Quote from: rgrove0172;981995Oh I was speaking in general but Call of Cthulhu comes to mind, as does Star Wars, some World of Darkness campaigns Ive witnessed and so on. Player builds a tough  New Orleans detective and his beginning stats look more like a rookie cop etc.

You need to say which version of Star Wars. I haven't seen it in d6 Star Wars, but I have seen it in d20 Star Wars.

Quote from: jeff37923;982011You need to say which version of Star Wars. I haven't seen it in d6 Star Wars, but I have seen it in d20 Star Wars.

FFG Star Wars - not so much a Jedi, its fairly clear they are novices, but everybody else.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982015FFG Star Wars - not so much a Jedi, its fairly clear they are novices, but everybody else.

Can't help you there. To paraphrase Han Solo, "Hokey rules and gimmick dice are no match for a solid d6 system in your hands."

Quote from: rgrove0172;982015FFG Star Wars - not so much a Jedi, its fairly clear they are novices, but everybody else.

Sorry haven't had enough experience with the FFG system to say. In the one game Ive played I seemed fairly competent in my characters focus but it was only several sessions.

Quote from: jeff37923;982022Can't help you there. To paraphrase Han Solo, "Hokey rules and gimmick dice are no match for a solid d6 system in your hands."

I didnt mind the dice so much but the rules are so vague, wonkey and open to interpretation I just had to bow out. Combat rules especially were laughably freeform.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981995Oh I was speaking in general but Call of Cthulhu comes to mind, as does Star Wars, some World of Darkness campaigns Ive witnessed and so on. Player builds a tough  New Orleans detective and his beginning stats look more like a rookie cop etc.

rgrove0172 - I mostly agree with your main point - though I don't think Call of Cthulhu really sets up beginning characters as very heroic - and they don't get much more heroic even with experience. There are a number of systems where this is not so much the case -- Hero System, GURPS, Unisystem (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.), Apocalypse World and many variants, FATE, and others.

To other people replying about expectations in D&D and other zero-to-hero games, characters being extraordinary heroes is generally written into the text of the game. There are lots of statements like this (from 5th ed D&D):

QuoteAdventurers are extraordinary people, driven by a thirst for excitement into a life that others would never dare lead. They are heroes, compelled to explore the dark places of the world and take on the challenges that lesser women and men can't stand against.

I'd agree that it can be an issue, but there are various ways of dealing with it - including just adjusting players' expectations.

I've never been interested in starting at the top. It's more interesting to me to work my way up, or try to. This is a player expectation issue, but I either nip it in the bud by explaining what the game is about and the player understands or she can find another game where she can start with the hero she imagines playing.

Beyond the Wall actually sets up first level adventurers who make sense as begining adventurers. They have a little equipment, a few skills, and something is happening to their home village. They are the villagers who are brave enough and competent enough to go for and deal with the problem.

Traveller characters start out quite competent, even retired from lengthy careers.

Zero-to-Hero seems to an issue more in some games than others. It is that quest for experience points with whoch to "level up" and improve your character.

Plenty of games out there where starting PCs are pretty damn good at what they do.

You describe one of the reasons I generally avoid level based games. There are exceptions, but for the most part I don't have much interest in playing inept characters. I prefer games where improvement is incremental development, mostly to allow the character to adapt to game needs, learn a new language because they have travelled to a new land, train to use a legendary weapon they secured from a wizards tower etc.

Call of Cthulhu would be one such exception, and really that is less inept characters and more fish out of water. CoC characters can actually be pretty capable in their field, but unfortunately for them Great Old Ones tend to be outside of their field of expertise.

They are indeed level 5 and so. Dragons of Despair was for PCs levels 4-6 and numbering 4-8.  Heres some pregen examples.
Tanis is a level 5 fighter.
Caramon is a level 6 fighter
Raistlin is a level 3 magic user.
Tasselhoff is a level 6 thief.
Strum's level 6 fighter.
Flints a level 4 fighter.
Goldmoon and Riverwind are level 5 cleric and ranger respectively. (And Riverwind is really just Goldmoons henchman NPC)

Laurana doesnt appear till the second. and is a NPC. A level 3 fighter. And by the second module all the pregens have gone up a level I believe.

The descriptions fit characters who have adventured some to hit those levels.

As for starting level characters with "Im CONAN Scourge of the world!" I gently remind them that they are just starting their adventuring carreers and should have an appropriate background. Failure to pay attention to something that simple is not garnering with me any good points.

Isn't the whole point of CoC that you're character is a everyman??

I agree though that not every RPG has to be based on D&D's zero to hero model. And honestly the lethality of D&D continues to be exagerrated to me. I played Basic, 1e and 2e and rarely had characters die at a low level.

Most level-based games do actually start the PCs off a significant cut above the norm, admittedly OD&D and Classic D&D BTB are exceptions - a Fighter-1 is functionally identical to a 1 hd monster. My new* 1e 1st level Ranger-with-weapon spec is clearly considerably superior to the default level 0 1d6 hp human pirate or bandit in the MM, I could probably take on 3 or 4 men and live. IRL that would make me one of the greatest warriors in history! So giving my PC an 8 year background of pirate raiding, remorse, redemption, Ranger training & battles with orcs didn't seem out of line to me.

*25 XP so far!

I don't recall ever seeing a disconnect between starting power and perceived power.

* When I ran my GURPS X-Com game, the PCs were elite troops, built on around 300pts, as was appropriate for their abilities.
* When I ran a super-high-powered fantasy game using HERO, PCs were built using reasonably high-end superhero levels of build points.
* If I get around to running Godbound at some point in the future, the 1st level PCs will have the powers and abilities of competent demigods when the campaign begins.
* In my planned, upcoming RM game, the competent and skilled (but far from elite) PCs will begin at 4th level.
* In Pendragon, starting knights are well trained, and can be highly competent in a small selection of core skills, but they're still clearly young, inexperienced knights and the purpose of the game is create their legend. Later beginning knights would be far more likely to talk about their father's or grandfather's great achievements than anything else.
* In my current Hackmaster game, which began at 1st level, the PCs considered themselves competent, but untried and relatively inexperienced, and the players were well aware of their limitations.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981924In nearly 40 years of gaming Ive seen it over and over again. New characters described in heroic terms (I am Vernoc, spear bearer of the Minoc Clan, Son of Horid the Serpent Slayer!) and yet they have trouble with the first Kobold they meet - because.. well they are level 1.

It happens in almost every genre too - start up characters viewed as seasoned detectives, daring space jockeys or prominent professors at their University hunting ghosts. In actuality they, at first level or beginning characters, should be described quite differently. It leads to an odd disconnect when the assumed Bad Ass falls on his face early and often.

Some games have prior experience that allows you to generate an experienced PC.

So, for example, RQ/BRP/D100 games have rules on creating characters as basic, advanced, verteran and hero levels, so you can create a spear bearer of the Minoc Clan, he would probably be a seasoned warrior. The fact that he names his father means nothing regarding what level he starts at.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981924In fact, now that I think of it, the entire premise of a group of 1st level adventurers going off on a quest is usually pretty unrealistic. You would think 1st level adventurers would apprentice under some experienced veterans for a while until they were a bit more seasoned. A more realistic approach would be for any starting group to have a spread of levels - from a leader type (level 5 or something), a couple mid levels and then a rookie or two.

Any scenario that starts with a group of friends going on an adventure is effectively a bunch of level 1 PCs going on a quest. You might have NPCs at different levels helping or advising them, though.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981924I doubt anybody ever plays that way though.

There are problems having mixed-level parties. Higher level PCs take the brunt of the action while lower level PCs hang back and soak up the experience.

Also, very few players want to be taking orders from other players, so having a leader and a bunch of followers doesn't often work.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981924In nearly 40 years of gaming Ive seen it over and over again. New characters described in heroic terms (I am Vernoc, spear bearer of the Minoc Clan, Son of Horid the Serpent Slayer!) and yet they have trouble with the first Kobold they meet - because.. well they are level 1.

It happens in almost every genre too - start up characters viewed as seasoned detectives, daring space jockeys or prominent professors at their University hunting ghosts. In actuality they, at first level or beginning characters, should be described quite differently. It leads to an odd disconnect when the assumed Bad Ass falls on his face early and often.

In fact, now that I think of it, the entire premise of a group of 1st level adventurers going off on a quest is usually pretty unrealistic. You would think 1st level adventurers would apprentice under some experienced veterans for a while until they were a bit more seasoned. A more realistic approach would be for any starting group to have a spread of levels - from a leader type (level 5 or something), a couple mid levels and then a rookie or two.

I doubt anybody ever plays that way though.

The only neophyte characters in our games who were described as being great warriors or whatever, were jokes of some type or another. Mostly they were NPCs. Seems to me that if players do what you describe, they don't understand their game system very well. Which, by the way, tends to include some published adventures, including many computer games ("You are the destined hero to save the land! Now, learn to dress yourself and equip weapons, and then go try to clean the rats out of the basement. If you die, just savescum until you don't.") where it actually is there destiny, based on the ability to resurrect on failure, because they're the only PC-class characters in the world, the only ones gaining XP and leveling up to superhuman power levels, etc. and that's not being given much critical thought.

But it can be, and is in some games. You can start with experienced, skilled, powerful characters - just actually have the stats say so too. Though there can still be the disconnect of new players who don't yet know their characters nor the setting well enough to behave very competently.

It was always pretty clear to me playing TFT, after having run a bunch of melee combat, what the experience levels were like. Starting characters were just a little bit better than average, and even seasoned characters need to play smart or they'll get killed. The first adventure I GM'd had an experienced NPC party come to town and check the local tough-guy bar to see if they could get some more volunteers so their party would have more numbers (i.e. the PCs).

Sometimes we've started as teenaged peasants who have to work around family chores and so on, at first.

Starting as soldiers, guards, or apprentices somewhere is also a good way to get started with a limited context that also allows players time to learn the setting enough to be oriented.

In contrast to your doubt that anybody ever plays that way, I think pretty much every game I've run, and  almost all the TFT/GURPS games I've played in, have been pretty conscious of the actual experience level of the PCs and started them in that context and not as supposed heroes.