The Chump to God model

[Dragonhelm]

Since Dragonlance is a direct port of D&D to novel form, I don't think you can really cite it as an example of the fantasy tradition in which D&D follows. Also, the only Hero of the Lance who actually goes from "chump to god" (literally!) is Raistlin. The rest are very much on the "dude to badass" progression.

Of course, part of that is the nature of casters versus non-casters in AD&D... but even so, according to the old Dragonlance sourcebooks, most of the Heroes are statted out at 3rd level at the start of the War of the Lance adventure arc, and ~12th level in the Dragonlance campaign sourcebook (which is set after the war). That's what I would call "dude to badass." Raistlin starts at 3rd level with the rest but is 25th level in the campaign sourcebook.

"Chump to god" vs. "dude to bad-ass" is really a matter of semantics. I think what we're really asking is whether a person begins with some experience or none prior to adventuring. The funny part is, you can represent both scenarios with the exact same stats and differentiate it all through story.

Yes, you're right, all the Heroes of the Lance had some levels prior to starting their main adventure in the Chronicles trilogy. In 3rd edition, we statted them up around 6th level (including Raistlin, since he served as a mercenary along with Caramon for a time).

Yet all of them came from pretty mundane origins. Tanis and Flint were in business together. Caramon, Raistlin, and Sturm grew up in Solace. And so on and so forth.

This theme of mundane origins is one that is part of the Dragonlance setting, as stated in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting sourcebook for 3rd edition. It is a theme that can apply to just about any D&D setting.

You might say that your hero is already experienced, but truthfully, I think you would gain more joy by developing his story from that of common origins to adventurer supreme.

YMMV, of course.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Exactly. So in theory, chump to god model, despite being extremely well documented, could be new to your experience.

Alternatively, it could have inundated my experience with fantasy literature, thus leading to my "it is getting rather stale" comment.

Which it did.

 

[Sadrik]

It appears that dude to badass is the clear majority here.

Is advancement integral to your enjoyment of playing an RPG? If it is how so? If you never advanced would it be fun?

 

[Barastrondo]

It appears that dude to badass is the clear majority here.

Is advancement integral to your enjoyment of playing an RPG? If it is how so? If you never advanced would it be fun?

There's advancement, and then there's advancement. Consider a game like HERO, where your overall offensive prowess might see a gradual uptick, such as in a game where there are caps on damage, defenses and the like — but where you branch out and pick up more tricks, more skills, better-rounded attributes, and so on. Characters grow by branching out, not by climbing a ladder.

Social and personal advancement also might not have anything to do with mechanics. The "peasant marries the king's daughter" fairy tale might not have a thing to do with experience points; it's just a dramatic amount of social advancement. Similarly, there's the character who gradually heals a broken heart, or the character who finds renewed purpose when he adopts a child, or the character who comes to realize he hates his family and always has.

Dude to badass might not be a dramatic uptick in power. However, that's not really a measurement of how much a character may have advanced in that time. Robin Hood's story isn't about how he goes from barely able to hold a bow to best shot in England — he's an excellent shot from the first. His first dramatic advancement instead comes he challenges a big guy to a stick-fight over a stream. And loses.

 

[Umbran]

Is advancement integral to your enjoyment of playing an RPG? If it is how so? If you never advanced would it be fun?

If you are going to be playing the same character every weekend or two for a year or two, you probably don't want that character to be static, mechanically speaking. It doesn't take that many fights to fully explore most of the tactical possibilities of a given character. Having those possibilities change slightly as time goes on keeps the "game" part of the game fresh.

Not all RPG play is over those long timescales. If I'm playing a one-shot (like at an EN World Gameday), or in a short string of a half-dozen sessions, I can and will have a grand old time with very little mechanical change. Over the course of a hundred sessions or more, though, that's less likely to be true.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Alternatively, it could have inundated my experience with fantasy literature, thus leading to my "it is getting rather stale" comment.

Which it did.

Awesome! Perhaps you could say it again and someone like Gnomeworks can repeat how it may not be new to him?

 

[Desdichado]

Wheel of Time? Chump to God.

Magician? Chump to God.

The various Eddings series? Chump to God.

It's a tried and true classic.

Conan? Bad-ass to ... more experienced bad-ass.

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser? Bad ass to slightly badder bad-asses.

Cugel the "Clever"? Chump to... still chump.

Tarzan? Bad-ass to bad-ass.

John Carter? Bad-ass to bad-ass.

There's plenty of other models that are also tried and true classics.

The poll question has got to be one of the most poorly worded ones out there, and it assumes a priori that one of those two models (which are really variations of the same model anyway) are the only ones out there.

 

[Desdichado]

If the essence of something "is whatever the group makes of it" then it doesn't exist. Growth from weakling to power is a conceit of the ruleset and can only be tamed through draconian change. You can play jacks with D&D if you adjust the ruleset enough.

That's a way overstated case. If I say, "roll up first level characters; we'll play a few sessions, maybe level up once or twice and be done" is that a "draconian change?" Of course not. It's just chump to... dude. Or chump to slightly less chumpy chump, and it requires literally no changes to any rules whatsoever.

Similarly, have you never started a campaign a fairly high level? I was under the impression that that was extremely common. Also: not a draconian rules change. In fact, not even a rules change at all.

 

[Desdichado]

Is advancement integral to your enjoyment of playing an RPG? If it is how so? If you never advanced would it be fun?

Not at all. In fact, in some ways its been frustrating to me as a player. You barely get used to new powers, feats, or whatever, and suddenly you've got more again.

I'd say rather that evolution is integral to my enjoyment of playing a long-term campaign, but evolution is a significantly different beast than advancement.

 

[Nagol]

That's a way overstated case. If I say, "roll up first level characters; we'll play a few sessions, maybe level up once or twice and be done" is that a "draconian change?" Of course not. It's just chump to... dude. Or chump to slightly less chumpy chump, and it requires literally no changes to any rules whatsoever.

Similarly, have you never started a campaign a fairly high level? I was under the impression that that was extremely common. Also: not a draconian rules change. In fact, not even a rules change at all.

I classify anything that substantially alters the expectation of the players at the table a draconian change; your tastes may vary.

If you level cap at 6th or 8th level, you're tossing out about 80% of potential character capabilities and 100% of the abilities that change play at higher levels (that's the point no?). That is a substantial change to play both in terms of what players can hope for / work towards and for the expected opposition the characters will face. The players know that and adjust play expectations appropriately.

Starting play at nth level where n is sufficiently different from 1 also fundamentally alters the play experience and expectation of the table -- at least compared to the equivalent start. That's one reason a lot of advice is given to play at least your first character from low levels so you know the baseline.

BTW, I never said I didn't implement draconian changes to game systems on occasion. I merely prefer to find a system that does not require substantial changes to achieve the play experience I'm looking for at the time.