Forked - Level-Based Systems and Non-Heroic PCs

[JamesonCourage]

Okay, so I really wanted to reply to something that Rechan wrote in the Player: "I need to level up so I can do cool stuff!" thread. However, I didn't want to derail the thread before it even hit its second page, so I'm "forking" it early, and going to present it here. Here's what I want to reply to:

I don't know you, and I don't know your game style or adventures.

But, in my experience there are quite a lot of DMs who like to throw "uncool" adventures at low level PCs. "Go kill the rats in the basement". "Go fight some skeletons." And if you don't want to go on that adventure, then you're not playing this week because hey that's the adventure. Typical first level adventures involve "delivering a message" or other paltry tasks.

There's an entire philosophy built on the idea that "In order to do cool things (at higher levels) you gotta earn your lumps being a nobody because that's who you are at level 1, a farmer who picked up a sword". Some may like it, but I find it condescending. "Aww he thinks he's a hero! Here, go fight some skeletons".

As a player I want to save the kingdom, not the thorp. I want to explore far and wide, and exploring as a 1st level PC means getting eaten up by powerful stuff in other areas. I want to slay epic beasts of myth, not rats.

Then there's the capabilities. If I'm a mage, it's "cool" to blow things up. I can't really do that with the capabilities presented to a first level spellcaster. "Hey guys I can cast grease and magic missile! WOO HOO! Watch me dominate."

As a DM, I try very hard to give a real serious, and important, tone to what the characters are doing - even at level 1.

Basically, it's the idea that starting out at the bottom of the barrel level-wise and being forced into a story that is "non-heroic" is not his preference (he used the word "condescending"). Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with his preference. At all. More power to that style of game, and I personally know a couple of people in real life that prefer it (and I have seen many more people online advocate for that style of play).

My issue is with systems that leave no room for "zero to hero" style of play. While that would be good for Rechan (and many others!), it eliminates the possibility completely from the game. As far as I can tell, D&D has slowly moved to accommodate this view each edition (probably because it's a popular view). That is, as far as I can tell, when D&D was released, you were more "adventurers" than you were "heroes" (not that it eliminated the possibility of being a hero as well). Each new edition seems to push more and more towards the PCs being "heroic" rather than merely "adventurers". Personally, I prefer being heroic (and my players being heroic) than being the lying, thieving, conmen, mercenary types, so I definitely see where the approach is coming from.

However, I prefer to work my way up from low hit die (or level) before becoming capable of truly heroic deeds, and accomplishing "heroic is spirit, more mundane in actuality" tasks along the way. Sometimes I don't want that, though, which is why I'd like the game to accommodate both levels of play through the level system. In the game I made (and run), the average settled adult is hit die 4. That means that if I start the PCs at hit die 1, they're well below average, and truly worse than most guards at fighting, most scouts at scouting, etc. However, the advice I would give to avoid this is simple: start them at hit die 4, or even higher. This gives the players and GM the option of starting at "zero" or "average settled adult" or "very experienced" or "heroic" or whatever.

I do see the downside, of course. If you're a hero from level 1, and you're playing 3.X or 4e, you get 20-30 full levels of being a hero. If that's really what you want, it's much better than my game, for example. I've built in some ways for my game to adapt to it (it's a pretty gritty game, but I've included optional rules for greatly widening the skill gap between levels, instead of having the much more gradual increase), but I know that optional rules aren't for everyone.

At any rate, if you're going to play with a game, would you prefer a system that allows room for "zero to hero" play, or would you prefer something that focuses on one style of play, and does its best to improve that style? Now, to me, this is very different from "one game that serves all people" or the like, and it's just a matter of levels. It's not genre-crossing, it's not necessarily reflective of simulationist/narrative play, etc.

Anyways, there's no right or wrong answer. I'm just curious what people think, and what their preferences are. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The problem with zero to hero, IMO, is that it's been done to death. Bilbo gets pushed out the door, has adventures and comes back a hero. The children go into a closet and eventually become kings and queens. So on and so forth. It's been beaten into the ground.

OTOH, the more pulp action, which has been gaining a lot in popularity over the past while, has heroes that are not "normal guy". Whether it's Conan or Doc Savage, these are not Joe Average picking up a sword and doing extraordinary things. And, because a lot of these style of heroes are very popular in genre fiction now, RPG's are simply mirroring popular views.

I guess the basic problem is, how do you incorporate both visions into the same game? Particularly in a level based one. Sure, I suppose, you could simply start the "heroic" game at higher level, but, now I'm missing out on a chunk of the game. Conversely, if you make level 1 "heroic" then the Joe Average archetype gets chucked out the window.

I'm not really sure you can have both archetypes in the same system as a starting point. They really are very different.

 

[Rechan]

I thought there were games that did that: Warhammer.

Also I think it's a level of "How zero is zero?" I mean, a grunt fresh out of basic training, sent to war, is still a capable (albeit green) soldier. He's a level 1 soldier. Or would a level 1 soldier be an Officer, who had to go to school for 6 years? Both of them are less "zero" than Joe the barber who picks up a gun to fight the alien/zombie invaders.

Compare this to Peter Parker, who was a teenager when he first got his hero duds. He was fighting street crime and maybe a supervillain, but he still very capable for a wet-behind-the-ears hero. Would "Zero" be Peter as a teenager, pre-bite?

 

[Rechan]

I guess the basic problem is, how do you incorporate both visions into the same game? Particularly in a level based one. Sure, I suppose, you could simply start the "heroic" game at higher level, but, now I'm missing out on a chunk of the game. Conversely, if you make level 1 "heroic" then the Joe Average archetype gets chucked out the window.

I'm not really sure you can have both archetypes in the same system as a starting point. They really are very different.

I agree here.

And I'd give you xp if I didn't need to spread it around more.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I thought there were games that did that: Warhammer.

Never played it! Interesting.

Also I think it's a level of "How zero is zero?" I mean, a grunt fresh out of basic training, sent to war, is still a capable (albeit green) soldier. He's a level 1 soldier. Or would a level 1 soldier be an Officer, who had to go to school for 6 years? Both of them are less "zero" than Joe the barber who picks up a gun to fight the alien/zombie invaders.

Yep, and since my game is classless, that answer is easy. The barber may not have proficiencies or good stats for using that gun, while a soldier would probably have both, plus "base attack" that helps him with attacks, where the barber wouldn't. But the green soldier wouldn't be as good as the focused soldier at higher hit die (or level).

Compare this to Peter Parker, who was a teenager when he first got his hero duds. He was fighting street crime and maybe a supervillain, but he still very capable for a wet-behind-the-ears hero. Would "Zero" be Peter as a teenager, pre-bite?

Superhero stuff is an entirely different monster. He was effectively a "high level" superhero from the get-go (at least, as soon as he got his powers). Compare Spiderman to any number of other Marvel superheroes, and see how he stacks up. He's one of their flagship superheroes for a reason

 

[Hussar]

JC - Yeah, I'd agree that superhero genre has its own needs and issues.

Note, in your game, you denote hit die, but, it's a classless system. So, what exactly happens when I gain a level in your system?

 

[JamesonCourage]

JC - Yeah, I'd agree that superhero genre has its own needs and issues.

Note, in your game, you denote hit die, but, it's a classless system. So, what exactly happens when I gain a level in your system?

You'd gain free skill ranks equal to your Int bonus, and free trait ranks equal to your Con bonus. At hit die 0 and every 3 thereafter, you'd get a free feat. At hit die 1 and every 3 thereafter, you'd get a free character point. At hit die 2 and every 3 thereafter, you'd get a free +1 to any attribute.

However, in between each hit die, you'd gain 15 character points. So, you'd have a slow progression after each and every session if you wanted to spend them (even buying an expensive ability if it would normally cost too much, but limited it greatly, and then buying the limitation off as time goes on and your character masters the ability).

So, hitting a new hit die means very little, but each X amount of experience, you'd gain a new character point (with 15 ChP per hit die).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I enjoy "zero to hero", and have managed to play that kind of character in a variety of systems, including all editions of D&D (except 4Ed).

Personally, I haven't had a problem accommodating both zeroes and heroes in 1st level games. Boart of the reason for this is the "big fish, small pond" effect. Just because your PC is outstanding in his hometown, it doesn't necessarily follow that when he ventures into the wider world that he's still top of the food chain. A HS All-American may be merely average when he gets to Ohio State. If he excells there, he may make it to the pros...where he may not start. Ever. OTOH, he may go on to be a Hall of Famer.

And the thing is, personal perspective matters. 2 characters may stat out identically, but if one believes himself a zero and the other anoints himself hero, so be it. That's how those PCs view themselves...but it may not be how the world views them. Only time tells you who the real heroes are.

 

[Rechan]

And the thing is, personal perspective matters. 2 characters may stat out identically, but if one believes himself a zero and the other anoints himself hero, so be it. That's how those PCs view themselves...but it may not be how the world views them. Only time tells you who the real heroes are.

I disagree in that there's more to it than that. The DM and the campaign have to buy into that perspective.

If the PC considers himself a HERO, then taking up a quest to fight rats and skeletons would be seen as beneath him. If the PC considers himself a zero, then he's not going to take a quest to overthrow the Emperor at session 1.

I do not think that you can have a Hero and a Zero in the same level 1 party. The disconnect would hurt the tone of the game too much.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree in that there's more to it than that. The DM and the campaign have to buy into that perspective.

If the PC considers himself a HERO, then taking up a quest to fight rats and skeletons would be seen as beneath him. If the PC considers himself a zero, then he's not going to take a quest to overthrow the Emperor at session 1.

I do not think that you can have a Hero and a Zero in the same level 1 party. The disconnect would hurt the tone of the game too much.

You know, I can't think of a single heroic character my players have played that wouldn't stop to help fight some skeletons if they were hurting people.