Quote from: CRKrueger;563590Not exactly.  Levels have an in-game meaning, they are representative of a character's abilities as well as place within the setting.

I would say it depends. If your abilities get better because of purely system/gamist premises (eg: using the xp you got hacking monsters for increasing your disarm traps skill) then it have nothing to do with your character's place in the setting. Its as artificial a mechanic as it gets.

On the other hand, in systems where you get better through in-setting training or actively using your skills in-game (like Runequest 2, for eg), then I would say the mechanic is perfectly fine (aka non-dissociated).

Quote from: Phantom Black;563571Why not start at level 20? Because it's not important to see the character be a hero, but how he/she became one.

Not the status is important, but the transitional process.

So why not start at the character's birth then? Why skip ahead to when he's already a competent adventurer?

My point being, any starting point is arbitrary, and anything that happens after starting the game builds the character's character, so to speak. "Hero" is an arbitrary term, which means different things to different people.

Quote from: Fifth Element;563622So why not start at the character's birth then? Why skip ahead to when he's already a competent adventurer?

My point being, any starting point is arbitrary, and anything that happens after starting the game builds the character's character, so to speak. "Hero" is an arbitrary term, which means different things to different people.

Thread won.

Quote from: Soylent Green;563516Well that's the thing, isn't it? Given that 3 games a month is at the high end of what I generally manage, we're talking here about only playing one specific game (ignoring all the other awesome games out there) and giving up GMing for two to three years just to experience a character going from level 1 to 10.  I just can't see that happening. The opportunity cost is just too high.

I don't think that people playing the same characters for years at a time is all that uncommon.  I've done it multiple times over the past decade and a half.  We play other games as one offs, or for a month or so but will play D&D more or less non-stop.

Quote from: silva;563598On the other hand, in systems where you get better through in-setting training or actively using your skills in-game (like Runequest 2, for eg), then I would say the mechanic is perfectly fine (aka non-dissociated).

Yes, character improvement then becomes part of the fabric of the campaign; the GM can work with this, making training with a particular master a quest goal, characters getting better at using the sword through using the sword in battle, that's the best way to represent advancement for me.

And for the adventure possibilities training opens up, one need look no further than Harry Potter, depicted almost entirely within an academic setting, hardly Book: The Reading. Much of the Buffy series was her in school or college, or important figures in the show were.

More importantly it puts becoming megaman on the back burner, training is not typically a primary goal, so players can engage more with the game world through their characters, getting involved with NPCs, and generally having much stronger motivations associated with the milieu beyond levelling up.

Then its up to the GM to engage the players and provide a compelling plot.

This is why I prefer to start characters at a reasonably tough level, around the region of Indiana Jones say; with skill, luck, and equipment, but still quite able to be captured or beaten up - this means that no type of adventure is too small or too great. They might never, as humans, be able to wrestle a dragon to the ground by main force, but that just means they get creative in the game instead to achieve the same goal.

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.

I think 4E tried to adress this and failed.

While 4E is comparitively balanced and playable at levels 20+, I feel 30 levels are just too much.

I should have a better reason than 'it just feels like too much' but I don't.

I like both styles it really depends on what am I trying to accomplish in the game. If backed to a wall and it's just Dnd I perfer starting at 2nd maybe 3rd level if it's a campaign. I really enjoy having the ability to walk into the tavern and hearing all the "oohs" and "aahs" from the 0 level commoners. For one shots? Sky is the limit.

I agree that there is no natural starting point for when to adventure.  

I've had some great campaigns with PCs who are teenagers who are just coming into their power.  I've also had some great campaigns where the PCs are super-powerful and years or decades into their careers (like superheroes, Amberites, or immortal supernatural beings).  

It doesn't matter where you start in a character's life - there are always going to be changes and interesting things happening to them.  So, for example, my first Amber Diceless PC was Queen of her own world and a master of sorcery, but it was a big shift when she was introduced to the Courts of Amber.

Quote from: jhkim;564019I agree that there is no natural starting point for when to adventure.  

I've had some great campaigns with PCs who are teenagers who are just coming into their power.  I've also had some great campaigns where the PCs are super-powerful and years or decades into their careers (like superheroes, Amberites, or immortal supernatural beings).  

It doesn't matter where you start in a character's life - there are always going to be changes and interesting things happening to them.  So, for example, my first Amber Diceless PC was Queen of her own world and a master of sorcery, but it was a big shift when she was introduced to the Courts of Amber.

I have only 2 things to say....

1. I would love to try Amber at least once it sounds like MtAw with Imperial Mystery's on crack.
2. Fifth Element made sense!

Several factors combine to make Zero-to-Hero my preferred game experience:

1.  For level-based game systems, my gaming 'sweet spot' is levels 1-3 game play.

2.  I prefer my characters' development to be based upon the outcome of organic game play.

3.  I prefer gritty-n-grim game play over high magic-high fantasy game play.

Quote from: silva;563624

Quote from: Fifth Element;563622So why not start at the character's birth then? Why skip ahead to when he's already a competent adventurer?

My point being, any starting point is arbitrary, and anything that happens after starting the game builds the character's character, so to speak. "Hero" is an arbitrary term, which means different things to different people.

Thread won.

Quote from: Fifth Element;563622So why not start at the character's birth then? Why skip ahead to when he's already a competent adventurer?

My point being, any starting point is arbitrary, and anything that happens after starting the game builds the character's character, so to speak. "Hero" is an arbitrary term, which means different things to different people.

Because it's never shown in fiction what an infant does. It can't achieve anything. It's not active, but passive.

And level 1 adventurers aren't competent, not at all. I don't know what systems you play, but a D&D character at level 1 can almost do jackshit.

Quote from: Phantom Black;564266And level 1 adventurers aren't competent, not at all. I don't know what systems you play, but a D&D character at level 1 can almost do jackshit.

When the character sheet becomes the end-all of what you can achieve, you get bullshit like this.

Quote from: Phantom Black;564266Because it's never shown in fiction what an infant does. It can't achieve anything. It's not active, but passive.

So ignore the specific example and look at the meaning. Why wait until the character is fully first level? Why not play through a future wizard's apprenticeship? Surely why a character became an adventurer is an important part of that character's 'story'?

Quote from: Phantom Black;564266And level 1 adventurers aren't competent, not at all. I don't know what systems you play, but a D&D character at level 1 can almost do jackshit.

This must be why a 1st-level fighter in AD&D is called a 'veteran'.

Not competent at all? Now, bearing in mind that like hero this word can mean different things to different people, I think being able to actually use magic, or being able to channel the power of a deity, when the vast majority of the world's population cannot, must be considered 'competent'. Being able to wield any weapon you come across and wear any armour without trouble. It's not a terribly high bar to get over.

Also, what Exploderwizard said.

Quote from: Phantom Black;564266And level 1 adventurers aren't competent, not at all. I don't know what systems you play, but a D&D character at level 1 can almost do jackshit.

:rotfl: