Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9500240" data-attributes="member: 7045072">First, I'm not sure "0 to Hero" was really much of an intended part of early play, in OD&D while PCs appear very weak by modern standards, the entire system has a flatter power level and characters rapidly gain potency, especially using the chainmail rules.  The concept seems much more something tied to the BECMI approach where the system literally charts a (seemingly impossible) path from starting adventurer to god.  Even then it seems more a concept borrowed from CRPGs - much like killing rats in the tavern cellar as a first adventure. The 1st level fighter is called a "Veteran" in OD&D.Second, the Complete series of books are one of the tipping points from older style D&D towards the character build focus the started to dominate in 3.5E and 4E, but were also a part of a general increase in the power level (or at least the complexity and number of HP) of the game as a whole. Using them they certainly allowed for more powerful PCs at earlier levels, but this was coupled with a more dangerous set of monsters in the Compendiums.  I don't know (and I used the Complete books for a bit in 1989 - 1991) how much they actually changed the power curve, but I do remember them complicating character creation and adding to the general feeling of system bloat - though that was usually considered cool in the late 80's and 90's. The 2e era also had a lot of elements that pushed the "zero" aspect of new characters -- when the balance of the ever expanding rules fell the other way, such as the infamous deadly 2E housecat stat-line.  A 2E tabby has a decent chance of killing most level one PCs (especially non-fighters) and can certainly take on a couple of 0 level townsfolk.Like a lot of maxims of RPG play, I don't think "zero to hero" has quite the history and strength some might suggest, or much of a stable meaning.  Rather I'd bet that it helps set player expectations and define an intention for a specific style of play or specific kind of campaign content.  The inclusions of Beast Masters and Myrmidons might not be right for that game, but then D&D has always aspired to be the system for every kind of game... Which, since it doesn't often mention this, is one of it's failings.</blockquote>

Verification