Quote from: ColonelHardisson;334593I like the concept of 0-level characters. I cobbled together my own set of rules for 0-level PCs for AD&D, inspired by the appearance of the Cavalier in Dragon (and later Unearthed Arcana, of course). I was drawn to the idea particularly after DMing a campaign in which the PCs acquired a hireling who was a 0-level character. He somehow (maybe "miraculously" is a better word) survived a number of combats, and I felt he deserved to gain xp and go up in level.

I was enthusiastic about the NPC classes introduced in 3e, as they were (supposedly) equivalent to a PC class -1, making a 1st level NPC class effectively 0 level. In practice they are even weaker than that, especially the Commoner. I never got a chance to try it, but I'd like to have run a game where the PCs all started as 1st level Commoners, worked up to 1st level Adepts, Experts, or Warriors (their choice), and finally got to choose an actual PC class commensurate with their NPC class (not multiclassing; simply "morphing" into that class at 1st level). I wouldn't require a lot of xp for any of this, maybe just a session or part of a session; any more than that, and I'd expect a player revolt.

I liked the concept of 0-level characters (NPCs) when I first started with AD&D because it didn't make 'sense' to me that everyone in the world is from the player character classes.  0-level characters (NPCs) really came together for me when I added non-weapon proficiencies to my game (DSG and WSG).  The addition of the non-proficiency system aided me in envisioning a living a vibrant world of people going about their lives.

Although, the idea of being a 'zero' something kind of irked me.  Also, the Caviler's use of negative experience points really didn't make any sense to me.  I think that Rolemaster did a better job if it where beginning player characters already have experience points which can be justified as their apprenticeship and previous life experience.

I was pleased with the whole change from 0-level NPCs to NPC classes with 3.x D&D.  I really liked the concept that everyone, PC and NPC alike, started off as a 1st level character.  I guess I liked the idea of a relatively even playing field for both PCs and NPCs at their beginnings.

I remember once that I wanted to create a noble character in my friend's 3.5 D&D fantasy home brew, and so I created a 1st level Aristocrat.  I was planning to multiclass out of the Aristocrat after 1st level, into Fighter.  Boy, did my friends give me crap about that choice.  They were surprised that I would 'gimp' my build.  They really rode me about that choice, but I stuck to my guns and played a 1st level Aristocrat.  I still get laughed about that choice now and again.

My mum ran a campaign for years (2e D&D) and in one thread (there were 4 or 5 threads and she rotated the one she ran each week)  everyone started as at 0 level.
Believe me trying to burgle a house when you are a 0 level wizard aprentice with 3 hp and your only spell is unseen servant and your chance of that spell failing is 50%  is pretty hard. But one of my play groups classic characters, Lord Fantastic, emerged out of that game. He was a phenomema as he had no skills at all but had rolled 18 charisma so when we were getting  aprenticeships he ended up with a whole other kind of job... eventually ending up as a Lord, possibly the only 1st level lord ever to walk the land. He even got shiny armour to wear and everything.

Quote from: Drohem;334561Is that in both editions?

No, in the 2nd edition. However, I think they introduced the concept in one of their 1st ed sourcebooks. Maybe the 60s one. I don't have it to check.

Quote from: stu2000;334846No, in the 2nd edition. However, I think they introduced the concept in one of their 1st ed sourcebooks. Maybe the 60s one. I don't have it to check.

Thanks.