Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
It seems pretty obvious to me that a game where you start out as a hero can still be challenging by having hero-level enemies and obstacles. Games like Marvel Superheroes, James Bond 007, Shadowrun, or most Savage Worlds setups do this - as well as lots of others. I've played a lot of games that start out with heroes, and I feel like they've often been very challenging.

Qui Gon Jinn taught us this lesson 25 years ago.

I think that while there are many campaigns which call for different things, I think that the Zero to Hero trope is pretty overdone and has lost most of its value to players as a result.

Consequently, when I am given my own 'druthers with a campaign, I tend to flip most of the Zero to Hero paradigm on its head. Player characters start off at least decently competent and typically contrive excuses for player characters to progress at an uncomfortably fast pace. This typically means that campaigns will need to be shorter and fall in the 10-20 session range rather than lollygagging around into the 50+ session length. However, that's usually not a bad trade; most campaigns see their best play between sessions 10 and 20 and by session 30 the campaign will have had at least enough "off sessions" that you could have started a new campaign and done something enjoyably different. The opportunity cost of one 50+ session campaign is 2 25 session campaigns or 3 15 session campaigns. I'm not saying that every campaign should turn into a one-off, but that there are diminishing returns and increasing costs to long campaigns and in my opinion, the general best campaign length is 20 sessions (ish) or less.

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 06:44:54 AM
Yes, I am restrictive, gatekeeping, and exclusive. It is what it is. I am not terribly interested in learning whole new game systems, buying whole collections of new books, or wrestling with Players that really are not on the same page as I am. And, honestly, I don't even need to contemplate even trying. I have my time well-occupied just with D&D and ShadowDark, and running campaigns using such an OSR system. Most of my regular players are entirely on the same page as I am. The only exception is the D&D campaign I run at my local game store, where I deal with encountering new people.

This is all back to just being honest with your players about the kind of game you are running.  I've started up two new groups in the last year.  Both times, it was explicit that the characters would have to claw their way out of incompetence, but it could be done.  However, there was a real chance they might lose a character or two in the process.  Most of the players are young enough to have missed AD&D (1E and 2E) the first time around.  The most common statement I get is that the game delivers as promised, and this is a different kind of fun.  It's not different  to us, but it is to them.  Sure, that might wear thin after awhile.  Which is why I don't make replacement characters start at the zero. 

I also had a few people that were invited not sign up.  I'm not sure the proportion of those who didn't find the pitch appealing versus those that had scheduling issues, but there had to be at least a few of the former.  Sure, they wouldn't like it.  I give them credit for knowing their own minds.

I lean towards heroic, but not necessarily superheroic (superhero games being a notable exception) for starting characters.

For an example of "heroic" (since otherwise it's just words) I'd point to the Green Berets or similar special forces types. You're not a soldier just out of boot camp or a butterbar officer; you've got some time in and proved good enough to be given more specialized training that makes you a notch or two above your typical soldier (and well above most non-SWAT law enforcement), but still a mortal who can be killed by bad planning or sheet bad luck.

Conversely, I generally prefer it when those same PC's top out at roughly "action movie hero" level of competency... typical James Bond, Stallone, Arnold, or Jackie Chan tier capabilities (and PC magic of the sort they could potentially overcome with their level of capability).

Quote from: Baron on January 14, 2024, 04:26:47 PM
<snip>I'm here to role-play.

You'd like the players from the last group I ran. My wife, a good female friend, and my wife's sister.

We were looking at different systems to try, and I ran through a bunch of options. They all head tilted at me. My wife smiled and said "We don't really care, as long as it doesn't get in the way of role playing."

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
To SHARK and honeydipperdavid -- how do you feel about a game where the PCs started unheroic but also stayed largely unheroic, like Call of Cthulhu or HarnMaster? In these, characters advance some, but they're still very mortal and never become powerhouses who can take on a dragon. i.e. How much of the attraction of starting weak is based on eventually becoming amazing heroes?

Even in Mongoose Traveller 2nd, using the XP rules to get new skills, it doesn't feel like the characters become "amazing heroes". You can get amazingly good at one or two things. But you're still so fragile and missing in other skills that you still play the game carefully.

Quote from: S'mon on January 14, 2024, 05:38:30 PM
I like basic competence to experienced/highly competent as a starting point. For most DnD editions that means 2nd and 3rd level, 1st in 4e. Dragonbane starting PCs also hit my sweet spot. Not a huge fan of starting as shit covered peasant, unless the game is about being shit covered peasants maybe. Heroic fantasy PCs should have an heroic spark, while Sword and Sorcery PCs start out highly competent.

I say that, then tomorrow I'm starting a game with 1st level 5e Basic Rules novice PCs 

Even though I don't play D&D, I'll use their parlance - 3rd or 4th level.

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 06:44:54 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
To SHARK and honeydipperdavid -- how do you feel about a game where the PCs started unheroic but also stayed largely unheroic, like Call of Cthulhu or HarnMaster? In these, characters advance some, but they're still very mortal and never become powerhouses who can take on a dragon. i.e. How much of the attraction of starting weak is based on eventually becoming amazing heroes?

Staying well-grounded is always a plus, but again, some dynamic changes are important, so I prefer edging closer to heroic on the spectrum, rather than remaining more static. It is an epic fantasy game, after all. Then again though, I restrict myself to D&D, ShadowDark, nowadays.  It has to be in that kind of OSR wheelhouse to even get me to consider it. Otherwise, I just stick with D&D and ShadowDark.

When you say it's an "epic fantasy game" - does that mean that it's important that the characters eventually become powerful heroes who can go toe-to-toe with a dragon? Or is it OK if the characters stay at more regular human levels?

I wonder if there are more variants of D&D that are less fantastical higher as one advances. For example, "E6" was a popular variant of D&D 3E that capped exponential leveling at level 6, but still gave PCs small advances for levels after that (only ability increases or feats). I know some people tried doing that even earlier like capping at level 3. cf. https://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf 

I'm not sure if there is an OSR or Shadowdark equivalent, though.

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 08:01:09 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 06:44:54 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
To SHARK and honeydipperdavid -- how do you feel about a game where the PCs started unheroic but also stayed largely unheroic, like Call of Cthulhu or HarnMaster? In these, characters advance some, but they're still very mortal and never become powerhouses who can take on a dragon. i.e. How much of the attraction of starting weak is based on eventually becoming amazing heroes?

Staying well-grounded is always a plus, but again, some dynamic changes are important, so I prefer edging closer to heroic on the spectrum, rather than remaining more static. It is an epic fantasy game, after all. Then again though, I restrict myself to D&D, ShadowDark, nowadays.  It has to be in that kind of OSR wheelhouse to even get me to consider it. Otherwise, I just stick with D&D and ShadowDark.

When you say it's an "epic fantasy game" - does that mean that it's important that the characters eventually become powerful heroes who can go toe-to-toe with a dragon? Or is it OK if the characters stay at more regular human levels?

I wonder if there are more variants of D&D that are less fantastical higher as one advances. For example, "E6" was a popular variant of D&D 3E that capped exponential leveling at level 6, but still gave PCs small advances for levels after that (only ability increases or feats). I know some people tried doing that even earlier like capping at level 3. cf. https://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf 

I'm not sure if there is an OSR or Shadowdark equivalent, though.

Greetings!

Well, yeah, I think being able to fight dragons should be on the table. Dungeons & Dragons, after all, is the tradition. Beyond that, it is also fighting dragons, hydras, monsters, giants. Epic fantasy. Growing to be reasonably capable of such feats is important.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 08:01:09 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 06:44:54 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
To SHARK and honeydipperdavid -- how do you feel about a game where the PCs started unheroic but also stayed largely unheroic, like Call of Cthulhu or HarnMaster? In these, characters advance some, but they're still very mortal and never become powerhouses who can take on a dragon. i.e. How much of the attraction of starting weak is based on eventually becoming amazing heroes?

Staying well-grounded is always a plus, but again, some dynamic changes are important, so I prefer edging closer to heroic on the spectrum, rather than remaining more static. It is an epic fantasy game, after all. Then again though, I restrict myself to D&D, ShadowDark, nowadays.  It has to be in that kind of OSR wheelhouse to even get me to consider it. Otherwise, I just stick with D&D and ShadowDark.

When you say it's an "epic fantasy game" - does that mean that it's important that the characters eventually become powerful heroes who can go toe-to-toe with a dragon? Or is it OK if the characters stay at more regular human levels?

I wonder if there are more variants of D&D that are less fantastical higher as one advances. For example, "E6" was a popular variant of D&D 3E that capped exponential leveling at level 6, but still gave PCs small advances for levels after that (only ability increases or feats). I know some people tried doing that even earlier like capping at level 3. cf. https://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf 

I'm not sure if there is an OSR or Shadowdark equivalent, though.

Greetings!

Well, yeah, I think being able to fight dragons should be on the table. Dungeons & Dragons, after all, is the tradition. Beyond that, it is also fighting dragons, hydras, monsters, giants. Epic fantasy. Growing to be reasonably capable of such feats is important.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A party of 4 to 6 adventurers, should at least advance to being able to trade blows with a Young Red Dragon.  Something along those lines.  Or else, why call it D&D?  For even greater foes, they could seek out help from others.

Quote from: S'mon on January 15, 2024, 04:53:59 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 14, 2024, 05:38:30 PM
I like basic competence to experienced/highly competent as a starting point. For most DnD editions that means 2nd and 3rd level, 1st in 4e. Dragonbane starting PCs also hit my sweet spot. Not a huge fan of starting as shit covered peasant, unless the game is about being shit covered peasants maybe. Heroic fantasy PCs should have an heroic spark, while Sword and Sorcery PCs start out highly competent.

I say that, then tomorrow I'm starting a game with 1st level 5e Basic Rules novice PCs 

Well, at least in 5e starting PCs are clearly above commoners.

I like PCs to start the equivalent of "1 level" above commoners (in a game based on a 12-level primary spread).

Regardless of starting level, all characters in my game start at the same level. Your character dies, you start at the beginning. New characters never skip levels to "catch up" to the party -- players earn every level.

Quote from: Zalman on January 16, 2024, 12:03:39 PM
I like PCs to start the equivalent of "1 level" above commoners (in a game based on a 12-level primary spread).

Regardless of starting level, all characters in my game start at the same level. Your character dies, you start at the beginning. New characters never skip levels to "catch up" to the party -- players earn every level.

And the thing is, at least in classic D&D and its clones, the way the XP tables work, it doesn't take long for new PCs to catch up anyhow.

Quote from: Persimmon on January 16, 2024, 03:10:09 PM
And the thing is, at least in classic D&D and its clones, the way the XP tables work, it doesn't take long for new PCs to catch up anyhow.

True. Played well, the higher-level characters shield the lower-level ones while allowing the party to collect higher-level amounts of experience points.