Do you prefer games, where the starting characters must climb their way up out of the mud blood and shit of the game setting; or do you prefer games, where the starting characters are big damn heroes from the start?
My default is that the first character a player plays in the campaign has to claw out of the incompetence zone. However, this doesn't take very long, maybe 3-4 short adventures or 2 longer ones. That goes on until the character reaches basic competence. Though keep in mind that when I say incompetence zone, I really mean it. That basic competence is functional, but no where near big hero yet.
Once there, two things happen. Rate of advancement beings to gradually slow. And death has a ratchet effect in that a replacement character gets to start at a new floor (as those are reached. Death still hurts, because the floor is below what the rest of the group is doing, but there is a limit on how far below. Plus, my system (or house ruled versions of previous systems) allow lower-powered characters to gain bonus experience, which tends to allow them to come close to catching up. Since I run system that can tolerate a certain amount of power differences, the floor/catch up rules don't need to be perfect.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 13, 2024, 07:15:15 PM
Do you prefer games, where the starting characters must climb their way up out of the mud blood and shit of the game setting; or do you prefer games, where the starting characters are big damn heroes from the start?
I like _Call of Cthulhu_, which isn't so much that characters climb their way out as they constantly stay in the blood and shit. It's good when games have their focus. On the other hand, I also like games where characters start out as small heroes and grow into bigger heroes - like Buffy the Vampire Slayer; and some where the characters start as big heroes (and possibly grow into even bigger heroes).
I'm OK with zero-to-hero leveling, but it has generally felt implausible to me in practice, especially if it happens over the course of a dozen or so adventures at most weeks apart. When I have superheroes, they have an in-character origin story about where their amazing powers come from. With zero-to-hero, it's always felt out-of-character when the players talk about what will happen when they become super-powerful after more adventures.
With more moderate XP, the gains seem more in-character.
Levels 1-2 I find PCs too weak (in B/X); I level them up quickly or start at level 3.
It depends on how the advancement system is structured.
Something like D&D, WFRP, Dark Heresy, etc, I never jump ahead. You start as assistant helper to the shit-shoveler, and by the time you're Lord Commander of the Realm it really means something.
Something where you slowly gain upgrades, but finish largely the same as how you started, there's no real way to mechanically limit them. Climbing in an organization/acquiring wealth and prestige are of course possible.
As a GM I'm not punishing, but I do have expectations. Much like how I am as a dad, I know what you're capable of, and my universe will punish you for performing below your potential. It will also reward you knocking it out of the park.
When I was young, it was all about the power gaming and leveling up. I'm a little wiser now and appreciate games like Traveller/Cepheus Engine and Fate where you start out as competent.
Greetings!
I always prefer the game begin with Characters that are mud-covered peasants.
Campaigns are as much about the Journey as they are getting to the Destination.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am a strong believer that a starting level character should have a basic level of competence in the skills inherent to the campaign type. So in a generic fantasy adventure game, every character should be able to fight a little, climb a little, sneak a little, swim a little, know a little bushcraft, etc. That's because these are basic skills for a fantasy adventurer, and a character that doesn't have them simply isn't competent to do the job.
I'm also generally in agreement with JHKim, that the 0-to-hero model just isn't plausible the way most campaigns play out. I tend to run pretty action-packed campaigns, and my last two campaigns have been hexcrawls (which means tracking events day by day and sometimes hour by hour). In my Dolmenwood campaign, it's taken 5 sessions to get to the point where most of the PCs have enough XP to reach level two, but those five sessions have only taken around 72 hours of in-game time. In my previous campaign, the PCs went from level 1 to level 6 over the course of around three or four months game-time (despite that being over a year of real-world time). Even in other people's campaigns I've played, I've seen characters go from 1st to 8th level over the course of maybe a year or two.
A lot of it comes down to the ambitions of the campaign. If the idea is that the campaign encompasses the entire adventuring career of the PCs, the way the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories do, then the D&D style level system probably makes sense. I suspect that requires an episodic campaign structure or a mechanic like Pendragon's campaigning seasons. My campaigns (and IME most people's) are more of a dense vertical slice of the characters' lives, essentially just a long episode in what is ostensibly a much longer career. For that I'd prefer a system where characters start out pretty competent and grow only in small increments.
I prefer games where the players build up power over time, but that being said I'm not a big fan of the level-0 funnel. It's a cool idea, but more often than not I'd just prefer the players started at level 1 with some sort of minor background information (social class, regional origin, and one significant life event).
Yes.
There are a lot of different kinds of games, with different play styles.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 13, 2024, 07:15:15 PM
Do you prefer games, where the starting characters must climb their way up out of the mud blood and shit of the game setting; or do you prefer games, where the starting characters are big damn heroes from the start?
No preference.
I can dig a game literally from starting with nothing but a loincloth. (Dark Sun) to starting at 9th level with established characters because we want to get to the high level stuff. We've more than put in our dues playing lowbies.
If it's a game that's new to us, then I fully expect to start at the lowest tier. Otherwise you'd be missing the experience of playing a chunk of the game.
I don't have a problem playing Traveller or Gamma World, where you don't "level." I don't need to hear that electronic "ping" periodically; I'm role-playing.
OTOH if you want to plan a higher-level campaign from the start, I don't have a problem with rolling up, say, a 5th level character. But if the system has too many bells and whistles then I'm not going to want to start out with a bunch of options that are dumped on me cold, all at once. I don't like it, and if you compel me to play anyway then I'll pick something simple with passive-only abilities.
I'm here to role-play.
As far as the time to level, I don't care for the WotC style where the only brake on the calendar is GM fiat. I prefer that the rules make it such that some things take some time, which slows the runaway level train down considerably. Don't really care what the mechanic is, as long as it works to that purpose. AD&D training costs usually manage it, at least indirectly. Dragon Quest has explicit times to learn new things, which gets longer the more powerful the thing.
It doesn't necessarily need to be "realistic" either, just slow it down some. My own game is geared to make full recovery happen in weeks instead of days. Sure, if people are only partially down, and always recover in a week, that's not realistic. But at least it means getting to Level 5 is going to take several months of game time instead of a few days. And it does slow down at higher levels. And it means that resource depletion on an adventure is really present. I could string it out even more, but at some point you get players waiting around while their comrades heal, and if it goes on too long in game time, someone always wants to do a little adventure on the side, which puts us right back to someone doing something every day.
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 was looking back at a 10 level ruleset, that gave 1st level characters:
(1 hit die + con modifier) x 3, hit points at 1st level.
That sounds like big damn heroes, to me? Tough and resilient. I guess it also depends upon how common healing is, too? I'll go back and look at healing, in that ruleset.
But this thread is about personal preferences among forum members; not that ruleset. I Don't want to run a 1 hit point character; but 30+ hit points at first level, sounds like you're really starting out at 3rd level? To each their own, I suppose?
I prefer to start at the bottom or near it, and work my way up.
I prefer the characters work their way up, but I have a few tweaks in D&D style games to make 1st level PCs a bit tougher. They roll for hit dice plus Con modifier as usual, but then add their entire Con score to the total at first level. But all HP rolls are straight up. No re-rolls, so by the mid levels, things pretty much even out. I also give spellcasters a scroll with d3 spells at 1st level. And mages can buy a wand or mage staff for 100 gp/lvl that either allows them to fire energy bolts (wand) or hit creatures only hit by magic, cast light, and open/close doors (staff). These must be recharged every level.
We also use a fairly deadly Crit system so the potential for death remains constant. But PCs that hit the high levels have earned it. We're playing a high level Swords & Wizardry game now where the party consists of 2 original members and 6 others rescued or picked up along the way. And some use hand-me down weapons or magic items from slain comrades. So there's a real history there.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 14, 2024, 07:47:59 PM
I prefer the characters work their way up, but I have a few tweaks in D&D style games to make 1st level PCs a bit tougher. They roll for hit dice plus Con modifier as usual, but then add their entire Con score to the total at first level. But all HP rolls are straight up. No re-rolls, so by the mid levels, things pretty much even out. I also give spellcasters a scroll with d3 spells at 1st level. And mages can buy a wand or mage staff for 100 gp/lvl that either allows them to fire energy bolts (wand) or hit creatures only hit by magic, cast light, and open/close doors (staff). These must be recharged every level.
We also use a fairly deadly Crit system so the potential for death remains constant. But PCs that hit the high levels have earned it. We're playing a high level Swords & Wizardry game now where the party consists of 2 original members and 6 others rescued or picked up along the way. And some use hand-me down weapons or magic items from slain comrades. So there's a real history there.
That's interesting. I did a similar thing for my Dolmenwood campaign, where I made starting HP at level one equal to Constitution attribute. I figure it makes sense that when you're starting out your career, your natural toughness makes more difference than your training. And then as they level up the class differences will start to matter more.
The longer I play RPGs, the more I think the WFRP/Rolemaster idea where HP are fairly plentiful and easy to regain, and serious wounds are dealt through critical hits, makes a lot of sense. It rides the line well between making injuries seriously matter and not having to either have tons of magical healing or force your PCs to recover for a week after every combat.
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2024, 08:14:10 PM
The longer I play RPGs, the more I think the WFRP/Rolemaster idea where HP are fairly plentiful and easy to regain, and serious wounds are dealt through critical hits, makes a lot of sense. It rides the line well between making injuries seriously matter and not having to either have tons of magical healing or force your PCs to recover for a week after every combat.
Now,
that's something I've never heard or read before. Hmm. I've only played 1e WFRP before, do you see the effect in that edition or something later? I have very little RM experience, does the effect hold true for 1e/2e MERP?
I like inexperienced weaklings.
Start out as normal guard type for strength and build up to heroes. Playing a game where a character is a hero at the start and there is no risk vs reward makes for a lame game.
Quote from: Baron on January 14, 2024, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2024, 08:14:10 PM
The longer I play RPGs, the more I think the WFRP/Rolemaster idea where HP are fairly plentiful and easy to regain, and serious wounds are dealt through critical hits, makes a lot of sense. It rides the line well between making injuries seriously matter and not having to either have tons of magical healing or force your PCs to recover for a week after every combat.
Now, that's something I've never heard or read before. Hmm. I've only played 1e WFRP before, do you see the effect in that edition or something later? I have very little RM experience, does the effect hold true for 1e/2e MERP?
Admittedly I have pretty light experience with both systems, so I might be projecting what I'd like to see onto them.
I went and had a look:
--In WFRP 4e, normal wounds aren't that plentiful (12 on average for a starting level human), but you can restore them pretty easily (Toughness rating plus success level on an endurance test) by resting.
--In WFRP 2e, starting wounds average around the same but natural healing is considerably slower.
In both cases IIRC it's pretty easy to heal normal wounds with a medicine/healing check.
--I don't have near enough experience with Rolemaster math to sort it out quickly and the game is full of optional rules, but in Rolemaster Classic it seems like average starting concussion hits is going to be in the 20-30 range. The books are also an ass and a half to navigate, but I believe you recover concussion hits at a rate of 3/hour while resting.
I don't know MERP at all, but I looked at Against the Darkmaster, which from what I understand is based on it. PCs can start with between 20 and 60 HP, and max out between 120 and 250. An attack dealing a non-critical or superficial critical strike will deal between 1 and 13 points of damage, and a superficial critical might add up to around 10 damage on top of that. You can recover 1/10 of your max HP for each hour of rest.
And then of course all of those systems have critical tables that deal injuries that are more difficult to heal.
Again, I'm a novice in all these systems, so someone might be able to correct me on what I said above.
Quote from: Baron on January 14, 2024, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2024, 08:14:10 PM
The longer I play RPGs, the more I think the WFRP/Rolemaster idea where HP are fairly plentiful and easy to regain, and serious wounds are dealt through critical hits, makes a lot of sense. It rides the line well between making injuries seriously matter and not having to either have tons of magical healing or force your PCs to recover for a week after every combat.
Now, that's something I've never heard or read before. Hmm. I've only played 1e WFRP before, do you see the effect in that edition or something later? I have very little RM experience, does the effect hold true for 1e/2e MERP?
Yes; in MERP and Against the Darkmaster, its spiritual successor, you start out with a lot of hits; it can exceed 60 for martial types at 1st level. But then you're getting 1-10 or maybe 2-20 per level after that. And the crits can wipe you out regardless of hits, since many are insta-kills. But, unlike D&D, the first rat that bites you probably won't kill you at 1st level. And there's healing magic, but to get the really powerful spells, you need to be fairly high level. One thing MERP does have its lots of healing herbs like Athelas. Every time we camped or traveled our characters were combing through the underbrush looking for that stuff.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 13, 2024, 07:15:15 PM
Do you prefer games, where the starting characters must climb their way up out of the mud blood and shit of the game setting; or do you prefer games, where the starting characters are big damn heroes from the start?
Depends on the Players.
Zero to hero works best to teach Players not only how to play the game, but also best practices for their characters within the game. I'd suggest that for completely new to RPGs.
Everything else, especially skill based games, are better for Players who have experience with RPGs but not the current game being run.
Quote from: SHARK on January 14, 2024, 03:47:13 PM
I always prefer the game begin with Characters that are mud-covered peasants.
Campaigns are as much about the Journey as they are getting to the Destination.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 14, 2024, 09:35:13 PM
Start out as normal guard type for strength and build up to heroes. Playing a game where a character is a hero at the start and there is no risk vs reward makes for a lame game.
If someone prefers zero-to-hero leveling, that's a valid preference. But I don't agree about the implication that other game design has no challenge.
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?
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.
I don't like what I call bumblefuck games. These are games where starting characters are bumblefucks who suck at almost everything bumblefucking around. It's one thing to have beginning characters be novices. It's another to make them bumbling idiots who suck at what they are suppopsed to do and are completely worthless at everything else.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 15, 2024, 03:42:23 AMIt's another to make them bumbling idiots who suck at what they are suppopsed to do and are completely worthless at everything else.
I see that every day IRL, I hardly need to seek it out in escapism.
Why would anyone ever climb out of the mud, blood and shit? It's a roleplaying game. If I want an experience of idle luxury and ease, well I live in the modern West, I don't need dice, pencil and a character sheet for that.
Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: SHARK on January 14, 2024, 03:47:13 PM
I always prefer the game begin with Characters that are mud-covered peasants.
Campaigns are as much about the Journey as they are getting to the Destination.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on January 14, 2024, 09:35:13 PM
Start out as normal guard type for strength and build up to heroes. Playing a game where a character is a hero at the start and there is no risk vs reward makes for a lame game.
If someone prefers zero-to-hero leveling, that's a valid preference. But I don't agree about the implication that other game design has no challenge.
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?
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.
Greetings!
Well, I'm not a fan of modern setting games. So, Call of Cthulhu, all the Bond games, sci-Fi, Marvel freak-show Superheroes, all of it--nah. I'll pass.
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.
I am also old enough, and well-established and content, I only play with people that embrace the profile, more or less. Players wanting to start out the gate as "BIG DAMN HEROES" are going to be thoroughly disappointed playing at my table.
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.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 15, 2024, 03:42:23 AM
I don't like what I call bumblefuck games. These are games where starting characters are bumblefucks who suck at almost everything bumblefucking around. It's one thing to have beginning characters be novices. It's another to make them bumbling idiots who suck at what they are suppopsed to do and are completely worthless at everything else.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Bumblefuck games! Yeah, I could see such games being frustrating, and a problem. I enjoy a level of basic competence.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1FCKZSr/2q7nwb.jpg)
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 ;D
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 ;D
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.
I can go either way, and in fact, mixing them up is good.
I don't mind starting from nothing in a D&D game, particularly in modern incarnations of the game that are a lot more forgiving at first level. The feeling of becoming more competent is genuinely fun.
On the other hand, a little Competence Porn never hurt anybody either.
There are also genre considerations. If you're in a horror game, it makes sense to start off inexperienced and outclassed. Indeed, you may be in a downward spiral, where the best you can hope for is a meaningful death.
But if you're playing superheroes, there should be some basic competence. You should be able to hold your own against a mugger, but there are probably bad guys out there that will give you a lot of trouble. And your power/skill levels will go up as your story unfolds.
And if you're playing James Bond, you'll start out at a high level, and maybe not advance all that much.
If I am running a game for people that have never played TTRPGs before, I always try to encourage starting as bottom ringers clawing their way to the top.
You only get that feeling once. There will be plenty of time to play "Masters of the Multiverse" when they know enough inside baseball to understand how the sausage is made.
But, when the game is still a magical and brand new experience, even the most mundane of events inside the story they are forging with their decisions makes everlasting impact.
I personally prefer games that let you start with an actual concept and not have it gated behind "levels" of experience. What I mean by this is, if I want to play a Knight-Errant with a trusty steed, back in the D&D3e era you would need to wait until level 4 or so to get a mount as a Paladin.
So, if your concept involved being a mounted knight and everyone started at level 1, then you would have to wait to play that concept.
Same if you want to play a scruffy mercenary that is more of a thug that can fight well but is also skillful at lockpicking and has enough moxy to talk his way out of a bin. That would be a Fighter/Rogue and thus would be impossible as a 1st level character.
So, if the concept is that your character are already competent or has a specific something you are looking for, then I like games that allow you to have a fully realized concept at Session 1 instead of however many sessions the designers decided it would take for my character to be high enough level for that feature.
This is why I prefer point buy & skill based games instead of level and class based games. Usually, with a point buy skill based game you will be able to have an actual concept to start with as those tend to allow more lateral progression instead of strictly vertical like D&D. Meaning, a warrior in Mythras starts as a competent and deadly combatant, since he invested his creation points in stats and skills that are conducive to be a great melee opponent. But, there's room to grow however, that same character at the end of the campaign will not be a demi-God that can take on hundreds of combatants at the same time, unlike a D&D Fighter that just by virtue of HP scaling, will come a time where goblins and kobolds are less than fodder and wont represent any sort of challenge.
I know some people actually really enjoy that, they love being able to just trounce lower CR enemies but for me a dagger to the eye should always be a dagger to the eye. Just a different way to play ttrpgs, not trying to say people that like those types of games are having "bad wrong fun". I just don't find it enjoyable.
I generally prefer character development to occur across the game but the Mythras approach to starting age and experience is a pretty sweet compromise to players who don't want characters with no hair on their balls.
Bottom rung of the ladder for long term sandbox games.
Focused campaigns with a backstory or playing a supers game...depends but not a strong preference for me. You lose to much, for to little gain.
Quote from: SHARK on January 15, 2024, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2024, 08:01:09 PM
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?
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.
Cool. And I agree that's fine as a preference. If someone specifically likes the path from ordinary peasant to epic hero, they should do what they enjoy.
But it's just one way to enjoy things. Some people don't like the epic power with fantastical stuff, or only like it under some systems or settings. They might like HarnMaster, or Burning Wheel, or some historical RPGs -- or maybe D&D/OSR with an E6 variant or just sticking only to low levels. Some people don't like the mundane stuff, and prefer the epic power fantasy. They might like Fantasy HERO, or Amber Diceless, or D&D where you start at higher level.
What I'm saying is, people shouldn't put up with stuff that they don't enjoy in order to later get to stuff they do enjoy. I'm not a video game player, but I hear about grinding, where players go through dull earlier levels so they can get to the cool stuff later -- and it sounds infuriating. Especially, players seem encouraged to think "Well, I've put 100 hours into this game, so now I really should keep playing or those 100 hours were wasted." I hate that in game design.
I think there are plenty of good, fun low-level D&D adventures. I am fully behind having fun games at low-level and progressing. But if it's not to someone's taste, then they should play at whatever level range they prefer.