How Do You Like Your Extents of Progression?

[kigmatzomat]

It doesn't feel like either an interesting use of the world or a good story to me to have Superman spend lots and lots of time going after low powered villains who have no defense against his super speed, super brain, or super vision. It does feel like a good panel or two to have happen now and then though (usually while something else is happening in the thought balloons or conversation with someone else). Similarly for James Bond going after small time hoods.

the "experienced operative vs gangs" is a repeat trope. Pretty sure that's the plot of Denzel Washington's new movie. Probably a 33% chance it applies to any random western. Wouldn't surprise me if there isnt at least one arc in the Odyssey that would qualify.

It is undeniable that Superman stopping superman-level threats is the most useful thing Superman could do. But I would posit that if Superman spent 5% of his "hero" time nabbing career criminals that would require >SWAT effort to capture but that are way below his grade, he would have a outsized impact on crime.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What about "Zero to Corpse" progression?

 

[Bill Zebub]

More seriously, I vastly prefer a flatter progression, where a "high level" character is distinctly better than a new character, but not so much better that they can't adventure together effectively.

 

[Scribe]

Most progression is a treadmill illusion. Your numbers go up but so do the bad guys' numbers. You’re changing the names of the monsters but comparatively nothing really changes.

I dont know about this, as you can clearly see and feel the progression, depending on your level of addiction attention to detail. Take your new, more powerful self, back to the content you already cleared, and you can really see it.

At this point, I'm off the Zero to Hero.

Competent starting Journeyman to (non-super) Hero.

This. I dont need to kill Gods. Godlets will suffice.

 

[Yora]

One to Three: Characters start out as reasonably competent in their field and mostly become more versatile rather than more durable. Going up the ranks, but still playing in the same league.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like all the modes.

However, some modes support certain characters better than others.

And some systems support certain modes better than others.

And too often, I find myself in a mismatch.

 

[Fifinjir]

Not quite zero or one, more like 0.5 to hero.

 

[aramis erak]

"One to Hero" -- okay, you aren't completely useless at the beginning. You are competent -- a knight or a skilled normal or whatever, but you still gain great power (with or without great responsibility). Maybe an example is Batman's career from Year One to Morrison BatGod.

"Powerful Out the Gate and Only Getting Better" -- The character starts out powerful and continues to become moreso. I can't actually think of too many examples of this beyond, say, super heroes who learn to master their abilities over time.

For me, more like 3-to-hero - somewhere in the middle of those two, leaning towards one to hero, but not THAT fragile.

Most of the time.

For supers, Hero to very slightly improved hero

 

[MGibster]

"Competent With Little Change" -- like most procedural TV characters, you start out competent and while you have experiences, they don't necessarily translate to increased power or capability.

I tend to run shorter, more focused campaigns so this is my preference. Don't get me wrong, I like prime rib, but I don't want to have it for dinner every night, so I don't mind mixing things up a bit with some zero-to-hero or very little change in power campaigns.

 

[loverdrive]

Competent With Little Change, but Zero to Zero.5, Always Powerful But No Progression and similar options work for me too.

I just really dislike vast power level growth. It makes things that I like a lot (like, for example, actually having an antagonist), for all intents and purposes, completely impossible.