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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5663952" data-attributes="member: 6668292">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: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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification