|
FRINGE posted:Is this thing actually a big deal? Did they do something other than slap a name on the first few levels to add flavor to it for new players?
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Are there people that actually really like to play at level 0 or whatever? Hell, after like my first game of 3rd or 4th most people didn't even like starting at level 1 anymore(especially 3.x because at level 1 you can be 1 shot by a dice roll gone wrong). Is there like a legitimate wanting for this kind of thing? I mean, if players want to die all over the place in even 4th edition that's pretty easy to facilitate as a DM, Hell I've done it before (and it's even an official thing with Lair Assault in a way), it's almost like these people(assuming they really exist) want to be challenged by having poo poo characters instead of being challenged in interesting tactical ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, the stuff in the packet that was level 1 is now level 3, and level 1 is basically bumbling incompetents in fantasy loving Vietnam. goldjas posted:Are there people that actually really like to play at level 0 or whatever? Hell, after like my first game of 3rd or 4th most people didn't even like starting at level 1 anymore(especially 3.x because at level 1 you can be 1 shot by a dice roll gone wrong). Is there like a legitimate wanting for this kind of thing? I mean, if players want to die all over the place in even 4th edition that's pretty easy to facilitate as a DM, Hell I've done it before (and it's even an official thing with Lair Assault in a way), For people that hate that stuff just skip it. It sounds like thats what they are aiming for? goldjas posted:it's almost like these people(assuming they really exist) want to be challenged by having poo poo characters instead of being challenged in interesting tactical ways. Not everyone plays with miniatures and tablecloth maps. The faux-offense is over the top though. If they are making a system that RP nerds can use, but is designed to be easily skipped by people that are a little more war-gamey, its not hurting either group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Are there people that actually really like to play at level 0 or whatever? Hell, after like my first game of 3rd or 4th most people didn't even like starting at level 1 anymore(especially 3.x because at level 1 you can be 1 shot by a dice roll gone wrong). Is there like a legitimate wanting for this kind of thing? I mean, if players want to die all over the place in even 4th edition that's pretty easy to facilitate as a DM, Hell I've done it before (and it's even an official thing with Lair Assault in a way), it's almost like these people(assuming they really exist) want to be challenged by having poo poo characters instead of being challenged in interesting tactical ways. I don't think anyone likes level 0, nor does anyone like starting at level 5, which is the problem. Some people want level 1 to be FFV and others want to be a cool hero from the start. Both want their play to be the default, and the others to have to start at "apprentice" or "master" EDIT: FRINGE posted:Thats what I mean. One way or another you can just continue on as you normally would. (Just calling it "lv3" now.) If they lose some of the super-powered end of the progression, thats the least important thing IMO. Making the first half as accessible as possible is more important. (If they manage it.) So while this may or may not suck, it sounds like their attention is in the right spot (maybe). I have nothing against basic and easy first levels. I do NOT think "at level one, everything kills you, move five feet at a time and check for traps and never fight" is a good introduction to the game, however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Not everyone plays with miniatures and tablecloth maps. Yo Dungeon World is one of my favorite games, there is a way to do this poo poo right. Super weak level 1 characters is pretty bad for new players to the game in general. Just seems weird to me, level 1 should be the easiest/simplest level, not the hardest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Yo Dungeon World is one of my favorite games, there is a way to do this poo poo right. For experienced people, sure, its irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Yo Dungeon World is one of my favorite games, there is a way to do this poo poo right. Likewise: Legends of the Wulin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess to put it in other words: "Easy gameplay with few choices for beginners." "Gritty gameplay for experts with easy to die characters" Choose one. The first is tied to level inherently, because level 1 is where beginners step out on. The second need not be tied to level at all. That's where D&D Next's "module" thing could step in. Except this isn't "play D&D how you want," it's "play D&D how Mearls really wants to remember AD&D as," so we're not getting that. Elsewhere I'm seeing people praise this because it solves problems like multiclassing or wanting easy death gameplay, and yet all their problems seem to originate from: I'm an experienced player and I want gritty gameplay." The only reason this need be tied to level is because of laziness or the desire to force a gameplay aspect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Well, tutorial levels and newbie zones work for WoW, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Likewise: Legends of the Wulin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
There's nothing really stopping you from doing gritty gameplay at mid or high levels as well. I mean, the Tomb of Horrors was originally a pretty high level thing wasn't it (just for example). I guess in 3.x mid and high levels got all sorts of broken so you couldn't really do it as easily there but in any other edition of DnD nothing really was stopping you from "turning up the grit" at any level of play as it were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
goldjas posted:There's nothing really stopping you from doing gritty gameplay at mid or high levels as well. I mean, the Tomb of Horrors was originally a pretty high level thing wasn't it (just for example). I guess in 3.x mid and high levels got all sorts of broken so you couldn't really do it as easily there but in any other edition of DnD nothing really was stopping you from "turning up the grit" at any level of play as it were. Right, that's broadly what I mean. It's actually not really HARD to make survivability something that can be tweaked or changed easily, but it means not tying it into level. Which isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"Easy gameplay with few choices for beginners." DM: What do you want to do? New Player: What do you mean? Having a fun/social safe-ish time for people to get the feel for "actually playing" was how we solved the teaching-to-play issue. Even the tired old (for experienced players) shopping trip and bar mishap gets them in the feel for speaking as their character while getting used to the DM being everyone else. On the other hand that problem mostly disappears if youre on a railroad into the proverbial dungeon. We just did a lot more open world stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The biggest hurdle Ive seen repeatedly goes something like this: "Here are some pregenerated characters, pick one that looks cool for this oneshot prelude adventure. Every so often this session, we'll swap the character sheets around". There, you've learned to play, you know if you liked/hated different kinds of character (and people can suggest a class for you similar to what you thought was cool), and nothing you did in your learning-to-play session has a lasting bearing on your enjoyment of the ongoing campaign which starts next week after everyone who's new has made a character they like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:"Here are some pregenerated characters, pick one that looks cool for this oneshot prelude adventure. Every so often this session, we'll swap the character sheets around". We've had fun. I know its not the same style as everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Even transitioning from: "I want my character to say/do [...]", to: "I say/do [...]" is weird to some people. I've run into a lot of "Can I say/do [...]?" from super new players, myself. I'll agree that the basics of narrative control can be a much bigger conceptual stumbling block for some people than mechanics-grasping. Weirdly enough, sometimes I've noticed that fragility and random low-level death can help make new players more comfortable, as the pressure of "If something bad/suboptimal happens it's because it's your fault" gets lifted from them and they can just relax and roll with what happens. Obviously, this is only with some people--it's a super bad intro for the type of person who has gotten into a 'this is my first game, so I'm going to get really excited and put a lot of work into developing my character before my first game' mindset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
The level 0 thing is kinda tricky, I think. For example, it's entirely possibly to run a dungeon crawl with almost no dice rolling: just don't put in any monsters or locked doors or anything. You'll maybe do a few rolls for climbing up things and perhaps underground navigation, but you could do a completely straight game where the players need to actually solve each "only step on the stones with animals which are prey" and "push this stick here and this one here to keep the ceiling from caving in" puzzle. With a game like this, it doesn't matter what level or class you are. It's almost completely predicated on the player's knowledge and experience. Similarly, it's possible to run a hack and slash dungeon that requires almost no skill whatsoever. "You kick open the door! On no, monsters! Roll initiative!" And it's usually pretty clear at a glance or two whether the party can actually succeed at this task, especially in a game which doesn't have actions other than "Run up and hit with sword!" or "Run away and shoot with bow!" and no tactical movement that really lets you get into the thick of things. You look at the numbers and do some averages. It might swing wildly one way or the other based on rolling, but it probably won't. Either the rogue has "Find and Disarm Traps" at a level enough to get past things or he doesn't. Relying on him rolling a 20 so the party doesn't die is bad GM'ing. Needless to say, in this style race, class, level, and mechanical optimization are terribly important. Most games seem to fall somewhere in between these two extremes. The idea that you need to do the former for a little while to get into things is a compelling one. It keeps you from relying on the dice and gets you used to how the game is played. It's also difficult as hell to design, as traps and puzzles aren't easy to come up with, and much more difficult to play, because sometimes people just won't be able to wrap their heads around them. Confusingly, grogs seem to hate games that favor this style of play, despite saying that it's exactly the sort of "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" that they want. Figuring out what your character is capable of can be pretty tricky. This is also where I tend to get into fights with people about whether you start a new guy out with a fighter or a wizard. I find that giving someone a list of spells, telling them what each does, and instructions to keep out of melee makes them think a little more creatively than having them run into the thick of things and not know how to flank or block or set picks or what have you, and be entirely clueless as to how much damage they can take and who the priority targets are. That leads to the "No, no, your character should be doing this" syndrome. Starting at "level 0" can actually detrimental here, as it gets you thinking "What would a shitfarmer do? Probably run away and hide!" rather than "What would a well trained soldier do? Probably kill the thing with my magic sword!" So, I guess if I want to play low-powered schlubs trying to to survive in a cold and hard world, I'm much more likely to play Kobolds Ate My Baby, Unknown Armies, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Doctor Who. It's a style of play that needs far less mechanical representation. Why do I care what skills my commoner has if he's going to fail at all of them 18 or 19 times out of 20? There's no character creation mini-game that comes before you play, and few mistakes that are going to mess up your abilities six months down the line. You can focus on coming up with the ideas and solutions that make the GM say "Okay, cool. That happens." without bother to roll dice. With low level D&D, I find myself kinda just going along for the first few weeks until we get to a high enough level to actually do something, as you don't get cool stuff to do until higher levels. Having something to look forward to is okay, but overly delayed gratification simply isn't good design. The "I already cast my one magic missile for today, so I guess I throw a dart? I'm going to get a drink, anyone want anything?" days are behind us for a reason. I'm not certain it would be improved by "Well, all I can do is cast Ray of Frost again, since it's the only spell I know." I end up playing terribly conservative for far longer than is fun, because the guy needs to survive for a bit until we can get all the mechanical back-ups we need to do heroics, which can derail things and force the adventure to come to the characters. tl;dr: Why stick all the fun looking bits at the end where no one is going to get to use them? Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:It's also difficult as hell to design, as traps and puzzles aren't easy to come up with, and much more difficult to play, because sometimes people just won't be able to wrap their heads around them. Confusingly, grogs seem to hate games that favor this style of play Spoilers Below posted:tl;dr: Why stick all the fun looking bits at the end where no one is going to get to use them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Last I checked - which was awhile ago! - D&D Nex had not one single module. This and everything else is all not only Core, it's still a part of their "Basic" set. What we have now is actually not "Basic"; it's "Standard". The Basic game is just Standard with most of the options pre-selected for you, to the point where chargen is just rolling dice and selecting race and class; you can tell that you're playing the Standard game by the way you get to pick feats and backgrounds. "Advanced" isn't really a game in itself, it's just what they're calling the modules which, yes, don't exist yet. So they're not really designing three games; they're designing one game, plus Unearthed Arcana, plus a Starter Set. Which is why the adventuring tiers on top of that is fairly dumb; you don't need to put in two training wheels levels in the Standard set if you already have a Basic set. e; and, of course, a "0th level" play option would actually have been a great opportunity for debuting their first module, which is why it's obviously being folded into the core game. Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Are there people that actually really like to play at level 0 or whatever? Hell, after like my first game of 3rd or 4th most people didn't even like starting at level 1 anymore(especially 3.x because at level 1 you can be 1 shot by a dice roll gone wrong). Is there like a legitimate wanting for this kind of thing? I mean, if players want to die all over the place in even 4th edition that's pretty easy to facilitate as a DM, Hell I've done it before (and it's even an official thing with Lair Assault in a way), it's almost like these people(assuming they really exist) want to be challenged by having poo poo characters instead of being challenged in interesting tactical ways. ... with new players to the game. As in, for a new guy, stop the main 'campaign' stuff, have the rest of the crew help run tavern people, maybe have a couple of dudes play 1st level men-at-arms to help skewer kobolds. e: He proposed doing a session or three on this level of play and by the time the guy hit 3rd level or so he'd probably be able to contribute to the main PC group. Based upon my perusal of the ancient texts he did not seem to have a major opinion on creating higher level characters if, say, you're joining your old roommate's 7th level game. In the 1E DMG there are some guides on determining what fat loots a hypothetical randomly-met adventuring party of level (n) had, which I know my own old school group would use to determine (say) what loots you had if you were rolling up as a level 6 thief. Nessus fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
I believe Old Geezer mentioned at one point that the traditional method of leveling up new party members in the Gary era was to dump the party's gold on them until they leveled up, since you got XP for gold you received back in Ye Olde Days. Kind of a weird justification for something that could be handwaved, but you can at least see the direction they wanted to go in even if they didn't quite make it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Don't forget, level 1 warrior in OD&D is titled "Veteran." This "apprentice" bullshit where level 1 characters are just fresh behind the ears losers was, from my recollection, born somewhere between 2e and 3e.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There were two modules at PAX. The one I tried was not Mines of Madness, it was the short, dull one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
The more I think about it, the more I am becoming convinced that "apprentice" does not really refer to the players as I originally thought, but to the characters. That would probably suck big time. I mean, I love stories about apprentices who do something heroic/stupid and then embark on an adventure, but I am not sure if DnD is suited for these kind of stories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Bingarosso posted:The one I tried was not Mines of Madness, it was the short, dull one. Mines of Madness also appears to be short and dull, if only for the reason that the party will almost certainly die before an hour is up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Bingarosso posted:The one I tried was not Mines of Madness, it was the short, dull one. So we were right. There really are latrines in both modules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
PantsOptional posted:Mines of Madness also appears to be short and dull, if only for the reason that the party will almost certainly die before an hour is up. Right, but they allocated 4 hours to it, so it's long and dull. Really I think the whole notion of identifying arbitrary character death as the essence of old-school is a mistake. Mines of Madness is clearly supposed to be a spiritual successor of the Tomb of Horrors. But in my limited experience old-school was rarely arbitrary. Tomb of Horror was bullshit even by the standards of the age it was created in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Right, but they allocated 4 hours to it, so it's long and dull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It was a tourney module specifically designed to kill you. The winners were the people who got furthest without dying. It bears as much relation to table play as, I don't know, CounterStrike to Borderlands. That reminds me, looking at how the class balance changed from Borderlands 1 and Borderlands 2 is something that WoTC should be considering for Next. In BL1, the 4 classes fit pretty tightly into Cleric/Druid, Wizard, Fighter, and Rogue molds from DnD. Whats most interesting is the thing that breaks the wizard in both of these games is not its ability to deal damage which it has lots of but its ability to easily control enemies and prevent them from engaging on equal footing. Additionally, because the wizard is the "frail" class they gave it a complete escape ability in phasewalking and then decided, no it should also be able to attack while invulnerable and heal during that time something no other class can do. The optimal party set up in BL1 is Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Wizard. In BL2 they looked at why the distribution didn't work. Its because being a melee fighter in a game with lots of ranged combatents and with people who can inflict statuses from ranged is a slog and you're taking hits the rest of the party doesn't have to take for no reason. Its because being an occassional dealer of large critical hits in exchange for never being able to actually engage enemies is tedious and feels like you aren't contributing. In the sequel, they completely shook up the talents and trees to make it so that skills are spread around more evenly and characters are all mechanically unique in non-traditional roles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:"Dungeons" were usually not a staple starting point for low levels for us. Its more cohesive narrative (usually) to flow along from wherever the characters are starting. Problems in the woods, SomethingSomethingCityGuards, OhNoSomeoneKidnapped, family friend/shopkeep/damsel has a problem with thugs, PC's senior/master/teacher needs help... etc. Dungeon could stand in for anything, really. No reason you couldn't put your real life talk to people, camping and forest navigation, etc. skills to use, dodging spiked pits and avoiding swinging tree branch traps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Fun with the new packet: are you an 11th level evil cleric? Congratulations, you can use your Rebuke Undead divine power to permanently charm up to four zombies or skeletons a day! So take a month between adventures hanging out at the local cursed graveyard, then rock into the next dungeon with 120+ undead pals who will obey your every command.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Barudak posted:In BL2 they looked at why the distribution didn't work. Its because being a melee fighter in a game with lots of ranged combatents and with people who can inflict statuses from ranged is a slog and you're taking hits the rest of the party doesn't have to take for no reason. Its because being an occassional dealer of large critical hits in exchange for never being able to actually engage enemies is tedious and feels like you aren't contributing. In the sequel, they completely shook up the talents and trees to make it so that skills are spread around more evenly and characters are all mechanically unique in non-traditional roles. And yet, in BL2, despite a lot of improvements, there is still a talent tree devoted to tedius, chain-headshotting. There's a Next analogy in there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It was a tourney module specifically designed to kill you. The winners were the people who got furthest without dying. It bears as much relation to table play as, I don't know, CounterStrike to Borderlands. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:And yet, in BL2, despite a lot of improvements, there is still a talent tree devoted to tedius, chain-headshotting. Honestly, to me BL1 is 3rd and BL2 is 4th. 4th isn't perfect and is a clear revision of 3rd but it shakes up a lot of things to make it more viable for everyone to participate regardless of class choice. Next is staring at the chain-headshotting thing, blaming 4th for it, then remaking 3rd and then including chain footshotting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
I like Brick  He punches money out of people.e: Admittedly I don't play Brick, but that's because my wife plays Brick. I play the soldier guy. Who is the Druid in the above analogy. I hated Lilith. Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Barudak posted:chain footshotting. "Chain footshotting" describes Next pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I like Brick Roland, the soldier, is a druid. The turret is his animal companion. Buffing damage on the animal companion is a terrible, terrible choice but pumping up his ability to summon it and improve its healing makes him an excellent battle cleric. Not to mention he gets the only resurrection spell and team healing abilities in the game. Brick is terrrrrrrrible. The entire end game is comprised of enemies who invalidate Brick's playstyle through the crazy ability of "Can fly and attack from range." Which, again, like DnD is a huge reason why playing a fighter blows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The Lord Gygax recommended that you start at first level... Didn't someone post a story about how Gygax killed a Ranger over and over because he didn't "earn his levels"? Or was that in grognards.txt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Didn't someone post a story about how Gygax killed a Ranger over and over because he didn't "earn his levels"? Or was that in grognards.txt? I believe it was more complex than that. The guy showed up to a game as a way higher level ranger than everyone else and wanted to play and he kept dying to things that other people with much lower characters weren't falling victim to. Gygax assumed it was because he had just cheated the levels and had no idea what he was actually doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Don't forget, level 1 warrior in OD&D is titled "Veteran." Yep, and by 4th you were a motherfuckin' HERO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 18:15
|
|
