Level one...hero or schlub?

[JamesonCourage]

Do you mean that literally? Like a D&D character with no more than [14,13,11,11,11,11] for their stats?

My solution to this was simple: the average stats for NPCs is higher. I'm talking about an average total modifier of +8 to +10. The minimum for PCs in my game is +6, though the average is +10 to +11 (we roll stats, no point buy).

However, my game has slightly muted ability score. For example, stats only give a +1 on skills checks, attacks, or AC for every +2 modifier of the appropriate stat. So, if you want a +1 to melee attacks, you need a 14 Strength; if you wanted a +1 to Sense Motive, you'd need a 14 Wisdom, etc. However, things like Strength still add their modifier to damage.

Of course, certain things don't apply in my game, since it's classless (and otherwise still extremely heavily modified away from 3.5), like automatically gaining your Con modifier to hit die. That, and you don't necessarily gain any HP while leveling (only if you buy HP, which is cheaper for higher Con).

Of course, again, none of that matters to you guys, so enough on that. My point was simply that in a world as dangerous as D&D is portrayed as, I moved the average up (higher average stats, higher average hit die). My players start with about average stats (potentially higher or lower), and they start with below average hit die (1 versus 4's). However, most NPCs will not be focused on combat (though they will likely have some practice or training, as it's often passed down or mandated in my setting, depending on the culture), so focused PCs can often surpass them by the end of hit die 2. Additionally, I have the expectation that the players will probably eventually pass the average hit die in the world, where I know the average NPC hit die will remain the same.

So, PCs are mainly dealing with their potential in the beginning. Then, around hit die 2, if they're specialized in something, they will begin to catch up to NPCs. At 3, they're almost even to the average specialized NPC. At 4, they're about even to the average specialized NPC. At 5, they've finally surpassed them. What sets the PCs apart during this time is their actions. The PCs deal more with "threats" than most NPCs will. They have the option of saying "I am brave enough to do this" when many NPCs will not. They are often much more proactive than the NPCs.

It's the difference between Aragorn and Sam in the Lord of the Rings. Don't get me wrong, Strider is my favorite character, but there's something to be said for the unskilled bravery of someone like Sam. The fact that he continually put his life on the line, doing what he could to protect his friend, knowing that he wasn't on par with who he was against... that's about where I expect the players to start. I expect their cooperation, caution, and judgment to see them through the early levels. Then, they'll take that tempered mindset into later levels (5+), and they'll really start to shine, even if their hit die is not exceptionally higher than the NPCs they're surrounded by.

Anyways, I hope that cleared up why at least one other person likes "the PCs start out as average" for you. I also have an objection to an unskilled, basically worthless populace at large, but this is probably long enough.

As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even in 3e though, I don't recall the PCs killing a lot of equal or higher level NPCs.

IIRC, the NPC generation section of the 3e DMG was basically: "90% or so of people in existence are Level 1 Commoners. This is the baseline human being in the game. Some smaller proportion, in bigger cities or rougher areas, may have a handful of levels, and/or some specialization (Expert 2's or Warrior 3's or Aristocrats, or even a few PC-classed folk). There might be 3-4 Level 20 people in your entire game world at any one time, maybe."

This pretty much made 1st level PC's bang-out better than nearly everyone else in the world, but still kept them as schlubs in comparison to the most powerful folks in the world.

So you might have some mythic warrior of legend -- Hercules or Harry Potter In-The-Flesh -- somewhere off doing something for some reason in the world, and their exploits might be known, and you'd feel (justifiably) like clearing out the warren of goblins was no great shakes in comparison. Still, it was quite a sight better than any of the Level 1 Commoners in the town can do (or the Level 2 Aristocrat Mayor), so you're heroes to them, even if you're less of a hero (for now) than the famous paladin Arthur, who impeccably rules a nation.

4e's default of "Everyone is useless unless they're not" does an adequate job, I think, of capturing what that was like in play. I do wish there was some more explicit rules on what a normal person could be expected to do, though. There's no way to judge the context of what the heroes do at low levels. Kill a goblin, and are you saving a town from certain doom, or just saving the local guards a few minutes work? 4e's non-answer of "The DM decides!" just gives me more work to do.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I prefer the 1st lvl PC to be a well established nobody.....

IOW this is the veteran of the local militia, the proverbial big fish in a little pond that decides to leave the puddle for the lake up the way. The senior apprentice who is no longer needed to sweep floors and dust books, and has learned enough magic to not kill himself while he researches or studies new spells. The novice clergy who has outgrown the need to pray under the guidance of a senior and is no ready to face the world on spiritual warfare on their own. The rowdy street tough that has outgrown the back alley gangs and moved on to solo crime.

1st lvl to me is a transitional lvl, where the character is transitioning from schlub to hero (eventually). A little above average or out of the ordinary. The one voted most likely to succeed by their peers but hasn't quite gotten there yet. Under 1st and 2nd edition I used to have player's roll up 0-level characters and then make them earn 100xp before they could "pin on" 1st level status, you would be surprised how effective that was in making the players actually think about who their character really was.

 

[S'mon]

4e's default of "Everyone is useless unless they're not" does an adequate job, I think, of capturing what that was like in play. I do wish there was some more explicit rules on what a normal person could be expected to do, though. There's no way to judge the context of what the heroes do at low levels. Kill a goblin, and are you saving a town from certain doom, or just saving the local guards a few minutes work? 4e's non-answer of "The DM decides!" just gives me more work to do.

I'm generally ok with 'DM decides'; partly because 1e-3e demographics didn't make sense to me, the 0th levellers are so weak that the small number of high level NPCs dominate everything. And I'll want to set different demographics for different settings; the Wilderlands game I'll be running will have higher-powered demographics than my more low-powered homebrew world Ea; and both have a narrower power spread than my occasional Forgotten Realms campaign. Talking of FR, I noticed that it makes the Loudwater Militia pathetic Minion-1s so that 1st level PCs can be heroic; but I'll need to change that a bit just for plausibility's sake. OTOH the 4e Human Town Guard Soldier-3 would be overpowered for part-time militia, IMO they make good sergeants, or professional guards for a major city.

I typically use the following demographics by default, for humans:

Combatant Experience
Novice: minion 1-2
Trained: minion 3-4
Experienced: minion 5-6
Veteran: minion 7-8
Elite: minion 9-10, standard 1-2
Ultra-Elite: minion 11+, standard 3+

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Simply put, which do you prefer? Would you rather be a hero from the get-go, or be an incompotent ninny/everyman who later becomes a hero?


Why?

Depends on the campaign. Sometimes I'd rather do "zero to hero," and sometimes it's more appropriate to start out as a hero. Thus, I like a game system that supports both.

For D&D, I use the original approach:

• 0 level - You're a normal man. You might even be an average career mercenary with years of combat experience, but you're still 0-level.
• 1st - 3rd level - You're a veteran with the potential for true greatness.
• 4th level - You're a hero. You can stand against four normal men on equal terms. You can go one-on-one with an ogre and it's a fair fight. You have a degree of limited fame, especially locally.
• 8th level - You're a superhero, edging into John Carter or Conan territory. Your name is well-known across multiple lands.
• 9th level+ - You're a lord among men, possibly carving out a domain or even a throne with the strength of your sword-arm.

I don't have an upper cap on levels, but 9th or 10th is the beginning of "high level," and levels above 14 or so are extremely rare.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, but to me, that rational does not explain the minions being more than about 4th level. You don't get to 10th level in the lifetime of a mortal by training at arms and riding around occassionally killing commonners that resist tax collection.

If a field adventurer can go from 1-10 (any edition) in less than 2 game-world years, a mercenary can certainly do it in 10 years, or 15...particularly if there's lots of little wars and battles to get involved in and paid to fight in. Similar rationales can easily be made for non-adventuring members of other classes to gain levels as they go through life.

Which again begs the question what is the genesis of 10th level characters in your campaign world. If these are 10th level mercs, then they've had adventures every bit as impressive and world shaping as those that the PC's had reaching 10th level. Maybe it was stretched out over a slightly longer period of time, but these would certainly not be nameless mooks.

Within military circles they might be known as the Gray Company or whatever, beyond that they might be completely anonymous. And they might not know a dungeon adventure if it walked up and hit them, but they sure know their way around a battlefield and they're very good at winning the fights they get in.

These would be individuals whose blades had each slaughtered the forces of good in the hundreds. They would be names uttered only in scared whispers. Prayers would be made for deliverance from each of them in temples across wide swaths of the campaign world, and these individuals would rightly think that thier larger than life lives earned them more than being ordinary if well paid guards. They'd want dominion and authority that corresponded to their outsized, supersized, superheroic abilitiy. They'd want palaces and haram girls and all the stuff and benefits that would go with their extraordinary pay.

Perhaps, depending on their situation and what the BBEG was promising them and-or what kind of hold he had over them.

And this also raises the issue of just how many high level characters a campaign world can support, given that as far as I am able to tell, the only really efficient way to gain experience is to engage things in mortal combat.

This one's edition-dependent; in 1e all you had to do was find treasure to earn x.p. - you could in theory get to decent level and never kill a thing.

Each high level character represents the death of hundreds of foes. A small army of high level characters represents the denuding of the countryside of life. If you did a computer simulation where you filled the world with 1st level characters and set them to fight each other, it would become quite clear quickly that either the population has to crash or few can reach high level.

A series of assumptions are made here that don't necessarily hold up, let's strip 'em down:

- that all battles are to the death. Remember, x.p. are earned for defeating foes, whether said defeat is by surrender, subdual, changing sides, or whatever - it all counts. Thus, it's entirely possible to fight the same foe more than once over time.
- that the only foes are other people. There's lots of monsters out there that are just as good as humans (if not better) at reproducing; and if this world runs out there's always other worlds and planes with things that need killin'.
- that the only way to earn x.p. is by combat. While in some editions by RAW this is true, it's not a big jump to give x.p. for research, invention, and other successful pursuit of activities related to one's class that don't involve combat. And while advancement in this way is slower, those x.p. still mount up over 20 years...and if those people also sometimes hit the field for an adventure or two (whether by their own choice or not) they're set.

This raises the issue of just how effective training can be. If the PC's decide to take two years off for training, work and study, how many levels can they gain if any? The answer better be close to zero if the idea of having adventures is to make sense at all.

Adventuring is the fast track to high level, but not the only track. I see adventuring PCs as using almost a different system than stay-at-home researchers; both gain x.p. and levels but the adventurers do it much faster and with much more risk involved.

Well, see the above argument against the existance of large numbers of people with the same sort of career as the PC's. I mean, how many people can save the town from a once in a decade tragedy each year? How much undiscovered treasure is there out there if we must assume that people discover as much as the PC's do several times as year? How many dungeons permeate the environment? Are there really 20 or 30 times as many dungeons on your map as get explored by the PC's?

No. There are more than that.

Where do they all come from?

They come from about a quarter-million years of civilizations rising and falling and rising again; from monsters gathering hoards then dying alone; from artificers messing with magic and creating works of art that end up forgotten in a mathom house; from previous adventurers' strongholds now abandoned; from Necromancers achieving their career goal of Lich-hood; and from a thousand other sources not mentioned...

And that's just on this one world.

Finally, I've gotten characters up to high level and 'retired' them to be lords and leaders of the campaign world. However, I've played the 'retired adventurer who is now a lord' game as well, and it doesn't work like you describe. When your serfs are endangered, you go get the armor out of the closet and you go kill some orcs. Sure, you probably take along some henchmen and mercs so that they get some experience from watching you do most of the work, but you NEVER EVER spend good gold to hire a bunch of 1st level characters whom you don't even know to solve a problem you could more easily solve yourself without breaking a sweat. Sometimes you have to send the henchmen and retainers out alone if you are very busy with something and you are confident through scrying or whatever that the challenges are within their abilities, but adventurers don't end up existing as part of your economy.

Why the heck not? If I'm supposed to be running the show, why not hire my own gang of bashers to keep the place in one piece? If they occasionally find a dungeon it means I don't have to pay 'em, they can keep what they loot.

Benefits all round.

In otherwords, the world filled with retired adventurers doesn't look like the stock D&D world, unless you assume that the good guys are absolutely as stupid and lazy as the archvillains of action movies. And when you see a world filled with retired high level adventurers (FR I'm looking squarely at you) that claims to work just like stock D&D, then you know its a silly gamist world where the demographics just work by DM fiat in order to create the gamist world where the PC's are forever some NPC's errand boys that the creator enjoyed.

I don't agree with the "silly gamist world" conclusion you draw here. Stock D+D does assume there are high-level characters in the world that are not PCs, and in many ways it makes sense that there are. Also, when you ain't got the fire in your belly any more you retire and let others do it - that doesn't necessarily make you stupid or lazy, it may only show you've moved on from (to use a sports analogy) playing to coaching.

Lan-"every time I try to retire I end up back in the field anyway"-efan

 

[Gentlegamer]

'It's not your level, but what you do, that makes you a hero.'

-paraphrased from Batman, Batman Begins

 

[Gentlegamer]

I wouldn't give him Jedi levels until after he says to Anakin, "Father... I won't leave you!"

I'd go earlier, when he refuses Darth Vader's offer, overcomes his fear, and simply falls to his unknown fate in Cloud City.

 

[The Shaman]

Simply put, which do you prefer? Would you rather be a hero from the get-go, or be an incompotent ninny/everyman who later becomes a hero?

Neither.

I like games in which the adventuers begin as competent. They're not schlubs, but heroic is beyond their reach - for now.

 

[Kzach]

I'd go earlier, when he refuses Darth Vader's offer, overcomes his fear, and simply falls to his unknown fate in Cloud City.

Then you'd be going against what Yoda says when Luke returns to Dagobah. Are you really saying you're a better teacher than Yoda?