Quote from: The Traveller;563045I don't see any reason that players should start out with suboptimal characters, which is why I find the D&D level system mildly ludicrous, I mean everyone wants to play a hero so why play as a zero, but yes a tradeoff is important for the more game wrecking optimisations (combat related).

This is a good question for discussion.

I think that in games with levels, PCs should normally start out low and then work their way up. This is because the Players need to learn how to use their characters in the game and become accostumed to the rules and how they interact. This way, it is not only the character that advances in game, but the Player that is trained in how to play to the utmost of their ability - which does carry over into other games when their character does not.

Its 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.

Building a normal adventurer into a hero is part of the fun of the game IMHO, at as far as campaign play is concerned. The level system provides a framework for charting the progress of a character. 1st level doesn't need to be a full badass hero level. Its easy to start play at a higher level if building up the character isn't fun.

I guess this is because new school game design makes survival an assumption. If playing smart and learning to get the most out of very limited resources isn't required for success then why bother with it? If you can just bust down doors and chew through opposition without needing to think because "hey we're heroes!" the game becomes boring very quickly.

If I want to play a game where my character is a bonafide hero from day one then I will play a supers game. This is what 4E felt like to me- a supers game with the trappings of fantasy.  Fantasy supers can be fun but it doesn't need to be the default mode of play for D&D.

Quote from: jeff37923;563068I think that in games with levels, PCs should normally start out low and then work their way up. This is because the Players need to learn how to use their characters in the game and become accostumed to the rules and how they interact. This way, it is not only the character that advances in game, but the Player that is trained in how to play to the utmost of their ability - which does carry over into other games when their character does not.

And when a player has played a game for, say, thirty-five years? And refereed the game for that same length of time?

Does starting at first level still make sense?

High Valor, Hearts & Souls, and many other of my games assume that the PC is likely already an effective hero in the setting. Now a few games I write may not use that model, but its my preference.

Some long campaigns can work better with the zero to hero model, but not all of them, and that's the trick, making campaigns that work regardless of which model you have a preference for in your games.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;563089And when a player has played a game for, say, thirty-five years? And refereed the game for that same length of time?

Does starting at first level still make sense?

Only if the players want to start as "Zeros". Otherwise, just start at a different level (or Rank in Savage Worlds, or higher point total in GURPS or what have you).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;563089And when a player has played a game for, say, thirty-five years? And refereed the game for that same length of time?

Does starting at first level still make sense?

Yes and no.

If the game rules and character classes have remained unchanged for those 35 years, then it is understandable to start at a higher level. But I cannot think of a game with levels that has remained unchanged for that long.

I get what you are saying and do believe that old dogs can and need to learn new tricks with newer versions of the same game. Once the adjustments for a new version are learned, then yes it does make sense to allow that Player to start at a higher level if that Player so chooses and it matches the expectations of the Player group.

Sorry, 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.

Quote from: jeff37923;563100If the game rules and character classes have remained unchanged for those 35 years, then it is understandable to start at a higher level. But I cannot think of a game with levels that has remained unchanged for that long.

My 1e AD&D books haven't changed since the ink dried.

Are you assuming that everyone must succumb to edition creep?

If I'm playing in something short, I want competent, easily-motivated characters painted in broad strokes.  Y'know, like a movie.

If I'm playing in something long, however, like a full campaign, I want to start at the bottom and let things develop organically.  Y'know, like a series of novels or multi-season TV show.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;563105My 1e AD&D books haven't changed since the ink dried.

Are you assuming that everyone must succumb to edition creep?

But the game of D&D has had several different versions since then.

People may choose which version they prefer to play, or just stick with what they prefer the most.

Quote from: jeff37923;563108People may choose which version they prefer to play, or just stick with what they prefer the most.

And if they do stick with what they prefer the most, is it necessary or advisable or desireable that they should start their characters at first level, then, given that they've had years to master the system?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;563089And when a player has played a game for, say, thirty-five years? And refereed the game for that same length of time?

Does starting at first level still make sense?

It makes no difference how long one has been playing. Start at whatever power level your group wants. The game itself should provide the full range of zero to hero for those that want it. Experienced players can pick a starting level they want and go.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;563113And if they do stick with what they prefer the most, is it necessary or advisable or desireable that they should start their characters at first level, then, given that they've had years to master the system?

Depends on if they have ever played that particular character class before or not. If they have not, then they should start at first level and work their way up so that they can have the full experience.

These are questions that need to be answered by individual gaming groups.

A game should be broad enough to cater to all tastes (ie, start as "zeroes")

Quote from: jeff37923;563115Depends on if they have ever played that particular character class before or not. If they have not, then they should start at first level and work their way up so that they can have the full experience.

Well, over the years, I've played a half-orc, a cleric, and an assassin, but I've never played a half-orc cleric/assassin, so that means I should only play such a character starting at levels 1/1?

I'm not going to go any further with this, as I think you get my point already: I think system mastery as an excuse for zero-to-hero probably wears thin for most gamers pretty quickly.

I think the bigger question is, regardless of whatever power-level at which the player characters begin, is there somewhere for them to go, something to which they can aspire? That doesn't need to be rules-based or system mastery-derived, in my experience.