Quote from: Benoist;563188These comments make me wonder how much of a correlation and overlap there is between the "zero to hero" v. "heroic to superheroic" mindsets, and the "trad. organic play" v. "storytelling play".

That is, is there a correlation between wanting to start as a zero because the game itself is the background of your character, so his life in the game is what ultimately matters, and all that matters, versus wanting to start as a hero because you have that cool "story concept" you want to explore as you "build a narrative" in the campaign with the GM?

First, it matters what game you're playing. In Star Wars Saga, the expectation is to start off as a Big Damn Hero, who continually gets more awesome till the story runs out.

My typical D&D experience (playing and running), the PC can have a "cool concept" for their background, but ultimately the Hero's Journey shapes them as they adventure. They aren't assumed to be BDH, though they can grow into that role.

I rather detest Narrative Play though, as it feels too much like the villains just sit around waiting for your heroes to show up, rather than aggressively moving towards their goal. The heroes affect the game world (in fact, tonight the PC's had a chance to kill Admiral Thrawn in my Star Wars game, but he maneuvered them into working for him, instead...), but their inaction is just as important as their actions. They are meant as major players in the story, but the NPC's don't sit around and wait for the PC's to show up.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;563082Its the instant gratification need. The same reason that someone would play a videogame on 'god mode', they want ultimate victory and they want it NOW.

And what is wrong with instant gratification in this instance? This is a meaningless, leisure activity. There no lessons to be learned, no useful skills to be acquired and no achievements worth a damn to be gained. When you watch a movie do you expect the first have to be half to be underwhelming just because otherwise it counts as instant gratification?

MMO work by hooking people on the level tread and fooling the players that gaining levels is an achievement. But they need to do that because their games work on a subscription model and a lot of content is pretty repetitive. Selling a sense of achievement is the only way to hook people long-term.

Roleplaying games are better than that.

Levels are a meta mechanic to my mind, something the players strive for that their characters wouldn't have any clue existed. Of course its meant to approximate gaining in skills and toughness as you progress, but what it often does is get the players to make decisions based more around advancing in level than what their characters might do.

Once you take that out and have good punchy starting characters, not superpower level but well able to hold their own, with multiple routes to advance different parts of their attributes within the game, the meta mechanic and associated pressure (conscious or otherwise) is gone, leaving the GM and players free to explore the world on their own terms, without being a punching bag for kobolds for the first month.

Its a more complicated picture than that of course, if you tried to apply this concept to D&D, half of the monsters would be pushovers and you'd never beat the other half, so lots of little adjustments in what many people feel a game should be need to be made, but overall its a far superior experience in my opinon.

Not to say anything bad about D&D or those who enjoy it for what it is, this is again just my opinion.

Quote from: Soylent Green;563240And what is wrong with instant gratification in this instance? This is a meaningless, leisure activity. There no lessons to be learned, no useful skills to be acquired and no achievements worth a damn to be gained. When you watch a movie do you expect the first have to be half to be underwhelming just because otherwise it counts as instant gratification?

Nothing at all wrong with it, just don't make it the ONLY option. Being able to start from the bottom does not preclude starting from a more elevated position but elevating the bottom to pre-made hero DOES preclude the option for starting at the bottom.

I still enjoy low level play as well as high level. Starting out as a 3hp scrub can be just as much fun as beginning as a 30 hp hero. The stats of the character are not the prime driver of fun. If we decide that we want to be heroes at the start then we can generate 4th-5th level characters and start playing them. I don't see a need to tell everyone who plays that they have to start out there because 1st level is boring.

Remember that the game is constantly being discovered by new players. I wouldn't want to deny them the same range of options as I had just because I had BT/DT over 30 years ago.

For a game where the charcaters are still essentially 'Human' I would prefer a level scale of 3 to 15 ish. Meaning a five 'Zeros' might still challenge one 'Hero'


I don't really enjoy the uber level 0 to level 20 increase. Watch that single level 20 barbarian defeat 5,000 zero level Soldiers!  uhhh..what?


In a Superhero game, I prefer the characters to start out formidible with only modest increases over time.


Its all personal preference however.

Quote from: One Horse Town;563101Sorry, but it's nonsense.

Level based systems can model a zero to hero campaign or a hero to mega-hero campaign.

Pick a level you're happy to start at and go from there.

The rest is navel-gazing.

+1

I've always looked at class based games as hero to legend

Quote from: Fiasco;563223Aren't you describing 4E? Well except for the dead in one swing bit...

FWIW I've never encountered major issues wih starting above first...

One of the alleged goals of 4e's design was to 'stretch out the sweetspot', but I feel at some point that went to the wayside.  By level 15, the equivalent of 'name level' in earlier editions, or 'mid-paragon' in 4e you are pretty much a demigod.  You start off more 'powerful' and you end less powerful than 3e (maybe, for some of the more powerful classes), but ultimately you spend more time as a high powered Herculean superhuman than in any other edition of the game.

Quote from: Soylent Green;563240And what is wrong with instant gratification in this instance? This is a meaningless, leisure activity. There no lessons to be learned, no useful skills to be acquired and no achievements worth a damn to be gained. When you watch a movie do you expect the first have to be half to be underwhelming just because otherwise it counts as instant gratification?

Yes.  Otherwise I don't care about the charcacters and no matter how much danger you put them in or how many pretty explosions and cgi dinosaurs you have, I could give a rat's ass if they live or die.

I think this is really a case by case thing. Different games are going to be better with different ranges.

I think in the case of D&D they have the added issue of having to appeal to the broadest number of gamers possible. Those are going to include peope who want a narrower range, peopoe who want a larger range, and people who thrive on low and high level play. I imagine for some players, not having the low range of 1st level or a high range of at least 20th could be a deal breaker. They may want to consider suggesting play start at 3rd and end somewhere in the mid teens but make that an entirely optional choice. That way you are not taking away levels of play some folks might consider important.

If this is a case by case or taste thing, shouldn't the D&D game enable you to play whatever you want to play, instead of pigeon-holing you into a particular paradigm? If so, how can this be achieved?

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;563341One of the alleged goals of 4e's design was to 'stretch out the sweetspot', but I feel at some point that went to the wayside.  By level 15, the equivalent of 'name level' in earlier editions, or 'mid-paragon' in 4e you are pretty much a demigod.  You start off more 'powerful' and you end less powerful than 3e (maybe, for some of the more powerful classes), but ultimately you spend more time as a high powered Herculean superhuman than in any other edition of the game.

Quote from: Benoist;563417If this is a case by case or taste thing, shouldn't the D&D game enable you to play whatever you want to play, instead of pigeon-holing you into a particular paradigm? If so, how can this be achieved?

Yes, i think it should. And giving the broadest range in the core is probably the easiest way. People can always start characters at higher levels and wrap up at lower ones. It is much harder to custonize the am if they create 1st level characters as third level ones, and shorten the acrual range on top of it.

My own preference is actually for something like 1-12th level. I like starting weak, but admit high level play tends to be less interesting for me. However it is no problem for me to just wrap up at 12th.

However in games that aren't D&D, my preferences vary greatly. For modern settings, i like to be able to start out more in the middle.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;563419Yes, i think it should. And giving the broadest range in the core is probably the easiest way. People can always start characters at higher levels and wrap up at lower ones. It is much harder to custonize the am if they create 1st level characters as third level ones, and shorten the acrual range on top of it.

I agree. That's where the idea of the "tiers" of play is useful. Look at how ACKS lifted the idea from 4e and implemented it as the "Adventurer THEN Conqueror THEN King" sequence of play in the B/X context. That could be done for Next, with guidelines helping you start your game at the tier of play that really brings the fun factor to your game table.

Character advancement serves as a ready-made reward system and pacing mechanism. It is a motivation that's always there for the players, and increases their engagement with the campaign. Getting more powerful is a good motivation for adventurers to go adventuring. Sometimes it is a justification, sometimes it helps to get over rough spots (most of us have had them).

The arc of advancement, particularly before 3e, also increases the variety of play. It is not just your character who is changing, it is also the nature of his or her challenges. From raids to extended expeditions, the scope of play broadens, sometimes into becoming lords, ladies, bishops and master thieves. D&D keeps on giving new game forms, new ways of interacting with the setting (BXCMI was a crystal-clear blueprint, although its level range was way, way too broad).

I like variants which use the level system to calibrate the style of play. Many people have had problems because D&D didn't model their favourite literary characters well. In a lot of cases, that was because they tried to project the abilities of Robin Hood or Merlin on a 1st level character. That problem can be remedied or at least lessened by starting a campaign with a different level range. E6 is the greatest mod to the d20 system because in its simplicity, it captures a certain segment of play. You can play an entire campaign with that scope. A hero to big hero campaign could very well start on level 6 or even level 8 and go from there. D&D has always had that possibility in itself, but was never good at communicating it.

I personally like to start games at the 3rd level, where characters are already competent, well-rounded individuals, but not yet big heroes. They are pulp characters who can dish it out and take it. (That said, my next campaign will probably start on level 2 in an E6-like system.)

Of course, there are other fine models. WFRP characters don't get much more powerful, but they grow more versatile. It is getting broader instead of getting taller, but you can still get eaten by rats in the Elendesviertel.

Yeah, I agree, too.  I want the system to support the full range of play, and the group can pick where they want to start the PCs and create their characters at that level.  With TSR D&D, I don't find that difficult at all.

Since even in the original three-book set, 1st level characters are more than ordinary, they aren't really "zeroes." "zero" must be a relative term. Which leads one to ask: if you redefine 1st level to have lots of cool powers, how many people complaining about "starting as a zero" will still be complaining?

Just set a start level for your group and stop rewriting the base rules. You can't satisfy the zero haters; they will always hate starting at the beginning.