more like "generic fantasy" than it actually is. People treat D&D as sort of a more focused version of GURPS or Fate - "if you're looking for medieval-flavored fantasy covering a wide range of power levels, this is the game for you" - and WotC, likely to avoid discouraging customers, has fed this complete and utter misconception.

D&D has a variable setting element, but it does not have an open setting element. D&D is designed for very specific types of games, and gives a frustratingly silent shutdown to people trying to modify those base assumptions even slightly. It's so silent, in fact, that most people don't even notice, and thus think it's perfectly reasonable to make such suggestions as "the game should allow me to make characters fitting the thematic mold of my GM's setting and campaign style" without noticing that the system doesn't actually mesh with you trying to change the setting and style assumptions of the core game. I'm not even talking about people using huge sweeping limitations like "no magic" or trying to run it in a modern setting or whatever, I'm talking about people thinking "well, my setting's a medieval fantasy kitchen sink with high magic and characters of widely varying power, and D&D looks pretty form-fitting, so I should be able to mess with the more specific details as I see fit for my game" when D&D really can't account for people fiddling around very much at all.

And people's assumptions that D&D can effectively cover more options than it actually can make them hesitant to move away from it, leading to it being incredibly difficult for people who realize that they need a system with different constraints to actually find players willing to move outside their "game comfort zone" even if they're intrigued by the premise of the campaign; they're more likely to take the idea and try to cludge it into D&D, then assume the idea is bad when D&D doesn't cope with it rather than appreciating D&D's limits.

And yes, this applies to the first-level characters thing too. D&D laughs at your notion of having characters who are mechanically distinct prior to, say, level 5, because one of the core assumptions of the game's design is that lower-level characters are fairly insignificant and exist as a grounding and bouncing point into a journey of self-discovery as the character builds up their hero potential. The early levels are the time where, in a 1-20 campaign, the DM sets the plot threads and you figure out your characters' personalities and core motivations at the table rather than just in your head, and you see which parts of your generic mechanics you'd like to flesh out and add neat extensions to. D&D was not made for people who expect to have a unique experience from anyone else of the same starting class at level 1. If you want that, find another system.

tl;dr: D&D's weakness isn't its system constraints, it's that it has an extremely thorough facade of "oh what yeah sure this is totally generic fantasy, you can play in whatever world you dream up, uh huh" when, plot twist, it is not at all designed to be generic or malleable.

That is all true. D&D is not a generic system. It is a system built around a specific implied setting. That setting can be varied, but there are certain elements it always needs to have because of the mechanics. The D&D setting has become known as the "generic fantasy kitchen sink" setting. That did not exist before D&D invented it. "Generic fantasy" = "Fantasy based on D&D".

If your setting doesn't fit the mechanics of D&D, then it isn't the appropriate setting for the game.
The D&D chassis could be used to portray very different settings from the standard one, but it would require a lot of home brewing. TSR did that with Oriental Adventures, it is an entirely different setting with all different classes and races and spells and a couple new mechanics. If you have the mind to design a series of races and classes from the ground up and create a new magic system that represents how magic works in your setting (assuming there is magic), then you will have a D&D-based game that is appropriate for your own world. But D&D does not have the assumption that you will do this, as do actual generic systems like GURPS and Fate. D&D assumes you will use the setting information provided in the books, and devote a lot of page space to those predesigned races and classes and their magic system.

Thrudd
2016-08-06, 07:51 PM
I do this in my settings as well, makes things a lot easier.

That really depends on the edition, I'm guessing you guys use 3e/PF, where everyone in the world has an NPC class level like commoner and expert, and you've adopted an assumption that people gain XP just from going about their mundane daily lives (which I don't think is the RAI interpretation).

In older D&D, just about everyone in the world other than adventurers is a level 0 human incapable of ever gaining XP or levels, there are no NPC classes. If you have a class, you are a special person already. At level 1, you might be someone that just finished their apprenticeship in an adventuring profession or is a standout warrior among common soldiers (all level 0). Level 1 humans are generally somewhere between 16 and 32 years old, depending on your class (magic users spend much longer studying to reach level 1 than do fighters and thieves, and clerics are in between). In any case, all level 1 characters are adults, at least as far as a medieval/ancient world setting is concerned.

Milo v3
2016-08-06, 08:40 PM
That really depends on the edition, I'm guessing you guys use 3e/PF, where everyone in the world has an NPC class level like commoner and expert, and you've adopted an assumption that people gain XP just from going about their mundane daily lives (which I don't think is the RAI interpretation).
Most have NPC class levels, but still many many PC class level people. And it is RAW that you can get XP from daily lives, as long as you are overcoming challenges (for them it would mainly be skill challenges, though my settings also have things like rain made of thin spikes of metal and undead being natural created really easily so combat challenges and hazards aren't unlikely for average people to have to deal with).

BayardSPSR
2016-08-06, 09:10 PM
Some of the replies to my last post have diverged so far from what I was saying that I'm not going to try to reply to any of them specifically.

I will, however, acknowledge that describing the "point" of D&D character creation as creating the baseline for a slow climb in power is accurate. That said, that's not really contradicting what I was saying, so I'm going to quote the OP and try to rephrase my point in a comprehensible way in direct response to it.


Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this. You're weak and limited in both resources and abilities and generally can feel kind of useless. Even worst often you even are completely lacking in core class mechanics that are central to how you see yourself as a character. I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?

Foe example, I rather like Rogues but I enjoy magical Rogue even more, so you can imagine I'm pretty keen on Arcane Tricksters. Character wise I usually like to focus more on the magical side then the Rogue side (like being a failed or runaway wizard apprentice)... but this becomes a problem due to not being able to learn any spells until level three. True you can get a few various magical abilities by other sources like through race, but thatsnotreallythepointofthisthreadthankyou.

So how about it? It's kind of hard to confidently play yourself as some sort of bad-ass adventurer when an angry house cat can prove a legitimate threat...

OP is criticizing two things: that level one characters in an unspecified edition of a game strongly implied to be D&D are unpleasantly weak (that is, that the edition the OP is referring to is poorly-balanced, especially in terms of lethality, at level one); and more importantly that the slow drip of character abilities and multiclassing options means that your character can't do the things that you want them to. This is a reference to the how of what a character does, not the magnitude of it - that is, a reference to the things a character can do, not how powerful the things they're attempting to do are. This isn't the OP saying they want to have a necromancer with a horde of undead at level one (for example), it's the OP saying they'd like to have a necromancer with a skeleton. Or in their own example, a magical rogue that isn't a prestige class. Alternately, imagine if "barbarian" was a prestige class of "fighter;" that would be something that would exacerbate the problem.

This second problem the OP is describing is that some character concepts appropriate to D&D (based on the fact that they exist in it) are associated with specific power levels that make them impossible to play at low levels.

To those saying "D&D doesn't work like that:" no kidding. OP is asking about ways of coping with the fact that D&D doesn't work like that. What I am objecting to was the assertion what the OP wants from the game is an unreasonable thing to want. It might be an unrealistic thing to want (as D&D doesn't do that), but that doesn't make "suck it up" a solution to the OP's problem.

I do want to quickly clarify some relevant factual points:


I thought you said the best results came about when people did not consider / was not aware of the mechanics for character creation? That seems to imply that more knowledge creates worse results, no?

No, as I said in the post you quoted, I did not say that and do not hold that position.


Nobody is blaming the player, because nobody but you is blaming anybody, because nobody but you thinks that there's anything wrong to blame somebody for.

Yes, someone did blame the player. That was why I posted in this thread in the first place. If someone hadn't blamed the player, most of the things I've been saying would be entirely pointless.


And please stop framing it as about a "new player". This has been about you from the initial post, and you're not new. You talked about your specific annoyance at not getting magical abilities as a thief from the start, and asked us, "I'm curious how people handle this? To you explain the absence of certain abilities or do you just hand-wave it away and ignore it until they become available and you pretend you had them all along?"

I'm not the OP. OP is BiblioRook, who I quoted above. I'm also not the person who first brought up "new players" in the context of an example.

EDIT:


But let's expand upon the "magical thief" concept. There are some ways to do it even at level one. You could, for example, play a Wizard or Sorcerer with skill points in Open Locks / Move Silently / Sleight of Hand (or whatever skills you want your thief to have).

Alternatively, I would argue the best fit for the "magical thief" concept is the Bard class. It has spells and gets plenty of skill points, certainly enough to be a thief.

One could even consider a Cleric following some thief-ish deity and taking the appropriate domains.

Also, these seem to be solutions to the specific "magical thief" problem (if not to the broader question of character diversity at low levels, which is a question probably inherent to games with classes), and shouldn't be passed by too quickly by the flow of the discussion.

Thrudd
2016-08-06, 10:38 PM
OP is criticizing two things: that level one characters in an unspecified edition of a game strongly implied to be D&D are unpleasantly weak (that is, that the edition the OP is referring to is poorly-balanced, especially in terms of lethality, at level one); and more importantly that the slow drip of character abilities and multiclassing options means that your character can't do the things that you want them to. This is a reference to the how of what a character does, not the magnitude of it - that is, a reference to the things a character can do, not how powerful the things they're attempting to do are. This isn't the OP saying they want to have a necromancer with a horde of undead at level one (for example), it's the OP saying they'd like to have a necromancer with a skeleton. Or in their own example, a magical rogue that isn't a prestige class. Alternately, imagine if "barbarian" was a prestige class of "fighter;" that would be something that would exacerbate the problem.

This second problem the OP is describing is that some character concepts appropriate to D&D (based on the fact that they exist in it) are associated with specific power levels that make them impossible to play at low levels.

To those saying "D&D doesn't work like that:" no kidding. OP is asking about ways of coping with the fact that D&D doesn't work like that. What I am objecting to was the assertion what the OP wants from the game is an unreasonable thing to want. It might be an unrealistic thing to want (as D&D doesn't do that), but that doesn't make "suck it up" a solution to the OP's problem.



The solution to the original question was presented early on: start the game at the level where the characters have the abilities you want them to have.

If the problem is that you think there should be a character class that doesn't exist in the game at level 1, then you could homebrew one.

If the whole system feels like a problem and it just doesn't fit the fantasy setting or the style of play you have in mind, well there are a lot of other RPG systems out there that could accommodate anything you can think of. No need to limit yourself to D&D.

To the specific question : "how do you deal with level one?", implying that it's a thing that needs to be "dealt with" as an undesirable part of the game, the answer is: most of us don't think it is an undesirable part of the game, so there is nothing to "deal with". We play it by-the-book. If we don't want to play level one, we start at another level.

If you are in a group that likes to start at level 1, but you don't like it and wish you could start at 3 or 5 or whatever, then you can talk about it. Either ask if the next game can start at higher level, ask to try a homebrew class that is more what you want, or suck it up because you've been out-voted and decide to have fun playing the game as it is.

Lorsa
2016-08-07, 04:03 AM
Plenty of systems have character creation systems that are much broader than in D&D, and can cover a whole range of concepts D&D struggles with. For instance, D&D just doesn't do noncombatants well at all.

As for "better", that would be a more interesting character. Higher skills have nothing to do with how good a character is, just how competent they are in their area of expertise.

Indeed, there are systems that are much broader than D&D. I have yet to find one that doesn't, by the core rules, contain some form of restriction on the amount of numbers given to quantify your character.

There are also very few groups who come together and decide to play characters without some form of restriction on character creation, even if higher than as written. I don't think this is a problem, but rather a solution to a problem.

Obviously different systems have different restrictions, just as different groups have. So I guess my question is; do you think systems (or groups) should not have restrictions on character creation?



OP is criticizing two things: that level one characters in an unspecified edition of a game strongly implied to be D&D are unpleasantly weak (that is, that the edition the OP is referring to is poorly-balanced, especially in terms of lethality, at level one); and more importantly that the slow drip of character abilities and multiclassing options means that your character can't do the things that you want them to. This is a reference to the how of what a character does, not the magnitude of it - that is, a reference to the things a character can do, not how powerful the things they're attempting to do are. This isn't the OP saying they want to have a necromancer with a horde of undead at level one (for example), it's the OP saying they'd like to have a necromancer with a skeleton. Or in their own example, a magical rogue that isn't a prestige class. Alternately, imagine if "barbarian" was a prestige class of "fighter;" that would be something that would exacerbate the problem.

I am not sure you can easily divorce the how from the magnitude. There is a limit to how "thin" you can spread a character. For example, if I wanted to create an arcane magical warrior thief following a Deity who grants divine spells and is a blacksmith, crafter of magical artifacts... etc..., then the magnitude of each of those wishes should be so low as to not fulfill any of them. Whenever you think of a "how", you usually also think of a magnitude of this how.

I don't see how one should demand all RPGs, and all groups, to allow any number of hows to any magnitude a player desires. Not doing so is not a flaw, it's a feature.




This second problem the OP is describing is that some character concepts appropriate to D&D (based on the fact that they exist in it) are associated with specific power levels that make them impossible to play at low levels.

That's the same in all games. For example, the concept "elder vampire" in WoD is a character concept appropriate to the game, but it's associated with a specific power level that makes it impossible to play at character creation.

It's a feature of basically all RPGs, that some character concepts are associated with specific power levels. I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea to allow for players to start the game at any power level they desire? And, if you do, why this preference has to be the same across all groups?




To those saying "D&D doesn't work like that:" no kidding. OP is asking about ways of coping with the fact that D&D doesn't work like that. What I am objecting to was the assertion what the OP wants from the game is an unreasonable thing to want. It might be an unrealistic thing to want (as D&D doesn't do that), but that doesn't make "suck it up" a solution to the OP's problem.

Sometimes "suck it up" is the ONLY solution to a problem. Especially as it concerns unrealistic things. For example, I would like to magically sprout wings and be able to fly, but it's very unrealistic. The best way to deal with this problem is to "suck it up", or, in other words, accept that it's an unrealistic desire and focus my efforts on desires that are realistic.




No, as I said in the post you quoted, I did not say that and do not hold that position.

Alright. I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, it was not intentional.

If you're saying something like "the best results are often accomplished when people figure out a character concept before starting to fiddle with the numbers", then it's something I agree with. I do that all the time. It usually works best when I'm aware of what concepts are "out of bounds" though, so I don't have to go back and repeat the process all over again.



Also, these seem to be solutions to the specific "magical thief" problem (if not to the broader question of character diversity at low levels, which is a question probably inherent to games with classes), and shouldn't be passed by too quickly by the flow of the discussion.

Yes, I think my ideas were pretty good solutions to how to get a magical thief at level 1. The best way that is in line with the OP's wishes would probably be to play a Human Wizard, who can then be a failed apprentice, and will get enough skill points to at least be half-decent at the required skills. Then, at level 2, the character can multi-class to Rogue and later pick up Arcane Trickster at level 4.

The Insanity
2016-08-07, 04:30 AM
"is for" is an undefined term in this context. I can't even tell if you are talking about child-age and teen-aged players or characters.
Well, the last sentence of my post gives you all the context you need, IMO.

And I'm talking about my games. I thought that was clear from the context of the OP, where he asked us how we deal with it.

Knaight
2016-08-07, 03:37 PM
Obviously different systems have different restrictions, just as different groups have. So I guess my question is; do you think systems (or groups) should not have restrictions on character creation?

I have no issue with restrictions on character creation, and routinely present fairly restricted selections to fit a setting. What I have a problem with is when a system fails to provide support for any number of archetypes in the genre it is supposed to be emulating, such that it's way too easy to blunder into the restrictions even with a fairly broad concept that can be heavily tweaked.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-07, 05:19 PM
I am not sure you can easily divorce the how from the magnitude.

"I can raise the dead" =/= "I can raise all the dead." "I can raise the dead" can come with all sorts of qualifiers: briefly, with difficulty, inconsistently, without being able to control them, but only one at a time, etc. Magnitude is infinitely variable unless you have a system that hard-codes specific magnitudes to certain things (for example, fireballs always being of the exact same size and destructive power).


That's the same in all games. For example, the concept "elder vampire" in WoD is a character concept appropriate to the game, but it's associated with a specific power level that makes it impossible to play at character creation.

It's a feature of basically all RPGs, that some character concepts are associated with specific power levels.

It may be the same in the case of vampire age in WoD - but age isn't exactly a thing you do, so that's not all that relevant to the how/magnitude distinction I'm trying to make. And even if it were, that's not much evidence to conclude that all games are the same based on it. I think I remember hearing that M&M allows you to build powers


I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea to allow for players to start the game at any power level they desire? And, if you do, why this preference has to be the same across all groups?

That is not what I'm saying. In fact, I have specifically stated the opposite. (That said, I do think it would be appropriate for the group as a whole to start at the power level that the group as a whole wants to start at, but that's a very different issue, and not a point that needs to be made here.) (Another side note: class tiers and varying degrees of optimization do mean that in some editions of D&D, players actually can start at any of several divergent power levels, but this isn't something I'm inclined to see as a plus.)

I don't have a preference for this (or anything) to be the same across all groups, and have not expressed such. I have expressed support for the OP's apparent preferences, since I would assume that OP's preferences are appropriate to OP's group in the absence of evidence to the contrary.


If you're saying something like "the best results are often accomplished when people figure out a character concept before starting to fiddle with the numbers", then it's something I agree with. I do that all the time. It usually works best when I'm aware of what concepts are "out of bounds" though, so I don't have to go back and repeat the process all over again.

We agree on this.



Separately, on the topic of unrestricted character creation, especially in regards to power level: it actually can be done, and can work, with a group of people who trust each other and want the same thing out of the game. I say this based on having run point-buy character creation where the amount of points to buy with was set by the players. That said, it's very player dependent, and for that reason I do not recommend it as a routine practice.

2D8HP
2016-08-07, 05:58 PM
Level one kind of sucks, few would argue this.......
-
So how about it? It's kind of hard to confidently play yourself as some sort of bad-ass adventurer when an angry house cat can prove a legitimate threat...
Fundamentally in D&D and imitator games you start PC's at Level one because "Leveling up" is fun.
You can start at say Level 19 (if everyone at the table agrees), but usually going from 19 to 20th level, just doesn't feel like the triumph that making second level is.
I'd say that I'd may be more inclined now to start a 1e D&D game above 1st level, now that I've tasted what it's like to have most PC's actually survive the early sessions. Playing a first level 5e PC feels about the same as a third level 1e PC to me, and doesn't feel weak to me at all compared to 1e, it's been pretty fun, but the lower you start, the farther you have to climb, and to me "leveling up" at high levels just isn't as fun for me, but judging by how popular Superhero RPG's are, for some playing superpowerful PC's right out of the gate is what they want.
To each their own.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-07, 07:23 PM
I still think there are several people posting on this thread who are starting from the assumption that all RPGs are primarily about making the character you want to make, and this simply isn't the case. D&D is a game about adventurers having adventures, killing monsters, and exploring dungeons and wilderness, the same way Monopoly is a game about monopolising the property market of a city, Jenga is a game about not letting a tower fall down, and football is a game about kicking a ball into a net.

Power level concerns are one of many assumptions about D&D that are obvious if you look at the rules and mechanics in any depth. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. The answer to the OP's original question is either "start play at a higher level" or "use a different system". Again I'll cite Risus and The Window (and I'm sure there are plenty of others too) as examples of systems that don't do what D&D does but offer much more freedom in character creation.

This is just one of many complaints people make about D&D that they wouldn't make if they understood the assumptions on which the game is based. To be fair, as others on this thread have elucidated very well, the rule books don't make nearly enough of an effort to make this clear - but look at the game as a game and the facts are there nonetheless, staring you in the face .

BayardSPSR
2016-08-07, 07:54 PM
This is just one of many complaints people make about D&D that they wouldn't make if they understood the assumptions on which the game is based. To be fair, as others on this thread have elucidated very well, the rule books don't make nearly enough of an effort to make this clear - but look at the game as a game and the facts are there nonetheless, staring you in the face.

Perhaps we could agree on the statement "the preferences of the OP are thwarted by inherent characteristics of the system they're playing?"

CharonsHelper
2016-08-07, 09:44 PM
Perhaps we could agree on the statement "the preferences of the OP are thwarted by inherent characteristics of the system they're playing?"

True. But that's sort of like saying - "I'm really annoyed that you can only use your feet when playing soccer. It's unfair that the goalie gets to use his hands. All of the players should be able to use their hands."

It's fine if you want to play a game where you use your hands, but if you change soccer (football to you non-Americans) so that you can use your hands, it's not really soccer anymore.

Other games DO allow you to use your hands, and that's great. But they're inherently different games.

Lorsa
2016-08-08, 05:59 AM
"I can raise the dead" =/= "I can raise all the dead." "I can raise the dead" can come with all sorts of qualifiers: briefly, with difficulty, inconsistently, without being able to control them, but only one at a time, etc. Magnitude is infinitely variable unless you have a system that hard-codes specific magnitudes to certain things (for example, fireballs always being of the exact same size and destructive power).

Yes but, at some point the qualifier becomes such that the magnitude of raising dead drops to such level that it practically becomes "can not raise the dead". For example, if you can raise a dead fly every other Wednesday, it could hardly fit into a "can raise the dead" concept.

When people form "the how" as you put it, it usually comes with a magnitude as well. Perhaps not an exact one, but at least a lowest value acceptable. My 4-year old nephew can swing a sword, but I doubt to a magnitude that would be acceptable to someone who has a character concept that includes "can use a sword".

I don't think "the how" is ever a part of concept formation. It's always magnitude. I mean, *I* can do basically any skill physically possible for a human to do, but some at such ridiculous low magnitude that they're... pointless.



It may be the same in the case of vampire age in WoD - but age isn't exactly a thing you do, so that's not all that relevant to the how/magnitude distinction I'm trying to make. And even if it were, that's not much evidence to conclude that all games are the same based on it. I think I remember hearing that M&M allows you to build powers

Well, elder vampires usually come both with added powers, and higher powers, so there's both more how and more magnitude there. The character concept might be such that it envisions a vampire with powers had by elders, but the game doesn't allow it at basic character creation.

Is that the fault of the game? That's the question we've been debating. I think not.



That is not what I'm saying. In fact, I have specifically stated the opposite. (That said, I do think it would be appropriate for the group as a whole to start at the power level that the group as a whole wants to start at, but that's a very different issue, and not a point that needs to be made here.) (Another side note: class tiers and varying degrees of optimization do mean that in some editions of D&D, players actually can start at any of several divergent power levels, but this isn't something I'm inclined to see as a plus.)

Well uhm, what's your problem then? It's kind of obvious that the group as a whole wants to start at level one whereas the OP wants to start at level three. Since you do think that groups should start where the group wants to start, why blame the system for not being able to acknowledge the OP's wish?

If the OP and the group doesn't get along, there's an easy solution for that. Again, you can't really blame D&D for that.



I don't have a preference for this (or anything) to be the same across all groups, and have not expressed such. I have expressed support for the OP's apparent preferences, since I would assume that OP's preferences are appropriate to OP's group in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

I also support the OP's preference. I support all preferences as it comes to roleplaying. However, not all preferences go together, and I think it was quite evident from the existence of this topic, that the OP and the group have different preferences.

That is, if the OP wants to play "Rogue with spells", it's not a preference of the rest of the group (why else would they start at level one?). If the OP really just wants to play a "magical thief", I've given plenty of examples for how this could be accomplished at level one. None of them includes the Rogue class though, and might involve a magnitude of "thievery" the OP did not envision (again getting into the power level restriction problem).



Separately, on the topic of unrestricted character creation, especially in regards to power level: it actually can be done, and can work, with a group of people who trust each other and want the same thing out of the game. I say this based on having run point-buy character creation where the amount of points to buy with was set by the players. That said, it's very player dependent, and for that reason I do not recommend it as a routine practice.

Absolutely it can work with the right group. It would not work with the people I play with though. No matter how close friends, some of them are prone to Envy (as am I to some, albeit lower, extent).

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-08, 10:03 AM
Perhaps we could agree on the statement "the preferences of the OP are thwarted by inherent characteristics of the system they're playing?"

Yeah, I agree with that.

HidesHisEyes
2016-08-08, 10:06 AM
True. But that's sort of like saying - "I'm really annoyed that you can only use your feet when playing soccer. It's unfair that the goalie gets to use his hands. All of the players should be able to use their hands."

It's fine if you want to play a game where you use your hands, but if you change soccer (football to you non-Americans) so that you can use your hands, it's not really soccer anymore.

Other games DO allow you to use your hands, and that's great. But they're inherently different games.

Well yes, and the OP did seem to be criticising D&D in this way but Bayard's statement above is phrased in a very neutral way, that's why I agreed with it.

CharonsHelper
2016-08-08, 10:24 AM
Well yes, and the OP did seem to be criticising D&D in this way but Bayard's statement above is phrased in a very neutral way, that's why I agreed with it.

Oh - indeed. I was pointing out what the OP was really saying, not Bayard. My mistake if I didn't make that clear.

BayardSPSR
2016-08-08, 04:26 PM
I don't think "the how" is ever a part of concept formation. It's always magnitude. I mean, *I* can do basically any skill physically possible for a human to do, but some at such ridiculous low magnitude that they're... pointless.

Seriously? In that case, you could rename every D&D class "Killer"or "Doer" and call it a day.


Well uhm, what's your problem then? It's kind of obvious that the group as a whole wants to start at level one whereas the OP wants to start at level three. Since you do think that groups should start where the group wants to start, why blame the system for not being able to acknowledge the OP's wish?

If the OP and the group doesn't get along, there's an easy solution for that.

OP has not actually made any statements about the rest of their group, as far as I can tell, so this conclusion is unfounded.


That is, if the OP wants to play "Rogue with spells", it's not a preference of the rest of the group (why else would they start at level one?). If the OP really just wants to play a "magical thief", I've given plenty of examples for how this could be accomplished at level one. None of them includes the Rogue class though, and might involve a magnitude of "thievery" the OP did not envision (again getting into the power level restriction problem).

Yes, you have offered solutions to the specific "magical thief" case.

Lorsa
2016-08-09, 04:17 AM
Seriously? In that case, you could rename every D&D class "Killer"or "Doer" and call it a day.

You mean create a class-less system where everyone has access to all abilities, although at different magnitudes?

I will acknowledge that that there is ridiculousness in my argument. It's not correct in the strictest sense.

But that doesn't mean that completely divorcing magnitude from "the how" is doable either. When people form character concepts, they usually envision their characters doing something to a certain degree, not just "do it". The two are entangled.