Forked - Level-Based Systems and Non-Heroic PCs

[Rechan]

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.

1) Usually those skeletons and rats are hanging around in some dungeon basement, not being proactive monsters pursuing other people. At least when I've seen them used, at the DM's table or in published adventures.

2) If I was a hero and saw someone attacked by a rabid chihuahua, I'd still stop and help, but I wouldn't feel too grand about it.

3) Partly it's what the threat is (something a determined pair of commoners could deal with) and partly it's the significance. The scale. It's the difference between all the skeletons in the town graveyard climb out at once and storm the town and a trio of skellies or dire rats lurking around the cellar we're poking around in because hey there's nothing better for apprentices to do. The difference between the floor collapsing dumping the PC in the middle of a few rat swarms versus stumbling on three dire rats hanging out in the pantry.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the PC considers himself a HERO, then taking up a quest to fight rats and skeletons would be seen as beneath him.

Maybe in the legend of his own mind, but maybe not in the eyes of those he helps...or chooses not to.

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.

Considering I have seen it in play- from both sides of the screen- I can assure you that it can and does exist...and works.

 

[JamesonCourage]

1) Usually those skeletons and rats are hanging around in some dungeon basement, not being proactive monsters pursuing other people. At least when I've seen them used, at the DM's table or in published adventures.

Not from my experience, so our mileage has varied here (not unexpected!). However, all of the heroic characters I've seen would still be more than happy to help someone out even if it was in a basement, if they were causing problems. If they aren't causing problems, I doubt they'd even hear about them.

2) If I was a hero and saw someone attacked by a rabid chihuahua, I'd still stop and help, but I wouldn't feel too grand about it.

I still don't think any of the heroic characters I've seen would put the help "below them". Below their maximum capabilities, sure, but helping someone isn't something any of them would put "below them".

3) Partly it's what the threat is (something a determined pair of commoners could deal with) and partly it's the significance. The scale. It's the difference between all the skeletons in the town graveyard climb out at once and storm the town and a trio of skellies or dire rats lurking around the cellar we're poking around in because hey there's nothing better for apprentices to do. The difference between the floor collapsing dumping the PC in the middle of a few rat swarms versus stumbling on three dire rats hanging out in the pantry.

I've never, ever seen this happen outside of video games, so maybe that's why it seems so foreign to me. The "go kill those three random skeletons and dire rats in the cellar" has never been something I've seen. However, even if it was, I know that the heroic characters at any level would help any way they could if they were dangerous. I'm assuming the party can fight dire rats or skeletons at low levels with the same intention that level 15 characters would: helping people. I think you're talking more about context than creatures, but I might be wrong (there's a big difference between dire rats randomly attacking from a pantry, and dire rats harassing town members by eating their food and diseasing them).

As always, play what you like

 

[FireLance]

I tend to prefer starting with the assumption that the PCs are a cut above normal commoners so that there is a reason why the NPCs approach the PCs for help. Basically, the PCs can attempt things that would be suicidal for normal men.

At low levels, this may mean that the PCs are fighting rats and skeletons. However, although the stakes are small (compared to saving the kingdom, or the world, or the multiverse), they are not nonexistent. The PCs might fight rats to rescue a boy that wandered into a rat warren, or skeletons to prevent a necromancer from creating more undead servants to swell the ranks of a local bandit gang. (These are actually the plots of solo adventures that I have written and which can be found on my ENWorld blog.)

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Same analogy, different sport: a guy playing single-A baseball was probably the best guy in his high school league and one of the top players on his college team, and he still may never make it to the majors.

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.

One of the most interesting characterizations I've ever seen in a roleplaying game was a paladin with insanely great, randomly rolled scores in a 3.0 D&D game.

The player decided that the paladin was recognized as extraordinarily gifted from a young age but was crushed by the weight of the expectations placed upon him by his parents, his priests, and his order - he was hesitant and unsure of himself despite his obvious advantages over everyone else in the party.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm just curious what people think, and what their preferences are.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?


Increasing character power, skill, and ability scores is one of the most important reward systems for playing D&D of any edition. Contrast that with a game like 'classic' Traveller, in which character scores may increase very slightly, if at all, over the course of a game - the reward system in Traveller is entirely based on the technology the characters may access, the reputation they may acquire in the game-universe, or even their ability to simply keep themselves out of jail and their ship out of repo.

One of my favorite features of Flashing Blades is that it manages to achieve both - characters may increase their abilities and skills, particularly their martial skills like fencing, while also pursuing careers in the game world in which success is measured by in-game, in-setting influence and status.

Personally I find gaming mostly or solely for character score power-ups to be very hollow and uninspiring. I like games in which my character's success is measured as much, or even more, by what he does in the game-world as what's on his character sheet.

 

[S'mon]

I think what I like best is a game where level 1 PCs can be either zeroes or heroes, dependent only on how things are skinned (demographics of NPC/monster stats), so for an heroic game the PCs start relatively stronger compared to the setting baseline, but the PC stats themselves are identical.

I find that 4e D&D is good for this; 1st level PCs can be relatively weak novice adventurers, or distinctly heroic, depending only on how the opposition and friendly NPCs are statted. Eg in an heroic-from-start game the average human or hobgoblin soldier could be a 3rd level minion (eg the hobgoblin grunt in MM), the 1st level PCs fight squads of guardsmen to rescue the princess from the evil baron. In a novice-at-start game the average human or hobgoblin soldier could be a 3rd level standard monster (eg the human guard or hobgoblin soldier in MM), the 1st level PCs fight goblin brigands to rescue the baker's daughter from their boss, a hobgoblin soldier.

IME 3e and earlier didn't work so well for this approach (NPC power determines PC status) because 1st level PCs were so fragile, no matter how weak the opponents, and because the power gradient was so steep.

BTW I find the quote in the OP that saving a village from skeletons is 'not heroic' and unworthy of starting PCs to be pretty weird! I didn't watch Jason & the Argonauts fighting living skeletons to gain the Golden Fleece and think "Newbie Fetch-Quest, how dull!" I didn't watch "The Magnificent Seven" and think "They're fighting to protect a mere village?! Pathetic!"

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think this "problem" has mainly occurred because of a longstanding idea that has a character's skill level influencing their power tier. D&D 4e showcases this idea explicitly (i.e. 1-10 Heroic, 11-20 Paragon, and 21-30 Epic), but the idea has existed in game since the beginning (Wizards having progressively more powerful 1st through 9th level spells and those spells being accessed by reaching higher levels).

In theory you could have a game that does not tie power tier to skill level allowing you to have level 1 gods (extreme amounts of power with little to no control over it) and level 20 commoners (little power, but can control what little power they do have effectively).

Using the baseball analogy already used in this thread, imagine two pitchers. One pitcher(the level 20 commoner) has played a long time and can easily control where the ball goes in the strike zone, but can't throw a ball over 50 mph. The other(the level 1 god) has just started out and can throw 120 mph fastballs, but throws outside the strike zone just as often as he throws inside it.

 

[The Shaman]

Using the baseball analogy already used in this thread, imagine two pitchers. One pitcher(the level 20 commoner) has played a long time and can easily control where the ball goes in the strike zone, but can't throw a ball over 50 mph. The other(the level 1 god) has just started out and can throw 120 mph fastballs, but throws outside the strike zone just as often as he throws inside it.

So Tim Wakefield versus Nuke Laloosh, basically.

 

[delericho]

I'm just curious what people think, and what their preferences are.

I like to think of the PCs as being the rock stars of the setting.

At low levels they have potention, but there's a million other kids just like them, they have to perform a lot of local gigs, and the pay generally sucks. Notably, they're largely responsible for finding their own work. Because they're not well known, the local lord won't hire them to go deal with the goblin menace; he'll send his guards to deal with the problem (or just live with it). But if the PCs took care of it for him, he wouldn't complain...

At medium levels, they're considerably better known. They have agents who find them work, people come to them to hire them for various purposes, and so on. This is the group on the verge of breaking the big time; they're local heroes, they're on the rise... but there's a ways to go yet.

And then at the highest levels, they're rock gods. Here, they call the shots, they take on the gigs that interest them, and they are above the petty concerns of lesser mortals. But... they're also driven by their massive egos and, frankly, they tend to cause themselves as much trouble as they solve.

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

Have multiple starting points. In 4e, this could be done by adding in the missing "sub-levels" as an option for players who want to play through that.

In 3e, it's already theoretically possible. However, the big problem with this approach in 3e is that higher-level characters are not merely more powerful, they also become rapidly more complex as they rise in level. Ideally, it should be possible to create (and play) characters at 5th level quickly and easily, thus allowing groups who want to do so to omit the low levels without losing too much.

(Ultimately, for new players, I think 4e's approach is probably better - start them off as being already pretty heroic to provide the most satisfactory first adventure possible. But, yes, I do sorely miss some aspects of the low level play that is present in earlier editions and not so much in 4e.)