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.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563114It 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;563123I'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.
I strongly agree with these points. Advising beginning players to start at a low level makes sense (they're free to ignore the advice, of course); prescribing experienced groups to do the same just doesn't compute to me.
If the D&D rules start characters at "Zero", it is relatively easy for someone who wants to start with heroes in their campaign to just have characters start at whatever level (higher than first level) they consider appropriately heroic for where they want to start. No special effort or rules-creation needed.
However, if you bake that decision into the game rules by making 1st level characters have all of the abilities/powers/HP of whatever the game designer considers a "hero", you make it very hard for people who do want to start at zero -- or even just somewhere between "Zero" and whatever the game designer thought "hero" should be. Rules and and character "stuff" for characters starting below hero have to be written by the group.
Some games aren't really oriented towards the "zero to hero" progression at all: Traveller, for example, starts characters off with at least a few years of experience, and possibly much more. They're competent, mature adults who know what they're doing instead of kids leaving home for the first time with their father's old sword and 50 feet of rope.
On a personal level, I find the former types of characters far more interesting than the latter. From a game design standpoint, it's already been pointed out than most games will support either type. Even in Traveller, a player determined to play "a kid" can take some basic background skills, list his terms of service as "zero" and start at age 18. I don't expect he'll survive long....
This is where something like the tiers of play of 4e could be useful with more coaching. Including advice like "if you want to enjoy the full range of play and/or are a newbie, begin with the Adventurer tier, from level 1. If you are experienced in the survival levels of the game, or simply don't care for them, you can jump directly to the Heroic tier, at level 10, or beyond. Guidelines to start your campaign at each particular tier of play are included in Chapter XX, 'The Campaign' of this DMG."
Working from zero allows a PC's eventual heroism to be more deeply grounded within the events of the campaign. They're a bigshot because of specific things they accomplished, with relationships, consequences, and considerations that just can't be handwaved into existence. The way in which they became a hero provides the campaign with the grist it needs to progress- the GM just needs to call back to consequences and outcomes already established, and roll on from there.
A fresh-made hero has much less of that. Sure, you can write in friends and enemies and running complications for them, but such things tend to be pale shadows of the kind of motivations you get from multiple sessions of actual play. The GM has to lift the entire campaign from a standing start, and given the greater competence and potential scope of action of a hero-grade PC, that's a lot harder than it is for a bunch of dirt farmers.
Starting as a hero can be perfectly appropriate. If that's the kind of game your group wants to run, there's nothing wrong with it. A lot of games hardwire it in- a newbie Solar from Exalted starts well past where most other systems end development. If the kind of campaign you want to run can't be handled by raw noobs, then starting at higher levels is right for it- but starting from scratch gives its own set of benefits to a game.
This really does just boil down to personal preference. Mine is to start from scratch because it makes my character and it's accomplishments feel more grounded but I'm certainly open to other approaches.
Considering how many of my favorite stories start with characters 4th level or lower, I'm obviously biased toward "zero to hero"...
Quote from: Fiasco;563176This really does just boil down to personal preference. Mine is to start from scratch because it makes my character and it's accomplishments feel more grounded but I'm certainly open to other approaches.
Quote from: Novastar;563181Considering how many of my favorite stories start with characters 4th level or lower, I'm obviously biased toward "zero to hero"...
These 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?
I prefer zero to hero for a few reasons, one has already been mentioned above about being directly tied into every "level" of the campaign. I.e., being able to relate to the 0 level humans and farmers. But mostly because I believe that the harder you work to achieve something, the more you appreciate it and the more memorable it becomes.
For example, I can't even tell you what the ending to Contra is because I used the konami code. But I still have vivid memories of beating Ninja Gaiden all the way through.
That all being said, I have no problems for people who want to start out as a hero. In fact, that works fine for one-offs
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.
What about where players have played the game in question before and have learnt it? That doesn't sound like a compelling reason to me.
I like Zero to Hero stories as they contrast the hero's journey and give a sense of epic destiny. There is something mythically powerful about the son who takes up his father's sword to go adventuring.
There is also attractiveness in the idea of gaining rewards through advancement over time.
On saying that, I don't need Zero to Hero in every story and game. Sometimes its fun to start at Hero, depending on my modd, the characters and the story. Why just stick to one tool in the toolbox?
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.
And yet the road goes ever on...
D&D obviously expects you to start at level 1, so I don't find the system to be 'scalable'. Even by 3e the rules for starting at higher than 1st level are kind of a pain in the ass imo. A lot of groups start at level 2 or 3 which is less painful than trying to chargen a party full of 8s or 10s. On top of figuring treasure into the chargen equation (which is again pita even with wbl) there is the issue with wonky builds and party compositions that players never would have picked if they had to start from level 1. The majority of high level wizards I've seen in play were never played from low level to start with.
If anything I'd prefer a system that starts out like D&D with 'Slightly Above Zero' but had a power curve that isn't so steep. So that even at 'Hero' level the PCs are still essentially in the realm of mortal potential rather than mythological demigods. In my ideal game the 'demographics' of character power would have a much flatter bell curve than is assumed in D&D, where you go from being a guy who is one orc greataxe swing away from death to a guy that could only lose to the entire orc tribe with the worse luck in the world.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;563219If anything I'd prefer a system that starts out like D&D with 'Slightly Above Zero' but had a power curve that isn't so steep. So that even at 'Hero' level the PCs are still essentially in the realm of mortal potential rather than mythological demigods. In my ideal game the 'demographics' of character power would have a much flatter bell curve than is assumed in D&D, where you go from being a guy who is one orc greataxe swing away from death to a guy that could only lose to the entire orc tribe with the worse luck in the world.
Aren't you describing 4E? Well except for the dead in one swing bit...
FWIW I've never encountered major issues wih starting above first...
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?
I don't really know if there's anything to it at all.
Relative power level, or experience level, doesn't really have any bearing on the character's life in the game. The character's life in the game begins when the game begins, whether you start off as a cosmic powered superhero, a Demigod, a 10th level Fighter, a 5th level Thief or a 1st level Mage.
I mean, unless the player has a 15 page history of their character's life, but something tells me that folks that write 15 page histories of their characters do that no matter what.
Sometimes people just want to jump straight to fighting giants instead of fighting giant rats.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;563219If anything I'd prefer a system that starts out like D&D with 'Slightly Above Zero' but had a power curve that isn't so steep. So that even at 'Hero' level the PCs are still essentially in the realm of mortal potential rather than mythological demigods. In my ideal game the 'demographics' of character power would have a much flatter bell curve than is assumed in D&D, where you go from being a guy who is one orc greataxe swing away from death to a guy that could only lose to the entire orc tribe with the worse luck in the world.
Savage Worlds has such a scale. You can boost your Parry and Toughness, you can raise your skills to let you fight better, you can get Edges to help you out and you can get better armor...but at the end of the day, you still have 3 Wounds.
I have a section on my blog (http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/p/savage-worlds-characters-are-all-same.html) dedicated to showing the progression from Novice into Legendary for Savage Worlds characters.
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.
I see zero-to-hero as a feature, not a bug. Playing a 10th level magic-user is a lot more fun when you have a history with the character, that you've developed in actual play, back from 1st level, when he was a puny thing with one hit point, one dagger and one spell (sleep, unless you're retarded, or your dick DM made you roll). :D
Quote from: The Butcher;563479I see zero-to-hero as a feature, not a bug. Playing a 10th level magic-user is a lot more fun when you have a history with the character, that you've developed in actual play, back from 1st level, when he was a puny thing with one hit point, one dagger and one spell (sleep, unless you're retarded, or your dick DM made you roll). :D
Yeah, but how many sessions does it take to get level 10? Is it 30? 40? I know, in an abstract sort of way, that some people play the same characters and campaigns for years, but I've never actually seen that. Round here games are shorter, games and GMs rotate every few months. It's a whole different perspective. I'm not bashing long campaigns but I don't think it really takes that long to fully develop a character and I struggle to believe that over the course of 40 sessions there isn't a degree of "more of the same" creeping in.
I find D&D works best in the 5-8 slot. The classes roughly balance and even the thief has some useful competancies.
I have started at just about every level there is usually 1st but sometimes 15th or 20th. and everything in between.
It would be good if the core rules provided an easy way to build an X level character and randomly acquire suitable kit etc. I am sure there are packages that do it but the lack of simple guidelines for doing it mean it feels a bit cheaty but also there are no parameters so its hard to set player expectations.
I was most annoyed about the startign characters in Vampire to be honest.. If I am playing a vampire game I want to be a F*ing vampire not a mooney goth kid with sharp teeth that can be mullered by a jock with a baseball bat. so just give them an additional 10 points.
Quote from: Soylent Green;563488Yeah, but how many sessions does it take to get level 10? Is it 30? 40? I know, in an abstract sort of way, that some people play the same characters and campaigns for years, but I've never actually seen that.
From two to three years of regular play (averaging 3 games a month) for my campaigns. Of course, given treasure = XP in the editions of D&D I run, it is easy to speed that up or slow it down to fit the needs of your campaign. This also assumes you will lose at least one character during that time.
Quote from: Soylent Green;563488Yeah, but how many sessions does it take to get level 10? Is it 30? 40? I know, in an abstract sort of way, that some people play the same characters and campaigns for years, but I've never actually seen that. Round here games are shorter, games and GMs rotate every few months. It's a whole different perspective. I'm not bashing long campaigns but I don't think it really takes that long to fully develop a character and I struggle to believe that over the course of 40 sessions there isn't a degree of "more of the same" creeping in.
I hear you. The long campaign is my white whale; a regular campaign, around here, gets played once a MONTH. When we find the time to play more often than that we run new games, concurrently.
As for more of the same, well, every campaign should have its ups and downs, and I suppose it's the GM's job to keep things fresh and interesting.
Quote from: RandallS;563511From two to three years of regular play (averaging 3 games a month) for my campaigns. Of course, given treasure = XP in the editions of D&D I run, it is easy to speed that up or slow it down to fit the needs of your campaign. This also assumes you will lose at least one character during that time.
Well 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.
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?
I thought it did a pretty good job of this already...aside from the whole "this edition breaks down at X Level of play!"
I never bother with my character's power progression while gaming. I mind its in-setting/fiction progression though, whatever that might be.
How about Hero to zero. Every time you gain enough exp you lose a level!
Quote from: The Traveller;563262Levels 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.
Got my vote for "Winning the thread."
Quote from: The TravellerLevels 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
Thats the definition of "dissociated" mechanics by Alexander, no?
Gotta agree on long campaigns with slow progression: it's not a model that works for me, these days. I just don't have the time to run D&D like I did when I was 15. However, that seems more like a rate of progression issue than anything else. Make XP awards larger, or divide XP progression requirements by some factor, and adjust to taste and frequency of play.
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 pretty much only run one game at a time. I've been doing that for many years now. If you want to play a lot of different games, I suppose that can be an issue. Of course, I tend top play with casual gamers. They don't own many (any in some cases) other games.
Also, my campaigns generally aren't about leveling up. Characters become important to a part of the game world. Their actions have shaped and formed it. Even at low levels they can be "big fish" in their part of the world -- even if it might be a small pond. The players play more for that they they than do for the chance to level up. Success is measured more in game world achievements than in mechanical advancement.
Quote from: jeff37923;563068This is a good question for discussion.
No, it isn't.
It's just the same degree of dumbness that's behind the question
"Why watch the whole movie instead of just the climax?"
Why 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.
Quote from: silva;563542Thats the definition of "dissociated" mechanics by Alexander, no?
Not exactly. Levels have an in-game meaning, they are representative of a character's abilities as well as place within the setting. They are, however, highly abstracted, which to some people is just as much of an immersion breaker as dissociation.
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;563624Quote 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.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ySdetY6cMEo/S-rh6yvXDOI/AAAAAAAAAOg/wshQUHW2ZKY/s1600/FacepalmPrime.png)
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:
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.
.
Agreed, well apart from Game of Thrones with all those protagonist kids, oh and that bit in Conan where his family are killed when he is a kid, oh and that bit in Spy kids where these kids have to become spies, oh and The Incredibles where these kids develop Super Powers, oh and James Bond junior, and narnia, and Oz, and His Dark Materials, and ...
role-play the montage of birth to puberty. fun?
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.
Agreed. I wanted a Conanesque swords & sorcery romp so I ran 4e D&D starting PCs at 3rd level. Currently I'm having fun with Labyrinth Lord 1st level PCs in Fantasy Fucking Vietnam. It's all good.
Quote from: kregmosier;564297role-play the montage of birth to puberty. fun?
To some of the above posters, apparently.
Quote from: jeff37923;564328To some of the above posters, apparently.
Such as? I haven't seen anyone say they wanted to do that. Though I suppose they might exist somewhere.
Quote from: kregmosier;564297role-play the montage of birth to puberty. fun?
Fun is ultimately the arbiter here. If you want to start play as a hero, because you find it fun, do it. If you prefer to start "pre-hero" because you find that fun, do it. If you really want to play through a character's childhood, because you find it fun, do it.
But if you want to start at a higher level, because you find it fun, but someone tells you shouldn't start there because you should really be starting at 1st level, stuff'em.
Quote from: kregmosier;564297role-play the montage of birth to puberty. fun?
Toddlerdome!
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/487672_471821472837462_990277890_n.jpg)
Quote from: Fifth Element;564338Fun is ultimately the arbiter here. If you want to start play as a hero, because you find it fun, do it. If you prefer to start "pre-hero" because you find that fun, do it. If you really want to play through a character's childhood, because you find it fun, do it.
But if you want to start at a higher level, because you find it fun, but someone tells you shouldn't start there because you should really be starting at 1st level, stuff'em.
If you're playing in a one-shot convention game or two-three session adventure, then sure... start at whatever level is appropriate.
If you're starting in a new campaign, *I* prefer starting at first level. (others may like starting all characters at 3rd level or whatever...do what you like.)
Yes, Fun is ultimately all that matters.
Quote from: Benoist;564378Toddlerdome!
I trust that is a proper sword and some blunt replica or worse a foam boffer blade. They will never learn the art of defence if you start them with anything but steel. :)
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 made me stop posting facepalm images. If I do this everytime someone says something like this, there won't be enough bandwidth in the world...
Quote from: Fifth Element;564332Such as? I haven't seen anyone say they wanted to do that. Though I suppose they might exist somewhere.
You spoke in jest, but one could interpret certain lifepath character generation systems as doing just that, albeit in a highly abstract manner. Many are 100% random, but some combine choice and randomness and feel like mini-games of their own.
Quote from: Fifth Element;564338Fun is ultimately the arbiter here. If you want to start play as a hero, because you find it fun, do it. If you prefer to start "pre-hero" because you find that fun, do it. If you really want to play through a character's childhood, because you find it fun, do it.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: The Butcher;564417You spoke in jest, but one could interpret certain lifepath character generation systems as doing just that, albeit in a highly abstract manner. Many are 100% random, but some combine choice and randomness and feel like mini-games of their own.
Yeah. A "montage" approach is going to have to be like a lifepath system.
I've also played plenty of RPGs where the PCs are kids - never toddlers, but a few from age 8 or 9 and plenty in early teens, below the starting age of typical adventurers. In general, if I start a campaign that way, it stays in childhood. But then, campaigns that go for years in game-time are uncommon in my experience anyway.
This also isn't solely about age. For example, Call of Cthulhu PCs are sometimes below the equivalent of first level in the sense that they have no decent adventuring skills.
You know, for a long time I had been running games of "Hero First" for my wife and the groups we've played with over the years, because i thought thats what players wanted. One thing that I've come to realize about the games is that they felt "too big" too quickly and I didn't enjoy it as much.
I mentioned this to my wife and wondered out loud is if it was the lack of zero to hero that was the problem. She floored me with her response:
"yeah, there's something really unsatifying about starting out as the hero"
I told her I didn't know she felt that way.
She said "what do you mean? How About how I go on about how shows like Farscape would be the perfect RPG because Chriton goes from being unable to open the door to, years later, being one of the most important people in the galaxy? Or how the crew went from being this rag-tag band of screw ups to being renown badasses who robbed a Shadow Repository? It would have been boring if it started there. Or even Stargate SG-1 where they're going through the gate with no idea how to cope with anything out there to defeating the Goual'ould with their own spaceships years later? It's the Hero's Journey, and that kind of story cycle has been used for thousands of years over and over for a reason."
So I got back on board with zero to hero.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;564912She said "what do you mean? How About how I go on about how shows like Farscape would be the perfect RPG because Chriton goes from being unable to open the door to, years later, being one of the most important people in the galaxy? Or how the crew went from being this rag-tag band of screw ups to being renown badasses who robbed a Shadow Repository? It would have been boring if it started there. Or even Stargate SG-1 where they're going through the gate with no idea how to cope with anything out there to defeating the Goual'ould with their own spaceships years later? It's the Hero's Journey, and that kind of story cycle has been used for thousands of years over and over for a reason."
Its worth noting that all of the above started out with extensive military training, well able to kick ass from day one. Their achievements had less to do with their personal power than with the network of alliances they built up over time. None of them is able to shoot better, dodge better, or has gained any super-magical powers by the end of the series, possibly excepting Daniel Jackson.
What speaks loudest to people is ordinary folk, or at least people they can relate to, doing extraordinary things.
Quote from: The Traveller;564915Its worth noting that all of the above started out with extensive military training, well able to kick ass from day one.
Yeah, Daniel Jackson, allergic civilian archaeologist, was totally able to kick ass from day one? Really?
John Chrichton didn't do any real ass kicking for almost two seasons. Mostly he did alot of talking and running. And even then, the ass kicking was pretty rare. Chrichton may have been badass back on Earth (his Backstory), but out in the rest of the galaxy, he was pretty incapable of anything; in his own words, it took him "ten minutes to figure out how to open the door".
And, besides, a Level 1 D&D Fighter is a trained soldier and can kick ass, too. He's just not going to be
the guy who saves the world today, because he's not
that bad ass just yet. He'll be the guy who saves the world in a couple of years from now, when he's had a chance to grow into the shoes of a Hero. For now, he's got to get out there and earn his chops as a Hero. He's already a guy with military training, like our Stargate SG-1 guys (except DJ, of course) but like them, he isn't a Big Damn Hero... yet.
QuoteTheir achievements had less to do with their personal power than with the network of alliances they built up over time.
Many games have "Connections" as an element of Character Advancement. For example, you can purchase connections as an edge is Savage Worlds. In ACKS, you can establish a base of operations and get followers after level 9. Building your alliances can certainly be a part of the zero to hero experience.
So really, that fits too.
And really, in Farscape, they made far more enemies than they made friends. It really wasn't about alliances at all, in the end. It was about John Chrichton's Super-Magical Wormhole Powerz.
QuoteNone of them is able to shoot better, dodge better, or has gained any super-magical powers by the end of the series, possibly excepting Daniel Jackson.
And John Chrichton.
I disagree. First, I don't think having super-magical powers is a pre-requisite of Zero to Hero. Zero-to-Hero is about, as mentioned, The Hero's Journey, not how one particular game system models that mechanically, so I think that's a red herring.
That said,
Sam Carter's proficiency with the Sufficiently Greater Technology (i.e. Magic) of the setting is a clear example of "leveling up" or advancement.
Chrichton became generally much more capable in a setting for which he had no useful skills to start with, and couldn't shoot a pulse pistol. He sank ALOT of points into skills!
Daniel Jackson was probably the most dramatic, as you yourself note, going from scholar to demi-god, at one point.
All of the characters are significantly more effective against foes that used to be very threatening to them in previous seasons. I.E. those foes used to be way above their Challenge Rating. For example, SG-1 had to flee a group of Jaffa early in the series, but later, they could stand their ground against a large number of them successfully without much trouble.
That's leveling up/having advancement. It just isn't in-genre for that to manifest as big flashy powers all the time, but rather as more subtle adjustments to the kinds of threats being faced. That doesn't mean it isn't obviously there. It's that the Jaffa used to be scary by themselves, then they were scary in groups, then they were scary in big numbers, then they really weren't anything more than a speedbump most of the time. Much like, say, Orcs in D&D.
D&D's default starting position is Level 1 because this best models the "hero's journey" concept, which is pretty crucial to the D&D format.
However, most versions of D&D include some guidelines for creating higher-level character groups, and a few have guidelines for 0-level characters. So in fact, the whole premise of the thread is kind of faulty, you can certainly start playing a D&D campaign with the characters already being established heroes, if that's what you really want to do.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Doctor Jest;564930Yeah, Daniel Jackson, allergic civilian archaeologist, was totally able to kick ass from day one? Really?
John Chrichton didn't do any real ass kicking for almost two seasons. Mostly he did alot of talking and running. And even then, the ass kicking was pretty rare. Chrichton may have been badass back on Earth (his Backstory), but out in the rest of the galaxy, he was pretty incapable of anything; in his own words, it took him "ten minutes to figure out how to open the door".
And, besides, a Level 1 D&D Fighter is a trained soldier and can kick ass, too. He's just not going to be the guy who saves the world today, because he's not that bad ass just yet. He'll be the guy who saves the world in a couple of years from now, when he's had a chance to grow into the shoes of a Hero. For now, he's got to get out there and earn his chops as a Hero. He's already a guy with military training, like our Stargate SG-1 guys (except DJ, of course) but like them, he isn't a Big Damn Hero... yet.
Many games have "Connections" as an element of Character Advancement. For example, you can purchase connections as an edge is Savage Worlds. In ACKS, you can establish a base of operations and get followers after level 9. Building your alliances can certainly be a part of the zero to hero experience.
So really, that fits too.
And really, in Farscape, they made far more enemies than they made friends. It really wasn't about alliances at all, in the end. It was about John Chrichton's Super-Magical Wormhole Powerz.
And John Chrichton.
I disagree. First, I don't think having super-magical powers is a pre-requisite of Zero to Hero. Zero-to-Hero is about, as mentioned, The Hero's Journey, not how one particular game system models that mechanically, so I think that's a red herring.
That said,
Sam Carter's proficiency with the Sufficiently Greater Technology (i.e. Magic) of the setting is a clear example of "leveling up" or advancement.
Chrichton became generally much more capable in a setting for which he had no useful skills to start with, and couldn't shoot a pulse pistol. He sank ALOT of points into skills!
Daniel Jackson was probably the most dramatic, as you yourself note, going from scholar to demi-god, at one point.
All of the characters are significantly more effective against foes that used to be very threatening to them in previous seasons. I.E. those foes used to be way above their Challenge Rating. For example, SG-1 had to flee a group of Jaffa early in the series, but later, they could stand their ground against a large number of them successfully without much trouble.
That's leveling up/having advancement. It just isn't in-genre for that to manifest as big flashy powers all the time, but rather as more subtle adjustments to the kinds of threats being faced. That doesn't mean it isn't obviously there. It's that the Jaffa used to be scary by themselves, then they were scary in groups, then they were scary in big numbers, then they really weren't anything more than a speedbump most of the time. Much like, say, Orcs in D&D.
Its still not zero to hero, its hero to hero. Chrichton was an astronaut, by definition one of the best and brightest. Jackson certainly did kick ass where it needed kicking. There's nothing whatsoever to support level based improvement in any of these shows, even John's wormhole thing doesn't get appreciably better except for one instance - there's plenty to support skill based improvements, however.
They start as heroes, and end as heroes.
Quote from: The Traveller;564958Its still not zero to hero, its hero to hero. Chrichton was an astronaut, by definition one of the best and brightest.
Not in the context of the setting, no. The whole point of the pilot episode is that he may have been big news on a primitive little planet on the ass end of the galaxy, but in the larger world, he didn't know jack shit. He was a nobody, without any skills that could do anything worthwhile In the setting, to the point his teammates considered him useless and stupid. He was a zero level galactic citizen. Because the things that made him cool as an astronaut on Earth were commonplace in the rest of the galaxy; everyone else could do those things. His astronaut skills are like someone winning a horse drawn carriage race going to NASCAR.
I mean, it IS The Hero's Journey. Name one myth cycle where the person leaving home wasn't an exceptional or special in some way member of his people at home? The Hero's Journey myth cycle is dead on what these things are doing.
QuoteJackson certainly did kick ass where it needed kicking
In season one? I call bullshit on that. Jackson did t get ass kicking until late season 2, at least. He had to level up first. It wasn't until after his wife died that he really because kick ass, and I think that was season 3, but I can't recall precisely.
Quote. There's nothing whatsoever to support level based improvement in any of these shows,.
I said leveling or advancement, again you're getting hung up on how a particular game models advancement instead of the concept of advancement itself. Your argument seems to be that these shows aren't D&D and that I can agree with. But d&d, and levels like d&d has, aren't the only way zero to hero is modeled in RPGs, and not the only rpg to model that. but now we're really arguing what kind of zero to hero game system best models Farscape, not really if it's 02H
maybe it's point buy improvement, who cares? Point is, the characters went from fairly ineffective against the challenges of the setting to very effective against them. That's the sort of thing 02H models.
Again, see The Hero's Journey
I have no problem with starting at first level - I just started my nephews and son on a Pathfinder adventure today starting at first level.
However, I don't buy that "Hero's Journey" in general is something unique to starting at first level. Many heroes of myth start out at the beginning of their journey already very capable - like Hercules who was able to crush deadly serpents even from birth. I think there can be a real hero's journey even for a character who starts out strong - like Hercules, Spiderman, Buffy Summers, etc.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;565063Not in the context of the setting, no. The whole point of the pilot episode is that he may have been big news on a primitive little planet on the ass end of the galaxy, but in the larger world, he didn't know jack shit. He was a nobody, without any skills that could do anything worthwhile In the setting, to the point his teammates considered him useless and stupid. He was a zero level galactic citizen. Because the things that made him cool as an astronaut on Earth were commonplace in the rest of the galaxy; everyone else could do those things. His astronaut skills are like someone winning a horse drawn carriage race going to NASCAR.
Doesn't matter. He picked up the relevant skills quickly (what, like two episodes?) because that's all they were, skills. He did not start out as a zero, he started out as one of the best. It only took him a short while to get up to speed because he started as a hero, albeit one thrust into a new environment.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;565063In season one? I call bullshit on that. Jackson did t get ass kicking until late season 2, at least. He had to level up first. It wasn't until after his wife died that he really because kick ass, and I think that was season 3, but I can't recall precisely.
You mistake my point - if the SG-1 teams could just murderhobo everything, they wouldn't have needed him along. His area of competence was more toward the intellectual, and in that he defintively did kick ass. And through that he actually ended up kicking more ass than everyone else put together.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;565063maybe it's point buy improvement, who cares? Point is, the characters went from fairly ineffective against the challenges of the setting to very effective against them. That's the sort of thing 02H models.
The point is, the characters went from having the best elite military or aerospace backgrounds in the world to having the best elite military or aerospace backgrounds in the world and having an understanding of, and alliances within, a new environment. There is no way any of these could be considered zeroes at any point in the shows.
Quote from: jhkim;565102However, I don't buy that "Hero's Journey" in general is something unique to starting at first level. Many heroes of myth start out at the beginning of their journey already very capable - like Hercules who was able to crush deadly serpents even from birth. I think there can be a real hero's journey even for a character who starts out strong - like Hercules, Spiderman, Buffy Summers, etc.
To be a Campbellian Hero's Journey there has to be a 'call to adventure'. The Hercules myth does not fit at all. Spiderman and the Buffy movie do both have it, though - in the Buffy TV show Buffy has already heard the call pre episode 1, when her Watcher turns up, but Zander & Willow do have it in the pilot episode, if you count them as heroes rather than companions.
Hercules has his labors, which I think would qualify as the call to adventure.
As for Stargate, there is some advancement for all the characters, but it's not strictly linear, and excluding Jackson they all start out pretty formidable. Jackson and Carter are both hard to peg though, considering that neither of them have combat as a specialty.
Presumably all of them get better at combat, excluding possibly O'Neil. In the Big Finish audio play First Prime (which is canon) Teal'c mentions that he has 'learned much' and cites specifically being trained by O'Neil in 'black ops', the 'silent kill' which is something that he had no expertise in from his Jaffa background. We also see him favoring guns instead of his staff weapon late in the series.
Jackson clearly gets better at skulking, combat and becomes probably the groups most daring member. He's the most clearly transformed character from the beginning and the actor even undergoes a physical transformation (his physique, not Ascension).
Presumably Carter does get better at combat, and while she starts out with a military background she's untested and basic training and her shooting range marks means about dick for their missions. Her ability to sneak, fight and shoot is a 'level up', and her scientific expertise and the overall level of technology that they regularly handle on the show increases dramatically throughout the series run. She also arguably goes from being a subordinate to a leader which could be represented mechanically.
Of course just because they improve doesn't mean that they started out at 'zero'. Jackson maybe, and arguably Carter are, but both are supposed to be absurdly smart as well, which is a 'power' all its' own. Maybe less evident with Jackson but within the setting he's literally the only historian to ever get Earth's history "right", ever (unless Erich Von Daniken or Giorgio Tsoukalos exist in the Stargate universe, in which case they are at least in the ballpark, but I take it that Jackson was imagined as the progenitor of Ancient Astronaut theories in the setting).
I think if you were going to make a Stargate TRPG that you would want to include some way to improve the characters in a way that happens on the show.
Handling the O'Neil archetype might be problematic, but I don't think it would be insurmountable. There are other RPGs based on shows that handle the 'main character' problem.