I don't have any interest in zero to hero at all, but then very few are interested in what I find fascinating, so who cares.

-clash

I've played a lot of zero-to-hero games, and I absolutely feel that they have a place and should be possible under most systems - but I don't think that it should necessarily be the 'default'.  

I don't think I'm alone in encouraging players to make an interesting background that involves things that they've done before play begins.  The more the PC has experienced in the world, the easier it is to tie adventuring hooks to their background (more background = more hooks).  A 'zero' hasn't done anything significant, because IF THEY DID, they wouldn't be at 0 XP.  Whether it's successfully defending the village from orcs or hunting down the bandit leader that killed your father, doing interesting things as background pays a lot of dividends to the later game.  

It's not uncommon to start PCs as 'competent' in their chosen field.  Instead of a pimply-faced teenager just taking up his father's sword, it's okay to start as a grizzled veteran mercenary who has been involved in a score battles across the continent.  

Usually 'zero-to-hero' games fail to allow for that type of archetype.  Further, there are interesting character concepts that just don't work with low-level parties.  A Pixie or a Centaur are intelligent creatures, and it absolutely makes sense that sometimes they would join others on adventures.  But it's hard to include a 'monster' in a 1st-level game.  It's much easier to add a centaur to a group of 5th level PCs - it's also then clear that the player is interested in the character and not just a grab for more raw power.

Quote from: Haffrung;723069People love hitting that pellet reward lever.

[homer] Mmmmmmmmmmm . . . pellets . . . *aghaghaghaghagh* [/homer]

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723077It's not uncommon to start PCs as 'competent' in their chosen field.  Instead of a pimply-faced teenager just taking up his father's sword, it's okay to start as a grizzled veteran mercenary who has been involved in a score battles across the continent.  

A 1st level OD&D fighting man is a veteran. You can roleplay as a raw recruit if you want to but the game doesn't assume zero experience or knowledge, merely no experience as an adventurer.

It's a game construct. While some fiction follows this path (see below), most doesn't. But a lot of players I know enjoy the "character [mechanical] growth" aspect very much, to the degree that they prefer D&D 3.5E over Shadowrun (or OD&D for that matter) because "in Shadowrun you cannot really grow". Traveller I'll never have a chance to run for them...

A lot of inspirational fiction is about accomplished characters.

Elric is already a mighty sorcerer, and has a major magic item, before most stories start.

Conan really follows the OD&D route of Veteran to Name Level - from an accomplished barbarian warrior to a king.

Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica (the remake - haven't watched the original yet) are full of war veterans and professionals just like in Traveller. The exception in Babylon 5 is Lyta Alexander who is put into a Vorlon vat which turns her from a level 3 or so M-U to a level 14 or so M-U overnight (or gives her full psionic skills in Traveller terms). Vir Cotto advances in political power from nobody to Emperor. Everyone else has a long military history - i.e. several terms. The Ambassadors (especially Delenn) are already highly powerful politicians to start with. Characters grow and develop in terms of personality, beliefs and so on but are already accomplished professionals at show start.

Lord of the Rings starts with a party of Heroes (levels 4-6) and stays that way for most, if not all, of the plot. They do get new magic items, though.

Wheel of Time works just like D&D 3.5E. They start off as nobodies from a village, end up as almost gods.

Mass Effect is like Shadowrun in terms of advancement - most characters start off pretty good at what they do (Shepard starts as an officer with several terms of military history behind her), but get even stronger (and Urdnot Wrex goes from Adventurer to Conqueror to King in terms of political power). The Deus Ex games have a similar power curve - you are pretty powerful to begin with, and get even better at what you do.

The Thief computer games cast you in what is, in D&D terms, already a pretty high level (Master Thief), and, though you get better tools with time, your abilities are already the best from game-start.

The older Star Wars movies are Zero-to-Hero for Luke Skywalker, not so for Han Solo (already an accomplished smuggler at the movies' start).

Nikita (from the 1990's TV show) is indeed "zero to hero", though most of it is done with in the first episode and afterwards she's already a master spy. In a sense, the first (or first few? I don't remember that clearly) episode(s) are levels 1-9, then she stays level 10 for four sessions.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;723080A 1st level OD&D fighting man is a veteran. You can roleplay as a raw recruit if you want to but the game doesn't assume zero experience or knowledge, merely no experience as an adventurer.

The fluff doesn't match the crunch.  Unless teen-toting-daddy's-sword is 0th level, then mechanically there is no difference between a grizzled veteran (non-adventurer) and an oversized man-child.  

It's been a long time since I've played earlier editions, but I do believe they suggested that seargeants and veterans were represented by having a higher level.

Quote from: golan2072;723082Nikita (from the 1990's TV show) is indeed "zero to hero", though most of it is done with in the first episode and afterwards she's already a master spy. In a sense, the first (or first few? I don't remember that clearly) episode(s) are levels 1-9, then she stays level 10 for four sessions.

The recent revived Nikita tv show (2010-2013), is "zero to hero" for the Alexandra Udinov character.

The first season is like a "spy school" version of Hogwarts.

Although i understand the reason why we couch it in those terms, isn't saying that "in the Lord of the Rings characters start...." or "In Mass Effect, PCs start..." kinda comparing apples to oranges?

Yes, take many stories from any media outside of gaming and if you pass that story through the lens of gaming, you're going to have characters that only fit somewhere along the scale of zero to hero. That's why they are films or books and not RPGs.

If you're using a ruleset to model a world and what takes place in it (not just a story that takes place in that world) then i would say that to fully do it justice you need a zero to hero scale.

In answer to the OP, I don't hate the mainstream D&D approach, but I've noticed that a lot of near-D&D games (Palladium or Talislanta, for example) have more robust 1st level characters in almost every way, and I feel it's easier to handle. You get the sense of being a newb (mirroring the actual player's POV when starting a new system or campaign) but your character isn't as brittle and has more mechanical dimensions to play around with.

Whereas to me, starting at 2nd level in D&D would feel artificial, a bit like the push among indie games to start with characters who already have complex back-stories and a full web of relationships. I think I'd feel like, "Who is this guy?"

1st level classic D&D either needs a lot of tolerance for character death, or an appetite for careful, cautious play, or a light touch DM who makes XP available by means that don't require combat. The first two are in the players' hands and I find, kinda rare.

Yet the one time I played Harnmaster my character was an old, experienced veteran, with tons of skills. So I'm sure I haven't fully explored why I think it's odd to start at a higher level in D&D.

Quote from: One Horse Town;723089If you're using a ruleset to model a world and what takes place in it (not just a story that takes place in that world) then i would say that to fully do it justice you need a zero to hero scale.

Well, in D&D, levels and XP are like HP. They kinda model something concrete in the game world (you're better, more learned than you were before), kinda represent something intangible in the game world (favor of the gods or Fate), and kinda represent nothing more than fictive oomph and the well-earned right to play a kewler, more powered-up version of that archetype.

So talking just about modeling skill growth doesn't quite address all the issues.

I'm an odd duck; I actually LIKE playing low level characters.  It is a certain type of fun to have a character that may not survive even a single sword hit.  I enjoy that a lot, and one of the biggest rushes in D&D is that moment when you finally hit second level!  WOOT!

And I also love it when I'm 7th or 8th level and mowing down Orcs like wheat instead of running for my life.

But if I don't get to start at first level I feel cheated because I like to play that way.

First off, let's get something straight: zero to hero is not literally zero to hero. It's just a snappy way of describing a character arc. The "zero" part never meant "incompetent", except in a few incompetently designed games and a very limited number of fictional examples (Another Fine Myth, The Hobbit, and Greatest American Hero are the main ones I can think of.) The "zero" really means "competent, but only a little more than normal. (I don't think One Horse Town needed to be told this, but apparently other people do.)

Second, to contradict what Silverlion wrote: the overwhelming majority of fictional works do, in fact, start at this "zero" level. Most fiction is non-geek, about ordinary people. Even most geek fiction, before about the 1950s or '60s, is about people of ordinary competence. Unusually competent characters are pretty much an aberration throughout most of literature, with Doc Savage and Tarzan being almost the only examples of "men superior in every way". It's the superhero comic books, mainly Superman, that changes that and eventually overwhelms the entire action genre; before the turning point, the focus is not on characters winning through overwhelming competence, but overwhelming courage and drive.

Given these points, the only thing weird about zero to hero RPGs is the bit about advancement. Literature is mostly about characters solving some problem, not characters acquiring powers. If anyone does acquire powers in a story, that's usually the first plot point, the event that kicks off the story. As Haffrung suggests, the advancement feature in RPGs is mainly psychological reinforcement. You don't need an advancement system to have an RPG. The in-game rewards are enough.

So, to answer the question in the OP: the "zero" end of the zero to hero scale is mandatory; it's the "hero" part that is optional and open to redefinition.

Quote from: talysman;723111As Haffrung suggests, the advancement feature in RPGs is mainly psychological reinforcement.

Not only rpgs.

I suspect this is very much the case in video games.  Otherwise the game gets tossed, for another one.

(shrug)  I play GURPS.  Beginning characters in GURPS are competent.  Hoorah.

Quote from: talysman;723111Given these points, the only thing weird about zero to hero RPGs is the bit about advancement. Literature is mostly about characters solving some problem, not characters acquiring powers. If anyone does acquire powers in a story, that's usually the first plot point, the event that kicks off the story. As Haffrung suggests, the advancement feature in RPGs is mainly psychological reinforcement. You don't need an advancement system to have an RPG. The in-game rewards are enough.

This is why i think it's important to understand that we are talking about different entertainment medias. Sure, for context, i think we all compare films/books/comics to our games, but theyare fundamentally different animals.

Advancement is very much the gaming crack isn't it? Sure, the 'game' part of RPGs is rolling the dice, looking at tables etc, but the thing that brings a lot of people back is the possibility of getting better. People try to beat their best scores on arcade games back in the day - there's an aspect of that in RPGs too. Get the doodad to make you better so you can duff the Ogre.

QuoteSo, to answer the question in the OP: the "zero" end of the zero to hero scale is mandatory; it's the "hero" part that is optional and open to redefinition.

Either, i-ther.