How Intentions and Bad Ideas Fucked over D&D

In considering character backgrounds and insertion into campaigns, regardless of the level of characters in my campaign, I was reminded of this post from 2018, and this forum page that followed it.  There are a few interesting details on the forum page, particularly about how not being allowed to choose a background is a bad thing.  I don't know how the one guy equates his hatred with desecrating Gygax's grave, but if building a background generator inspires that kind of behaviour, I'm all for it.

The board is also quite resentful of my policy regarding all players starting off as 1st level, regardless of the pre-existing party's experience.  I quote:

"His views on starting a character at level 1 even if the party is level 8 or 9 are frankly baffling, and not supported by most games. Yes, there's a little bit of rubber banding in D&D, but not to the point that you can have a first level character adventuring with a mid-high level party and have it not be a big deal. Anybody who's ever had their friends 'power level' them in an MMO will tell you, it's not fun for anyone. The low level person just gets dragged along for the ride, and the high level person has to stop whatever he's doing to help his friend so they can get back to the 'real' game."

I think this is extraordinarily revealing, in relation to how most people play the game.  It's very clear that "Linklord," expressing positions I've heard from others, feels strongly that the game is about "character skill" as opposed to "player skill."  Right off, it's "baffling" that the presence of another human being at the game table could possibly have value strictly from the fact that he or she is a human being, regardless of their character's game power.  That speaks of a game where planning, discussion, even the enjoyment of there just being another player has next to no place in the games he plays.  Which, I must say, fits with those games I remember from decades ago.

I've played with others who LORD their character's abilities and powers over others, particularly the magic items they've collected, as evidence of their prowess, superiority and expectation of being obeyed when choosing which dungeon door to open.  I've played with others who used their higher level to dictate where "subordinate" players should stand, and what kind of support "subordinate" players should give to the "leader" players.  I've watched the lesser, obsequious players tolerate this, accepting it as "normal" or "appropriate," waiting for the day, I suppose, when they'd get to lord their special status over less worthy participants.  I have not continued to play in these campaigns.

When I introduce a new player to my campaign, let's say "Judy," her contribution is the person she is, the excitement she feels, the evaluation of events in which she takes part in discussing, her perspective, and the simple pleasantness of having another person who's joined.  Nothing in Linklord's evaluation takes any of that into account.  Judy's value is reduced to her character's prowess, and nothing else, with the expectation that the other players will be toxic fucktards, pissed that Judy isn't powerful enough for them, ruining everyone's "fun."  Why does the low-level person get "dragged along for the ride"?  Because "the ride" is a straight two-dimension slug-fest.  "Helping" the friend is a chore, a diversion that takes away from the "real game" ... which paints a very plain picture of what sort of person Linklord is when playing D&D.

Something else I find interesting is about a player entering the campaign when the other players have all reached 9th level is the assumption that the new player ought to be instantly granted all the powers and capabilities the other players have accumulated over time.  If my players have been running in my game for three years, and have succeeded in moving from 1st to 7th level, then why should you, new player, be awarded everything they worked for, for free?  Why should you, new player, NOT expect to have to spend three years getting to the place they are?  And surely, you won't spend three years, because you'll have help from the higher level players, which those players didn't have when they were 1st.

Yet, no, the assumption is not, "Yes, I'd like to join the campaign and earn my way up to where you are."  No, it's "Fuck yes, I deserve everything you have, because I'm a person too."  This is an intrinsic notion buried deep into the game's culture, built from the resentment a new player feels at not being an equal, of having to earn equality or respect.  DMs in the day weren't ready to stand up to such players 40 years ago ... because, frankly, DMs were, by and large, spineless.  Those standards were passed along from DM to DM through the generations, and are hard-wired into the participant's mind-set today.  "I'm a person, I deserve what every other person has.  It's not a question for debate."

Where it comes to a physical game, this egalitarian notion doesn't hold because it can't.  If you join a soccer club of experienced, highly-interactive players who have built up their game, you won't be given carte blanche because you're new.  You must bend and break yourself to learn the game as they play it, if you want to play on their level.  If it's a good group of people, they'll help; but if you show no interest in earning your place in their club, then you'll be shown the door.  Because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

This is the MAIN reason I demand a new player start with a 1st level character.  And, I suspect, is the real cause for resentment from commentors on boards and my own posts regarding the matter.  Irrational as it may be, given that the game's present policy is never going to change to mine, these people still feel the idea of earning levels has to be stomped out of existence, lest it become a popular idea.  People like starting at 7th or 14th level.  They've played scores of such characters and they've become accustomed to those easy extras they never struggled to acquire.  Starting at 1st feels, well, like the "real game" is being taken away from them.  And with nothing they can add to a campaign except their character's prowess, THEY feel pathetic and "dragged along," and bitterly self-conscious when a 9th level has to stop killing someone and help their pathetic asses.  That makes them feel embarrassed, and worthless, and dependent, which they hate ... and which they assume everyone else in the same situation would also feel.

It never occurs to them that as a person, they're able to contribute to the game on a level way, way above that of the character.  They don't reckon their own value as people; they reckon their value on what they can do, what they have, how much power they have over others and so on.  It comes back to the specialness observation I made last week.

Beware this attitude.  Giving these players high level characters for free will enable their entitlement, while forcing them to play 1st level characters from the outset will quickly reveal their inability to participate as people in an open, interactive game.  Overemphasis on their character, far over themselves, speaks of a sickness, which will undermine the positive, spontaneous nature of your campaign.

Several persons on the board took time to explain that in later editions, starting a new character at 1st level is next to impossible.  Again, this speaks to a tremendous failing in the game as it's evolved.  It says that the manner in which the game handles increased character power has trumped the value of the  human being's engagement.  Without the tool, YOU, the person you are, the collection of corpuscles and sinew at the table, have no value.  That's corrupt.  Why would you play a game that sets out to devalue you as a person, the longer the game continues?

Why have you not considered that?

And finally, let me address the demonstrable resentment the board has for "random backgrounds."  Because, you know, I'm writing a book on the subject.

The phrase in the original post reads,

"Since I generate a background, rather than have the characters invent one, there's not much investment there, either. Oh, the character might have been terrifically lucky, been of noble birth or with some unusual extra skills, but again, there hasn't been time to play them and at any rate, the background is rich with extra skills."

The post wasn't about the background generator I was using ... and so, this is nothing more than an abstract reference, that would mean nothing to anyone not familiar with my blog or my system.  It's fairly clear from the board's comments that what's imagined is a collection of, say, 50 backgrounds that form a single list, on which you roll.  And I can hardly blame the average D&D commentor for thinking so.  Anytime I see a "generator" for anything, it's a pathetically simplistic list that any campaign lasting longer than three sessions would make redundant ... if it could sustain itself for that long.

Without having seen my posts on the subject, or a preview, no one could guess what my generator actually is, or how far it goes.  The generator as it appears on the authentic wiki is 30,000 words ... and not completed.   The book is steadily advancing that depth, in a manner that asks for the wiki to be eventually updated to match the book, once the book's sales fall off.  And that doesn't account for the 50,000+ words of additional background content relating to skills and knowledge that support the character generation.  So I don't resent someone when they write,

"Yeah, random is at best something for people who've Never played before, to get into the spirit of 'R'-oleplaying.Most people I've played with (anecdote) have some idea of what they want to play ... they like being in charge of themselves.  I guess that's called Adulting these days?"

Once again, it speaks to the way preconceptions have been inculcated disasterously into the game's culture.  So many shit tables, so many garbage approaches to important subjects, so much half-assery when attempting to adapt ANY depth into the game has brainwashed the participants into a certainty that any "random" table is sure to be simplistic, childish and suitable for noobs and no one else.  By dumbing down the game consistently over five decades, we've provided an enormous feeling of superiority for anyone who can put a sentence together and fill out the prerequisites for joining a forum.   Expectations for game design are at a remarkable basement-low ... which makes possible recent company garbage pretending to be "game design" seem plausible.  The audience reading and listening to the company preach its new model have been primed to treat garbage as edible ... and won't be aware of the difference until their gag reflex lets them know they can't swallow garbage.

So, on one level, it's discouraging to be designing in this market, since I'm assumed to be producing the same crap as others.  But at the same time, it's very encouraging to design in this market, since I know if I can put the physical content in front of real life eyeballs, as opposed to writing about it in text, selling said content will be like shooting fish in a barrel.