Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Celebrim]

Fair enough, I did not know that. Really not my preference to call out how oh so special and unique the PCs are.

In my own game, it's quite possible to call out how special and unique the PCs are despite them being below average level. Average members of society could be 2nd level (and often are) and the PC's, especially collectively would still strike the community as being exceptional and special and immensely talented - just not experienced.

 

[Celebrim]

Well why are there old NPCs without lots of levels?

I mean, are there? That would seem to be a decision of the DM and not something necessarily expressed by the rules. That's a question of demographics, and it's really up to the DM to assume that the higher-level NPCs in society are also likely to be the older members of society. So if we have some demographic methodology of generating the inhabitants of a temple, it's up to the GM to decide that the highest level priest is probably the oldest priest. And the same would be true of a college of bards or a college of wizards. And in practice, I think that generally tends to happen if only because it fits to stereotypes.

D&D has rarely though been particularly explicit about its demographics. 1e AD&D answered your question by saying the general NPC population lacked the ability to gain levels and so most were trapped to being 0th level or at most a handful of HD, no matter how experienced they were. By 3e D&D it suggested that while NPCs weren't really trapped at low level, they were in fact mostly of NPC classes ill-suited to adventuring and didn't gain levels rapidly because they weren't doing things that would lead to rapid gains in XP. 4e and 5e largely don't seem to care about the question, with NPCs having whatever level the GM feels justified to creating the story he wants.

In my own 3.X inspired game, it's not unusual to meet an octogenarian that is a 9th level commoner with like 4 Str, 4 Dex, and 4 Con that would probably lose a combat to 1st level PC but whom is a great deal more skilled at cooking, managing a home, tending a garden, and small talk and routine social skills than most PCs are ever likely to be. That old lady might just have 9 hit points, but she has a +17 on her sense motive check. There is a reason why her village has a great deal of respect for her even if she'd be in real trouble against a single orc.

 

[Wolfpack48]

In some games that's not true.

Which games would those be?

 

[Celebrim]

Which games would those be?

The only thing more likely to result in a thread being closed than edition warring is system warring.

 

[Corinnguard]

Choose Your Own Adventure implies there are a limited set of choices and those are only provided by the referee or scenario. There are literally dozens of options players can take in a roleplaying scenario, and those choices are only limited by the player's imagination. I would never want to play in a game where I was limited only by what options the referee gave me.

True. A Choose Your Own Adventure story only offers you a limited set of choices to choose from. And that is because while there might be dozens of options the author can take for a given scenario in their story, their choices are also limited by their imagination. It's the same story for the DM.

Also, let's not forget that the DM is limited by the options given to them by the players.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You are always limited to just the options the referee gives you. Some referees just give you more options than others. What matters most though is whether or not you can see the rails. The appearance of options is more important to the player than actually having those options. Most players can't tell the difference. They only really notice when they have bad GMs that let them see the rails.

This isn't meant to justify railroading, and as a GM I prefer to give the players a game with real options, but they sure as heck wouldn't know the difference if I didn't. And of course there are gaming systems that would make it far easier for me to get my way compared to others by empowering me relative to the players, such as by making all the math favor failure and empowering me to make up whatever I wanted in response to their failure or even in some cases their success.

What the referee should be doing is giving the players a situation, and letting the players come up with the options for dealing with it. The options are only limited by player imagination and the setting's constraints (gravity, breathable air, player abilities, etc).

 

[Campbell]

Which RPGs have it where the players aren't doing some kind of adventuring?

Vampire, Monsterhearts, Blades in the Dark, Mouseguard, The Between, Changeling. That's just in the last year. Our Vampire, Changeling and Monsterhearts games didn't even have the concept of "the party". Just intersecting characters.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The only thing more likely to result in a thread being closed than edition warring is system warring.

No intention of edition or system warring, I'm just interested in which RPGs don't allow for players to come up with options for dealing with a roleplaying situation.

 

[Umbran]

While there is certainly nothing in D&D that forces players to make young characters, it is certainly implicit to the structure of D&D and the assumption that you start at 1st level that you make an inexperienced character.

Insofar as the thing is named "Experience points", that's a point. But, in the face of a game with a truly massive tradition of not following the rules as written exactly - and this isn't even a rule, but a narrative interpretation of the rules - it seems weak sauce.

If, as a player, you don't/can't think past that implication, there's only so much of that to be laid at the foot of the game itself.

It's not that you can't have a middle-aged rich dilletante like Bilbo Baggins finally getting out of the house for the first time in his life as a PC in D&D, it's just that that story doesn't typically resonate with players who are generally creating a player character as a playing piece to self-identify as.

Every Gen X gamer should quirk an eye at that one.

But, we can accept they are a minority in the gaming community. Then, if the story doesn't resonate with the players, that the game goes along with that resonation seems like a non-problem.

Sure, you can probably think up a dozen or so original backgrounds to explain why an older character as very few useful life skills

Hold on a second.

Let's reconsider that as - why an older character has very few useful combat and adventuring skills.

D&D class levels aren't about "life skills". The game isn't about "life skills", so those aren't given much mechanical detail. Give a character a tool proficiency, and they have "life skills" in the associated profession.

 

[Corinnguard]

What the referee should be doing is giving the players a situation, and letting the players come up with the options for dealing with it. The options are only limited by player imagination of the setting's constraints (gravity, breathable air, player abilities, etc).

They are doing that.