Should Zero Level be part of the regular rules?

[Fox Lee]

I can't really see why you would need rules to play a non-powered (by whatever standards the system considers normal for player characters) character. Just grab a character, and take away all their special stuff, and have fun being a mechanical cripple. Is there some nuance I'm missing? Sort of by definition, there are no special rules for sucking.

I would never want to see this being part of the standard rules, as I have never seen a system do a good job of balancing wildly differing power levels between PCs. If it were a standard rule in my system of choice, I would be inclined to outlaw it - though I doubt I would need to, since my guys enjoy formulating builds and gaining power, and would almost certainly ignore it.

If I had a new player, who was desperate to do this for a joke or whatever, I would probably just make them a statless PC who was assumed to die to anything that seemed generally lethal; basically a "bucket" with a player ("bucket" being the term our group has for a plot item that complicates progress by needing to be protected). The other characters would probably get XP for keeping them alive.

 

[ObsoleteAccount_1]

meh. i would not use it anyway. most of the times my players want to run a few levels higher... so they feel they can do something. and yes... i know its about roleplaying, but also about fun. My player (and myself) find the first levels are always dragging along with roleplaying. I know... it should be fun. but some levels up is just more fun and similar levels of roleplaying.

 

[daichiasuka]

I've been in one campaign over the years where we started play at "level 0." While I see how it could be interesting, my particular experience was tedious and boring. i kept waiting for the session to be over so we could be level one fr the next session.

I don't think it needs to be there and should be optional at best.

 

[fireinthedust]

Dragonlance stories kind of did this: peasants had minor adventures, then left for several years, then met back at the Inn in Solace to do that first adventure in Xak Tsaroth. Yes, that module had higher level characters, but it's a different rule set. Also: while I wouldn't have developed the expanded setting the way it went personally, I love that first adventure module and book.

I like 0-level a lot. Works for Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, the Prydain books, and so forth. Get to know them before deciding what they'd decide to learn later.

I wouldnt' start every character that way, but it can be great.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I've been a part of a few zero-level games over the years and it's just not anything that gets me excited. 1st level in most versions of D&D is already weak and fragile and I just don't see the need to spend more time in that state. That said it's just my preference so I'm not opposed to some optional future update that covers it for those who want to give it a whirl.

 

[Maese Mateo]

Optional. While I wouldn't like it to be the default start for a game, I think that there are enought people that may find it useful, which is why it's an interesting optional rule to have.

 

[Garick83]

It seems like it is interesting however any campaign that I've been in when they do that, ends up having the intro drag on and on and then the level progression tends to get wonky from that point on.

 

[was]

We use level 1 of an npc class as our zero level and to reflect our character backgrounds. We start at level 1, so it's one level of an npc class and one of a regular class.
Works well for us..level 1 pcs are not as squishy this way.