In fact, the regularity with which parties are wiped by the goblin cave in the Beginner Box, an adventure written by professional designers who are intimately familiar with the system and in question, speaks quite loudly to the fallacy of that presumption.
Or rather, speaks quite loudly that the designers wanted to bring back the fun of classic DnD.
You haven't lived until you've been TPKed by green slime falling on you at the entrance to the dungeon.
In fact, the regularity with which parties are wiped by the goblin cave in the Beginner Box, an adventure written by professional designers who are intimately familiar with the system and in question, speaks quite loudly to the fallacy of that presumption.
Or rather, speaks quite loudly that the designers wanted to bring back the fun of classic DnD.
Here, Here! (I fell in love with WFRP 2nd and then found out about classic DnD.)
Oh man ... The Moathouse ... What a tactical nightmare ...
When I went through it, some of the players brought friends... and booze. So, instead of a half-dozen PCs, we had two dozen. More than half were at least buzzed and a few were pretty much blitzed (I was underage and good about it). You don't even want to know the tactical nightmare. IIRC, the slime took out a third or more of the group. We still had plenty of inebriated mine detectors, but every time we lost one, it created an OOC feedback loop to where it ended up being like trying to game at a frat house on a Friday.
In fact, the regularity with which parties are wiped by the goblin cave in the Beginner Box, an adventure written by professional designers who are intimately familiar with the system and in question, speaks quite loudly to the fallacy of that presumption.
Or rather, speaks quite loudly that the designers wanted to bring back the fun of classic DnD.
Ah, yes, the mysterious version of 'fun' that includes people blaming new DMs for not magically knowing that they need to use their limited (or nonexistent) experience to completely rebalance the first significant encounter of an adventure, or risk ending the game right there, before the players even actually encounter *plot*.
Its one thing to have a party beaten by the big-bad, or even one of its lieutenants. It's another thing for a published adventure to have a roughly 50% TPK ratio *before* the players even know what the plot is, even when using the characters that were specifically created *for* that adventure.
More advanced DMs have the experience to recognize the problem on paper, and adjust accordingly, but they are also significantly less likely to run published adventures, instead preferring to create their own campaigns. New DMs on the other hand, don't have that experience to fall back on, and instead tend to be of the impression that encounters are going to be somewhat balanced, especially for the pre-gens that came with it.
Plot ... That's what spontaneously happens when you actually run/play a game. Not something that you plan in advance. Just because you have a module full of detailed encounters, doesn't mean you have some kind of guaranteed story there. Your players' creativity and die rolls will determine what happens next, not the next page of the module.
We were all new once, and anyone willing to perfect their craft will research and seek out the experienced DMs advice, whether it be a famous guy (Chris Perkins is a good example) or not (Veterans on this forum, maybe.)
Ah, yes, the mysterious version of 'fun' that includes people blaming new DMs for not magically knowing that they need to use their limited (or nonexistent) experience to completely rebalance the first significant encounter of an adventure, or risk ending the game right there, before the players even actually encounter *plot*.
Its one thing to have a party beaten by the big-bad, or even one of its lieutenants. It's another thing for a published adventure to have a roughly 50% TPK ratio *before* the players even know what the plot is, even when using the characters that were specifically created *for* that adventure.
More advanced DMs have the experience to recognize the problem on paper, and adjust accordingly, but they are also significantly less likely to run published adventures, instead preferring to create their own campaigns. New DMs on the other hand, don't have that experience to fall back on, and instead tend to be of the impression that encounters are going to be somewhat balanced, especially for the pre-gens that came with it.
I have a few things to say, so I'll try to order them by importance.
First would have to be that I agree with your general sentiment that it is not at all cool for things intended to be introductory to not help new DMs make things fun for their players. It's why I've always sat, stunned silent, every time someone has praised the original Keep on the Border Lands adventure.
Second, I think it's interesting to share my anecdote that the vast majority of people I've heard telling tales of TPKs in the Lost Mine of Phandelver adventure are experienced DMs. Some of which even said they saw things as being problematic (so many complaining of how dangerous a bugbear is) and refused to do anything but play as they always played. And at least a few of these folks have a particular play-style of doing everything they can to get PC kills short of blue bolts from the sky, and seem surprised that they keep ending up with dead PCs.
So I think saying the TPK ratio of the Starter Set is anywhere near 50% is a bit over-zealous if claiming it is because it is written to be extremely difficult.
And lastly, a question... If new DMs do not have experience that tells them encounters are supposed to be somewhat balance, and do not have anything in the Starter Set specifically telling them that encounters are supposed to be somewhat balanced, why would there be a stronger tendency to expect encounters to be somewhat balanced as opposed to some other expectation? I have to ask because my experience has been that only table-top role-playing games with encounter building guidelines included have ever given someone the expectation that conflicts experienced in a game would have some kind of "balance" to them beyond there being some way to "win".
We were all new once, and anyone willing to perfect their craft will research and seek out the experienced DMs advice, whether it be a famous guy (Chris Perkins is a good example) or not (Veterans on this forum, maybe.)
Setting the barrier for entry - and in this case I mean for "entry" to refer to not just trying the game out once, but having a solid enough experience with it that you want to come back for more - any higher than it absolutely must be (being literate, buying the Starter Set, and gathering people to play with) is poison for the well that is this hobby.
Perfection of the craft should come in the form of repeated enjoyable play sessions, supplemented by advice from other players/DMs if desired. It should not be a requirement just to figure out how to get through the introductory product without wondering "How do people find this enjoyable?"
As with a few of the others in this topic, I would have to say starting at 1st level is in the new players' best interests because it allows them to better grasp the game's mechanics, as well as the leveling system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life."
It is really weird that so many people responded to this on Facebook and reddit by saying "Players die too easily at level one". As if there is no possibly way to avoid that. DMs have the tools to easily control that aspect of the game by planning out combat a bit. It makes me wonder how many people are running D&D sessions as dice rolling games. The mechanics for rewarding creative combat are right in the rulebook.
I've seen the difference between every character living through first level, and some getting dead, come down to things as simple as the DM deciding to roll damage dice for monster attacks. Usually, it is because that's how the person DMing has always run things with prior editions, so they didn't even consider using the option 5th edition presents to use non-rolled damage and how that option might benefit them.
If PCs are doing variable damage it makes no sense that the monsters always do 5 damage every round. It's just not something I would enjoy as a player.
Just looking in the monster manual and virtually every monster has the ability of rolling for dice to kill a PC in shot. And to possibly end their existence on a crit.
Can you as a DM fudge dice rolls or go with average damage? Sure. But many would view that as cheating and therefore not as eliminating the squishiness of 1st level PCs.
Pre-set damage is a bad idea, just like auto-criticals on a Nat 20. The odds of players making Death Saves (and failing) on a regular basis are much higher that way. Start a game at 1st level always, as it's the best way to learn the risk/reward balance of a character and iron out the party dynamic to deal with down PCs. Once the characters have hit 3rd they've ironed out the details of group functionality and can then specialize in what they did best for levels 1 - 2. Besides, it's fun to *ding* relatively quickly at those low levels.
I came into DMing 5E shepherding the players towards teamwork and using creative play. I have run a bunch of games for new players through programs at the public library, local conventions and D&D encounters. I have always run vanilla rules. Normally always roll for damage.
I never really ran into the issue of player characters dying unless they ran off on their own and took completely illogical risks that could get them killed. Then those PCs got killed. That happened twice in 6 games I ran for new players. And clearly the players in my game were still having a good time and still ended up taking risks when it made sense for their characters to do it.
A sense of danger and stakes seems to only heighten the engagement of the group.
The basic setup for running a game like that is in the DMG. Right?
If PCs are doing variable damage it makes no sense that the monsters always do 5 damage every round. It's just not something I would enjoy as a player.
Have you tried it and found you don't like it, or are you just theorizing that you wouldn't like it? I find that sometimes something which seems unappealing actually ends up being enjoyable once tried (i.e. sushi, or other foods which people ask "Why would you eat that?" like haggis, black pudding, beef tongue or tripe).
As for making sense, I find that it does actually make sense for monster damage to be a non-rolled thing because that puts all of the combat resolution mechanics of the game on the same footing of 1-part rolled and 1-part non-rolled; attacks get rolled but AC doesn't, saves get rolled by DC doesn't, monster HP doesn't get rolled (most DMs I know of have taken to using the provided averages, at least) but PC damage does - so changing monster damage to not being rolled brings it in-line with the rest, rather than both PC HP and monster damage being rolled.
Plus, using the average damage instead of rolling reduces the difficulty for the players to accurately assess the threat of a monster. So when they are engaging a creature they aren't familiar with to find out how much of a challenge it is, they aren't left with a mistaken impression - which means less times that the player thinks "I'll be fine for a few rounds" and gets their character killed because it was a low-damage roll to start, and less times that the players wonder if the DM was intentionally trying to kill their characters because of higher-than-average damage rolls.
Plot ... That's what spontaneously happens when you actually run/play a game. Not something that you plan in advance. Just because you have a module full of detailed encounters, doesn't mean you have some kind of guaranteed story there. Your players' creativity and die rolls will determine what happens next, not the next page of the module.
We were all new once, and anyone willing to perfect their craft will research and seek out the experienced DMs advice, whether it be a famous guy (Chris Perkins is a good example) or not (Veterans on this forum, maybe.)
Are you seriously contending that there is no plot in the starter adventure prior to or outside of die rolls?
I think you're cherry picking my post ... Read it again ... It states that a published adventure is no garauntee that you have a plot ... Player characters and die rolls create plot ... Written encounters are static influences to plot, but its really all in the PCs ballpark as to what Unfolds. Don't be so obtuse to make some kind of point.
I say that the most memorable / interesting parts of the game happen as spontaneous collaboration during gameplay.
I try to plan out my games as a frame for what the players want to do but even when I run stuff out of books the most interesting stuff isn't written down in the module.
I have had a good time playing as a player in a game where the DM closely follows the flow of story that the book lines out. So I guess it's just another choice as a DM based on your players.
With completely fresh players, I'd say go with starting on level 1. It's easiest to get into, and you can award them levels as you seem fit if they excel really quickly grasping the game.
I would actually argue that the way the classes and abilities are structured, they suggest very strongly that the default expectation is that when monsters show up the players will fight them using those options and mechanics tactically in a straight fight. If the players have a low chance of winning in such a way, then the encounter might not be a good one to put in front of players who have only just made characters and trying to learn the game's basics-character generation would be setting one expectation, only for that expectation to be immediately crushed, especially for new players who are more frequently invested in their characters than they are anything else in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
Oh man ... The Moathouse ... What a tactical nightmare ...
Plot ... That's what spontaneously happens when you actually run/play a game. Not something that you plan in advance. Just because you have a module full of detailed encounters, doesn't mean you have some kind of guaranteed story there. Your players' creativity and die rolls will determine what happens next, not the next page of the module.
We were all new once, and anyone willing to perfect their craft will research and seek out the experienced DMs advice, whether it be a famous guy (Chris Perkins is a good example) or not (Veterans on this forum, maybe.)
Setting the barrier for entry - and in this case I mean for "entry" to refer to not just trying the game out once, but having a solid enough experience with it that you want to come back for more - any higher than it absolutely must be (being literate, buying the Starter Set, and gathering people to play with) is poison for the well that is this hobby.
Perfection of the craft should come in the form of repeated enjoyable play sessions, supplemented by advice from other players/DMs if desired. It should not be a requirement just to figure out how to get through the introductory product without wondering "How do people find this enjoyable?"
As with a few of the others in this topic, I would have to say starting at 1st level is in the new players' best interests because it allows them to better grasp the game's mechanics, as well as the leveling system.
Pre-set damage is a bad idea, just like auto-criticals on a Nat 20. The odds of players making Death Saves (and failing) on a regular basis are much higher that way. Start a game at 1st level always, as it's the best way to learn the risk/reward balance of a character and iron out the party dynamic to deal with down PCs. Once the characters have hit 3rd they've ironed out the details of group functionality and can then specialize in what they did best for levels 1 - 2. Besides, it's fun to *ding* relatively quickly at those low levels.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
I came into DMing 5E shepherding the players towards teamwork and using creative play. I have run a bunch of games for new players through programs at the public library, local conventions and D&D encounters. I have always run vanilla rules. Normally always roll for damage.
I never really ran into the issue of player characters dying unless they ran off on their own and took completely illogical risks that could get them killed. Then those PCs got killed. That happened twice in 6 games I ran for new players. And clearly the players in my game were still having a good time and still ended up taking risks when it made sense for their characters to do it.
A sense of danger and stakes seems to only heighten the engagement of the group.
The basic setup for running a game like that is in the DMG. Right?
I think you're cherry picking my post ... Read it again ... It states that a published adventure is no garauntee that you have a plot ... Player characters and die rolls create plot ... Written encounters are static influences to plot, but its really all in the PCs ballpark as to what Unfolds. Don't be so obtuse to make some kind of point.
I say that the most memorable / interesting parts of the game happen as spontaneous collaboration during gameplay.
I try to plan out my games as a frame for what the players want to do but even when I run stuff out of books the most interesting stuff isn't written down in the module.
I have had a good time playing as a player in a game where the DM closely follows the flow of story that the book lines out. So I guess it's just another choice as a DM based on your players.
With completely fresh players, I'd say go with starting on level 1. It's easiest to get into, and you can award them levels as you seem fit if they excel really quickly grasping the game.
I would actually argue that the way the classes and abilities are structured, they suggest very strongly that the default expectation is that when monsters show up the players will fight them using those options and mechanics tactically in a straight fight. If the players have a low chance of winning in such a way, then the encounter might not be a good one to put in front of players who have only just made characters and trying to learn the game's basics-character generation would be setting one expectation, only for that expectation to be immediately crushed, especially for new players who are more frequently invested in their characters than they are anything else in the game.