Quote from: talysman;723111First 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.)

I think you make a valid point, but let's not kid ourselves.  There are lots of people that want to play a 'competent' character, right out of the gate.  And that doesn't mean 'superhuman', but it could.  

If you want to play an investigative character, the first archetype people think of is Sherlock Holmes.  He is not just 'slightly better' than average.  

If you want to play an archer, the first archetype people think of is Robin Hood.  He is not just 'slightly better' than average.  

The question is whether the development phase makes sense for the game or not.  In Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, the movie starts with him leaving the Crusades.  Assuming he is '5th level' when he leaves, is it better to start the game at that point, or at 1st level when he starts on the Crusade?  

The question doesn't have a definitive answer because it depends a lot on what kind of game you're looking for.  But there's a reason the movie didn't cover the action of his campaign and capture.  And part of that is the movie actually does a decent job of putting together a 'party'.  Robin Hood has a history and past that is distinct from that of Little John and Friar Tuck and Azeem; it's the various people working together that strikes a chord with adventurers.  

Fundamentally, the story is more believable when 'seasoned' warriors join together.  The history can either be 'played', or 'presumed'.  Since the history is often the least interesting part of the game (as far as full participation by the group, at least), skipping that isn't necessarily bad.  

Sticking to movies, another example is 13th Warrior.  While Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan might be on a 'zero to hero' journey (from poet to warrior), the reason his companions are selected for their adventure is because they're already extremely competent.  

If you want to start with dealing with Grendel instead of harvesting Dire Rats in the sewers, it makes sense to start at a higher level - because fundamentally, the lowest level characters are going to be greatly challenged by even a single goblin.

Quote from: Kaz;723048And thus you have expressed the sum and whole of my issue with 3E/Pathfinder.

Then you must of hated earlier versions of D&D.

using movies and fiction as a reason to say that 1st level PCs should be exceptionally more skilled is pretty flawed, IMO, because in movies and fictional books, the fate of the "zero" is tied directly to whatever the writer wants.  in an RPG, it's tied to the luck of the die roll.  That's why it's possible to have a book with a zero level (Frodo) join a group of established warriors and fight the same battles.  But in an RPG, Frodo would have either died pretty quickly, or the player would just have had to hide while everyone else did the fighting.  Neither of which are a lot of fun.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;723125using movies and fiction as a reason to say that 1st level PCs should be exceptionally more skilled is pretty flawed, IMO, because in movies and fictional books, the fate of the "zero" is tied directly to whatever the writer wants.

I think I'm in full agreement here, but figured I'd clarify anyway.  Since the world has 'dirt farmers', there are people that should be VERY LOW LEVEL, whatever that means.  Introducing a dirt-farmer to a group of heroes should be likely to get them killed - since heroes are signficantly higher level.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;723125in an RPG, it's tied to the luck of the die roll.  That's why it's possible to have a book with a zero level (Frodo) join a group of established warriors and fight the same battles.  But in an RPG, Frodo would have either died pretty quickly, or the player would just have had to hide while everyone else did the fighting.  Neither of which are a lot of fun.

Which is why starting at a higher level may make sense depending on the style of the game.  Even if the Lord of the Rings was about Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas and Boromir leading a war against the Orcs of Mordor, they're relatively high level compared to people like Frodo, and they join together after they already develop that basic level of competence.  Starting a game with those characters at 5th level makes more sense than trying to start that game at 1st level (when they have no real experience, and probably shouldn't be wandering far from their homelands).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;723125using movies and fiction as a reason to say that 1st level PCs should be exceptionally more skilled is pretty flawed, IMO, because in movies and fictional books, the fate of the "zero" is tied directly to whatever the writer wants.  in an RPG, it's tied to the luck of the die roll.  That's why it's possible to have a book with a zero level (Frodo) join a group of established warriors and fight the same battles.  But in an RPG, Frodo would have either died pretty quickly, or the player would just have had to hide while everyone else did the fighting.  Neither of which are a lot of fun.

I think genre physics are okay to have. Not everygame needs to be modeled after reality. For example i like martial arts rpgs where pcs start out pretty good and can plow through a bunch of flunkies with ease. If i am doing a james bond type spy game, then i want to start out more as a james bond type character.

I'm another who likes the flavor of 'street level' play. I'd prefer a game that expressed character arc with increasing resources, reputation, connections... vs. godlike powerz spritzing into his body.
Old D&D didn't bug me so much because the stuff that came along with levels didn't have me thinking like a World Of Warcraft player... 'I can't wait till I can get to 90th level, all this other shit is just in my way!'... but 3e/Pathfinder definitely pushes that mindset... your character is really what you picture him being once he's got all those cool feats you've been jonesing for. Until then he's just less... a constant state of dissatisfaction.
Not my taste, at all.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;723128I think I'm in full agreement here, but figured I'd clarify anyway.  Since the world has 'dirt farmers', there are people that should be VERY LOW LEVEL, whatever that means.  Introducing a dirt-farmer to a group of heroes should be likely to get them killed - since heroes are signficantly higher level.  



Which is why starting at a higher level may make sense depending on the style of the game.  Even if the Lord of the Rings was about Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas and Boromir leading a war against the Orcs of Mordor, they're relatively high level compared to people like Frodo, and they join together after they already develop that basic level of competence.  Starting a game with those characters at 5th level makes more sense than trying to start that game at 1st level (when they have no real experience, and probably shouldn't be wandering far from their homelands).

Spot on.

I love zero-to-hero.

I love low-level play in all shapes and sizes. Even in World of Goddamn Motherfucking Warcraft. I have maybe a dozen characters in two different servers under level 30 (of 90, currently).

As a player, I thrive in adversity. All things become more valuable in my eyes if they've been hard earned.

As a GM, I like to present my players with (manageable) adversity and I have to put on my best poker face so that they never, ever realize how much I'm cheering for them to do the right, clever thing. I am elated when they surprise and think of something even more clever.

I've played plenty of straight-to-the-top games and these can be a truckload of fun. But starting play at 20th level will never, ever have 1% of the excitement of seeing your 1st-level, 1hp, 1 dagger and 1 sleep spell magic-user grow into a 5th-level, fireball-flinging badass. Not all the staves of the magi in the Multiverse will come close to that feeling.

Quote from: Ravenswing;723118(shrug)  I play GURPS.  Beginning characters in GURPS are competent.  Hoorah.

I enjoy GURPS because you certainly CAN use that default if you like or start at much lower point totals (like 25 or so) and work your way up depending on the type of game you want.

In one GURPS fantasy game years ago we began as super exceptional (25 point) pre-teen kids. Compared to accomplished adventurers we were still scrubs but it was fun playing a kid as competent as an average adult. After several adventures we jumped forward several years and added more points. It was a lot of fun allocating those points to things that were beginning to develop as our younger selves.

The characters had a great sense of history and kind of built themselves.

Quote from: Arminius;723094In 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.

...

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.

Yeah, I've had some success getting some OD&D or B/X D&D games going, but by-the-book 1st level characters are extremely brittle and it is very challenging to keep them alive long enough to have a lot of fun (I don't like fudging rolls as the DM and I haven't met a group of players yet who have an appetite for the kind of slow, cautious play I've seen described online).

My solution for next time is going to be to use the Palladium method of hit points for PCs (Con score + 1d6 per level), the OD&D method for monsters (1d6 per HD), and add in an extra power or two for each class (an extra bonus for fighters, an extra spell for magic-users, and an extra prayer ability for clerics).


EDIT: I also wanted to say on the main topic, I like zero to hero games for D&D (though I want levels 1 and 2 to be a bit more survivable), not so much other genres (I hate it in horror or sci-fi).

Quote from: One Horse Town;723047Ah, but i presume that the world outside of the protagonists still has zero-G toilet cleaners and the like. The world is still zero to hero, so if you have an advancement system, surely it is more flexible if you're able to model both and the gradient to get you from one to the other?

Admittedly, true. However, it is unlikely that the zero G toilet cleaner will ever be anything different, or much different, anyway. It is possible to change, it is just not so likely.

Mind you it might make for an interestingly different sci fi story, to have some not so competent ordinary worker to get embroiled in crazy protagonist stuff..but that makes it most often a specific kind of genre savvy alternative to more mainstream styles.

Quote from: One Horse Town;723042It's a common complaint among some people that they don't like 'low-level' adventuring. Yet any game with advancement in it has a power gradient. You can then choose at which point along that power gradient you want to start play.

Is there any earthly reason why any game with advancement rules shouldn't model zero to hero adventuring?

I prefer a power gradient that goes from competent to slightly more competent (or more well rounded).

The two biggest reasons I don't care for zero to hero anymore:
1)  Computer games do it a LOT better
2)  I've started at zero for 30+ years, it's boring me and I'm quite capable of handling more power right out of the gate.

Quote from: Brander;723243I prefer a power gradient that goes from competent to slightly more competent (or more well rounded).

The two biggest reasons I don't care for zero to hero anymore:
1)  Computer games do it a LOT better
2)  I've started at zero for 30+ years, it's boring me and I'm quite capable of handling more power right out of the gate.

Even the most strident old schooler has probably started at level 2 or 3 or something before.  Sure was a common houserule in the early 80s that I remember when you wanted to start an adventure but didn't want to start out as level 1.

However, I believe OHT's point is that even if that is the case, it's better to have that lower level spectrum in the gradient included for those that want it, because anyone can just start higher to fit their tastes, as opposed to starting the gradient at a higher level of competance and telling all those players who like lower levels (like OG above) "tough shit".

I think that's WoTC's take on Next.  Anyone can start at level 4 and get your feat choice, whatever.  But a lot of people like playing those low levels, and they are able to with the way the rules are structured.  I think it's a good idea.

Quote from: Brander;723243The two biggest reasons I don't care for zero to hero anymore:
1)  Computer games do it a LOT better

Definitely.

Especially mindless button-mashing and/or shoot-em-up type games.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;723248However, I believe OHT's point is that even if that is the case, it's better to have that lower level spectrum in the gradient included for those that want it, because anyone can just start higher to fit their tastes, as opposed to starting the gradient at a higher level of competance and telling all those players who like lower levels (like OG above) "tough shit".

Correctamundo.