D&D 5E "When I Run D&D 5E, the Arc of the PCs' Adventures is 'Zero to Hero'." (a poll)

[jmartkdr2]

Can’t answer - it’s sometimes true but not always, so neither “true” nor “false” is correct.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's funny, when I think about characters at the start of my campaigns, they are "zeroes" not because they're weak or incapable, but because they have limited influence in the world. They haven't made important connections with NPCs, found valuable treasure, or learned world-altering magic. It's not that they're in danger of being killed easily (though that can be true too), it's that they're newcomers to the setting or story.

I guess I think of "hero" in the Greek Mythology sense... Heroes are those who can do MORE than others. As characters in my campaign progress, they can do more: influence politics, raise armies, start towns, take down tyrants, attain powerful magic items...

To me, the Zero to Hero journey is all about gaining the power to influence the setting.

 

[payn]

It's funny, when I think about characters at the start of my campaigns, they are "zeroes" not because they're weak or incapable, but because they have limited influence in the world. They haven't made important connections with NPCs, found valuable treasure, or learned world-altering magic. It's not that they're in danger of being killed easily (though that can be true too), it's that they're newcomers to the setting or story.

I guess I think of "hero" in the Greek Mythology sense... Heroes are those who can do MORE than others. As characters in my campaign progress, they can do more: influence politics, raise armies, start towns, take down tyrants, attain powerful magic items...

To me, the Zero to Hero journey is all about gaining the power to influence the setting.

It's true, there are two views on how hero is applied in D&D. One is based on power level, and the other is doing and achieving great things. I tend to view it as the latter, and often have to rely on context of use to get what other posters are meaning.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nope.

I have little to no interest in playing or running through the Zero part. That's why we never use level 1 and 2 anymore.

 

[TwoSix]

False for me. My last few groups I've DMed have started at 1st, 6th, 9th, and 12th respectively. I rarely run games where the ending level is more than 5 above the starting level.

 

[Deekin]

False. 5e runs from Hero to slightly better Hero if you aren't playing a caster, and Hero to Demigod if you are.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

True for me. I want to see the characters be shaped by their struggles into something greater than what they began as. One of my biggest mistakes of 4e was starting everyone at 8th level because that's what the DM I took over from had done.

I would further add that when running D&D, I mean "hero" in the modern heroic sense. I've little interest in DMing for murderhobos and/or people whose escapism is about being a bad person.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It depends on the campaign. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But since I more often do "zero to hero" than not, I guess I'll answer yes.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Wish it was true but 5E isn't like that. Big Heroes with Big Numbers to back them up. Much prefer the zero to hero path.

 

[tetrasodium]

I voted true because I do everything I can to push for that style but @overgeeked nailed it in post 2. 5e does a lot mechanically to make that style difficult & descriptively to paint it as badWrongFun that only mean nasty killerGMs do. All it takes is one player to point at a background declaring that it's why they as a level 1 nobody are really the hero of x or whatever to really munge the whole thing.