This is splitting off from "No Pantheons are listed in the 2024 PHB for D&D 5E?" since it's a separate topic.

The topic is the relation of zero-to-hero to emergent story - which I take as interesting events coming together in play in a way that isn't pre-planned by anyone at the table.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2025, 11:01:09 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 26, 2025, 10:41:07 AMReducing species (nee race) to the same level of importance as Background with the two together becoming "origin" is their intention. While this is new(ish) for D&D, it's becoming fairly common in other more modern games.

"Common" does not equal "good."  It represents part of the shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs (with emergent story) and towards PC fantasy superheroes whose "backstories" are more important than their adventures.

And before some moron asks, "But how does reducing the influence of race make backstories more important?  Seems like it would do the opposite."  Race, random ability scores, backgrounds, hard class niches, etc. all act to define characters in ways that are not always conducive to player choice.  Rolling an 11 for Int really limits your character's chances of being a powerful mage (in older editions).  Playing a dwarf came with cultural and ability score constraints.  Sure, some DMs bent those for players on occasion, but playing a dwarf with 11 Int generally precluded the player from playing a 6'5" tree-loving, claustrophobic, master wizard.  You played an elf or druid if you wanted something like that.  (And for the folks that say, "That sounds cool for a dwarf to be those things,"  that's because most of the people posting here are experienced enough to play against type and still be successful.  Not so much a newbie...).  But now, if I want my dwarf to be a hermaphroditic, purple-haired, 6'5", magical snowflake ("who's kind of random.. LOL!"), there's nothing in the race to stand in my way.  We can all be anything!  (Which is the great lie that schools and media are telling all of our children... but that's another topic.)

HappyDaze responded,

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 26, 2025, 12:46:43 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2025, 11:01:09 AMthe shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs

Good riddance to that. It gets repetitive. Look at Traveller for an early example of chucking that defective pattern.

I don't have a problem with other people enjoying zero-to-hero, but it has been one of my least favorite parts of D&D. When I was a teen in the 1980s, that was one of the things that turned me on to other RPGs like Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Ars Magica, and others.


I've liked it better when the PCs start seeming like real and interesting people, not cardboard cutouts. From there, they can still develop and change a lot, but if the initial adventures are more interesting, then that snowballs into more interesting later adventures too.

While poorly-designed PCs can detract from emergent stories, I find that can be handled by a good session zero, where the GM can head off players with ideas for PCs that will cause problems. Good player choices makes PCs who support emergent story.

HappyDaze is a troll.

Just ignore everything he says and move on with your life.

The fun part of the game was starting out as a zero and seeing if you even survive to MAYBE become a hero.

I thought "zero-to-hero" just referred to the power differential between a starting character and an experienced one. What Eirikrautha was talking about is more a question of how much the words on your character sheet at the end of creation are prescriptive of how you play the character. Those are pretty separate issues. Traveller was mentioned as a counter-example, but that has far more prescriptive character creation than old-school D&D does.

The way the OP defined "emergent story", I don't think either of them matters much to it. That kind of emergent story is more a function of a good GM and good players than anything else.

I more often see "emergent story" defined not just as an unplanned story, but one that emerges as a direct consequence of game mechanics. In that sense, a more prescriptive character sheet would correlate with it. Think of something like Pendragon, which mechanizes the character's personality. That can certainly be annoying, but it's also likely to produce story beats the player couldn't anticipate because they're now tied to dice rolls. WFRP and other games that mechanize the character's social status potentially do the same thing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 27, 2025, 07:41:41 AMThe fun part of the game was starting out as a zero and seeing if you even survive to MAYBE become a hero.

This is the allure.

There's several things going on in emergent story, many of them orthogonal to zero to hero.  However, games that support zero to hero also tend to support having limits--sometimes seemingly arbitrary limits--and those are critical to having emergent story with most players.

Limits are freeing.  For most people.  The exceptions are not as plentiful as people think. In particular, there are many people who think that limits aren't freeing to them, who are wrong.

The exact limits are not critical--only that there are some and that they have some bite to them.  In some ways, an arbitrary limit is even better for this purpose than one that seems to fit, because it's clear it serves no purpose but to say, "You can play X or Y but not X and Y in the same character."  Take early D&D wizard weapon restrictions.  "Gandalf had a sword.  Why can't I?"  If the GM wants wizards to have swords, there's no real harm in it, as long as the GM replaces that restriction with some other one that will cause someone to chafe.

BTW, this is also true in more generic system.  Which is why GURPS and Fantasy Hero, to name two, produce better campaigns when the GM puts some hard limits on who can buy what.  Hero 4th edition even tells you to do precisely that.  I remember a Champions GM who had a hard rule of "No more than 1 messed up psychological disadvantage per 4 characters."  It's arbitrary in the game world, but excellent for making the 1 or 2 messed up characters stand out--and given the rest of the party and the GM fodder to work with and bounce off of.  That's "Minor Hero to Major Hero" arc, and it still has the same issues.

Separately, there's no requirement that a character with little or no back story, playing for a short time, need be a "cardboard" character.  Learning to focus on what is happening and make the character live in that, is a skill like any other.  Relying on back story and pre-planned characterization all the time will make most players precisely 1-dimensional as the "actor"--always leaning on the crutch of their back story.  That is, all of their characters are different on paper but the same in play.  I'd rather have a cardboard character than a cardboard player, not least because a player that avoids being cardboard will not stay cardboard in their characterization for long.

Many players don't like these restrictions even when they are necessary.  The GM should put on their big boy pants and do what is good for the game--including helping the players to grow.  Learning to roll with what the dice hand you isn't the only way to achieve that, but it is a great, in your face, way to make no bones about it, while achieving it. 

I'm going to agree with the OP and HappyDaze that zero-to-hero becomes boringly repetitive. As stated, games like Traveller, Champions, even Palladium Fantasy (just starting with around 14-15 hp makes a massive difference in survival) offered meaningful deviations from that style early on.

Similarly, medieval fantasy itself gets boring if that's all you're doing. Thank God that Robotech (and the rest of Palladium's catalogue), Star Wars, Champions, World of Darkness, etc. came into my orbit.

Variety is the spice of life. I'd get bored if all I played were superhero genre games too.

And just because someone has different preferences in the hobby doesn't make them a troll. It means they're someone with different preferences. Do you call someone who prefers fresh spinich to iceberg lettuce for their salads a troll if they posted about that on cooking forum?

To me, zero-to-hero and funnels feel like they're designed for people who find the role-play part of RPGs tiresome. They don't want to get into why their PC is risking their life in pursuit of treasure; their PC is just a meatsuit for interacting with a game.

These days I prefer games with at least a hint of backstory. I'm not talking pages; I'm saying "veteran with no legitimate prospects and two hungry kids at home" or "landless house knight seeking to gather the bride price of the noble maiden he desires" as alternatives to "Human Fighter 1."

However that does favor systems where you aren't going to be ganked in the first scene (so Palladium Fantasy if I'm wanting an old school style game). Starting every campaign like its Squid Games the RPG (funnels and TSR-era D&D in general) gets equally repetitive.

But then, the first D&D module I got as a kid was DL1 Dragons of Despair so, for me, starting PCs of 4th-6th level with way above normal stats (i.e. not "zeroes") was what D&D was telling me it was about.

In short, zero-to-hero is A mode of play; one I even engage with from time to time; but it's not the ONLY mode of play and all the others have their positives too.

Quote from: grimshwiz on January 27, 2025, 06:30:22 AMHappyDaze is a troll.

Just ignore everything he says and move on with your life.

I don't troll gaming topics, but thanks for playing.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 27, 2025, 08:08:09 AMI thought "zero-to-hero" just referred to the power differential between a starting character and an experienced one. What Eirikrautha was talking about is more a question of how much the words on your character sheet at the end of creation are prescriptive of how you play the character. Those are pretty separate issues. Traveller was mentioned as a counter-example, but that has far more prescriptive character creation than old-school D&D does.

I'd agree that zero-to-hero is about power differential, and Traveller certainly isn't "zero-to-hero". Also, Traveller chargen uses a lot of random roll during chargen, but it isn't any more or less prescriptive after the end of character creation. To put it another way, these two are completely independent:

• Prescriptive chargen: How much control does the player have over how the character turns out at the end of character creation
• Prescriptive play: How much the words on your character sheet at the end of creation are prescriptive of how you play the character

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 27, 2025, 08:08:09 AMI more often see "emergent story" defined not just as an unplanned story, but one that emerges as a direct consequence of game mechanics. In that sense, a more prescriptive character sheet would correlate with it. Think of something like Pendragon, which mechanizes the character's personality. That can certainly be annoying, but it's also likely to produce story beats the player couldn't anticipate because they're now tied to dice rolls. WFRP and other games that mechanize the character's social status potentially do the same thing.

I suspect that Pendragon's Passion rolls aren't what Eirikrautha meant by emergent story. Mechanics that produce story beats includes a lot of Forge-esque games like My Life With Master or Dogs in the Vineyard where rolls dictate a lot more of story events.

Old-school D&D has a lot of stuff that is out of the hands of mechanics. Where Pendragon puts much of character personality and changes into mechanics, old-school D&D largely leaves that outside of mechanics - along with how clever a character is, because puzzles and riddles and such are solved by player thinking, not by dice rolling.

Are those the only two options?  zero to hero and superhero from zero?   Personally, I find myself drawn to RPGs where the characters start out as competent adults in their chosen field and progress from there but still remain relatively grounded.   Think Neo from the matrix going from recently decanted coppertop to at best Morpheus at max level instead of toggling on the god-mode cheat he did in the first film.  Good enough to fight a withdrawal from the agents but not to take one on reliably without preplanning/significant advantages and even then only temporarily.   I don't know what to call that style or if there is already a name for it.   Good to great?   Good, better, best?

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2025, 01:23:31 PM

QuoteI thought "zero-to-hero" just referred to the power differential between a starting character and an experienced one. What Eirikrautha was talking about is more a question of how much the words on your character sheet at the end of creation are prescriptive of how you play the character. Those are pretty separate issues. Traveller was mentioned as a counter-example, but that has far more prescriptive character creation than old-school D&D does.

I'd agree that zero-to-hero is about power differential, and Traveller certainly isn't "zero-to-hero". Also, Traveller chargen uses a lot of random roll during chargen, but it isn't any more or less prescriptive after the end of character creation. To put it another way, these two are completely independent:

• • Prescriptive chargen: How much control does the player have over how the character turns out at the end of character creation
  • Prescriptive play: How much the words on your character sheet at the end of creation are prescriptive of how you play the character

That's a fair distinction, but I would still say that Traveller character creation is more prescriptive of play than say BECMI character creation is. Traveller creation gives you your character's social status, age, home planet and entire career history, all things that should influence how you play the character if you're approaching the game in good faith. It's less prescriptive than Pendragon, maybe, but still more than D&D.

If you're not approaching the game in good faith, nothing is going to prescribe how you play your character except for the social influence of the other people at the table. You can roll a Dwarf in BECMI and then just decide your dwarf is a rainbow-haired transsexual who once defeated a dragon by farting at it. The only thing that's going to stop you is your DM and fellow players refusing to continue playing with you.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2025, 01:23:31 PM

QuoteI more often see "emergent story" defined not just as an unplanned story, but one that emerges as a direct consequence of game mechanics. In that sense, a more prescriptive character sheet would correlate with it. Think of something like Pendragon, which mechanizes the character's personality. That can certainly be annoying, but it's also likely to produce story beats the player couldn't anticipate because they're now tied to dice rolls. WFRP and other games that mechanize the character's social status potentially do the same thing.

I suspect that Pendragon's Passion rolls aren't what Eirikrautha meant by emergent story. Mechanics that produce story beats includes a lot of Forge-esque games like My Life With Master or Dogs in the Vineyard where rolls dictate a lot more of story events.

Old-school D&D has a lot of stuff that is out of the hands of mechanics. Where Pendragon puts much of character personality and changes into mechanics, old-school D&D largely leaves that outside of mechanics - along with how clever a character is, because puzzles and riddles and such are solved by player thinking, not by dice rolling.

I used Pendragon as an example because it's a particularly extreme one. Knowing Eirikrautha's posting history, I would also doubt it's what he had in mind. Under the definition I gave there, those things which are left outside of D&D's mechanics would not be emergent story. They're just improvisation. Emergent story in a D&D context would be something like the campaign going in an unexpected direction because of a missed saving throw or an unusual result on the random encounter table.

Quote from: RNGm on January 27, 2025, 01:40:59 PMAre those the only two options?  zero to hero and superhero from zero?  Personally, I find myself drawn to RPGs where the characters start out as competent adults in their chosen field and progress from there but still remain relatively grounded. Think Neo from the matrix going from recently decanted coppertop to at best Morpheus at max level instead of toggling on the god-mode cheat he did in the first film.  Good enough to fight a withdrawal from the agents but not to take one on reliably without preplanning/significant advantages and even then only temporarily.  I don't know what to call that style or if there is already a name for it.  Good to great?  Good, better, best?

I agree. I'm totally fine with "hero to hero" arcs, and frankly I think character progression is overrated as a part of RPGs. It's almost a crutch for suboptimal campaign design. If the scenario is engaging enough and the world changes in response to the players' actions, then you shouldn't need escalating power levels to keep players interested in the game.

Not that character progression is a bad thing, mind you. It just isn't strictly necessary. I do prefer there to be some of it, but like you I'd rather have starting characters be competent and then have reasonable skill and/or power improvements.

Quote from: RNGm on January 27, 2025, 01:40:59 PMAre those the only two options?  zero to hero and superhero from zero? Personally, I find myself drawn to RPGs where the characters start out as competent adults in their chosen field and progress from there but still remain relatively grounded. Think Neo from the matrix going from recently decanted coppertop to at best Morpheus at max level instead of toggling on the god-mode cheat he did in the first film.  Good enough to fight a withdrawal from the agents but not to take one on reliably without preplanning/significant advantages and even then only temporarily.  I don't know what to call that style or if there is already a name for it. Good to great? Good, better, best?

I feel largely the same. Some of the best campaigns I've been in have been;

- low-tier M&M (PL 6-8; street level/Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, early-career Spider-Man and Batman)
- Spycraft (i.e. the series version of Mission Impossible)
- Robotech (the bar-non best was an extended campaign involving an early Hovertank squad assigned to the Zentraedi Control Zone of South America a few years after the Macross portion ended; they were one of the first units assigned to break in and test the prototype VHT's while dealing with locals, government bureaucrats, bandits, insurgents, EBSIS spies, rogue Zentraedi, etc.)

You have enough oomph to feel competent, but there's still a lot of people as good or better for you to work towards becoming like.

If pressed for a name I'd call it "Experts" or "Specialists" style play. You start solidly competent in 1-2 things and grow fairly quickly to become among the best of the best in those things while rounding out your kit by becoming good at a broader and broader scope of things.

Basically, using a scale of 1-10 I'd say;
- Zero-to-Hero starts at 1 and rises to 10 across the board.
- Superhero starts at 8-10 across the board and eventually everything hits 10.
- Experts/Specialists starts at a 5 in your chosen expertise and 1-3 in some other bits. Over the campaign your expertise goes up to an 8 while other bits rise to 5-6 and you pick up a few more 1-3s as well.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 27, 2025, 03:33:47 PMI agree. I'm totally fine with "hero to hero" arcs, and frankly I think character progression is overrated as a part of RPGs. It's almost a crutch for suboptimal campaign design. If the scenario is engaging enough and the world changes in response to the players' actions, then you shouldn't need escalating power levels to keep players interested in the game.

The most consistent experience I had playing various Palladium games for several decades is that in terms of game play, players really only cared about leveling until around level 4-6 and only a bit more for Fantasy specifically).

Once you got to the 4-6 range your main skills were solid enough, most of your powers/spells were developed enough, and/or you had enough experience to be assigned the more elite mecha. After that the GM could just skip handing out XP entirely as the players focused on completing their goals in the campaign.

It was fairly typical to go from level 1-4 in maybe 5-6 sessions, 5-6 within maybe 10 sessions and then just never level up again across 50+ sessions.

I'll say this; Keven Seimbeida had a real knack for designing extremely interesting campaign settings. Leveling up was almost invariably the least interesting part of playing in any of his settings.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 27, 2025, 03:33:47 PMI agree. I'm totally fine with "hero to hero" arcs, and frankly I think character progression is overrated as a part of RPGs. It's almost a crutch for suboptimal campaign design. If the scenario is engaging enough and the world changes in response to the players' actions, then you shouldn't need escalating power levels to keep players interested in the game.

Not that character progression is a bad thing, mind you. It just isn't strictly necessary. I do prefer there to be some of it, but like you I'd rather have starting characters be competent and then have reasonable skill and/or power improvements.

Agreed but I'd probably categorize it as linear character progression instead of the more exponential you see in zero to hero systems.  I like the feeling of measured incremental progression in my characters where it's not a night and day difference from one game to the next.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2025, 03:46:33 PM- Robotech (the bar-non best was an extended campaign involving an early Hovertank squad assigned to the Zentraedi Control Zone of South America a few years after the Macross portion ended; they were one of the first units assigned to break in and test the prototype VHT's while dealing with locals, government bureaucrats, bandits, insurgents, EBSIS spies, rogue Zentraedi, etc.)

Sounds like a cool campaign.  I'd say that's a good example in that the majority of the power is in the hovertank you start out with and you only get fractionally better (more attacks per round, better offensive and defensive bonuses) but what challenged you initially is never something you can completely discount (10d6x10 MDC is still gonna hurt whether you're 1st or 15th level).

QuoteThe most consistent experience I had playing various Palladium games for several decades is that in terms of game play, players really only cared about leveling until around level 4-6 and only a bit more for Fantasy specifically).

True but I'd say most of the power in Palladium style games is more from creation than advancement (whether Rifts, Robotech, or even HU... the only ones I played FWIW) and any potential issues of power come more from balancing from player to player rather than level to level.

Quote from: RNGm on January 27, 2025, 03:53:22 PMAgreed but I'd probably categorize it as linear character progression instead of the more exponential you see in zero to hero systems.  I like the feeling of measured incremental progression in my characters where it's not a night and day difference from one game to the next.

You can get some of that effect with the granularity of the progression, too. If every level has a big jump in power, in part because you don't get many of those jumps or very often, then it feels very different than the finer granularity.  That's true even if your overall competence after N sessions is about the same.

I've actually seen that go the other way, in Fantasy Hero campaigns, where having a small, linear progression can be more annoying than having no progression or chunk progression.  Actually had players ask me to just save up their points and let them know when they had 10+, because it "felt" tedious trying to save up for the next thing 1 to 3 points at a time.

Plus, it's always relative to the opposition in the setting.  I frequently run games that are quite a bit on the road towards zero to hero, without the exponential growth.  If the opposition isn't scaling like mad, then the difference between a zero/hero/superhero is more fine, too.