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

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, exactly this.

Also, mildly humorous that the poll switched so hard toward "true" over the time since I voted. I had been mildly surprised to be in the larger group. My surprise is now thoroughly gone. It's pretty clear that there's a strong old-school style preference on these boards, even if there isn't a strong old-school system preference per se (such preferences absolutely are represented, but the preference for the style vastly outstrips that for the systems specifically.)

This is a binary poll so it is really not going to get any nuances, but ultimately I read "true" as the "levels matter" answer, and whilst that is certainly true in old school, I don't think it is only an old school answer.

A lot of other games often don't have levels or similar power progression than D&D, so I think it is rather natural if to a lot of people that progression being a big deal is strongly associates with D&D, and thus being seen as one of its defining features.

 

[Oofta]

Pretty much. As far back as I can remember, a 1st-level PC has never been an untrained, callow youth. Every PC was assumed to have received some training in their class - a 1st-level fighter was even called a "Veteran", implying that they have been involved in several battles already. (As an aside, a 4th-level fighter was called a "Hero" so technically going from Zero to Hero means the campaign should end when the fighter reaches 4th level.)

Where I think WotC published adventures are lacking is that high-level adventures are still almost all about the same combat experience, just using more powerful PC abilities, in more exotic locations, and with more dangerous opponents. What I'd like to see more of is interesting challenges and consequences related to the PCs joining or setting up organizations, growing and administering them, and eventually leading them.

While I agree, I sympathize with anyone trying to write generic mods for high level PCs. Capabilities, group dynamics, class choices, goals and desires are significantly more difficult to plan for the higher you go. I run homebrew campaigns so it's not an issue for me, but I can't imagine trying to come up with campaigns for general consumption without knowing the target group.

 

[Oofta]

If people think that 5E PCs are overpowered at 1st level, I gotta wonder what they would have thought of 4E where they explicitly stated that they wanted PCs to already be heroic from the get go. In 5E, it's easy to get a TPK with 1st level PCs if you aren't careful.

I will agree that older edition wizards were ... well terrible. It was all about "when I become a powerful mage" but until then we called just our wizards "baggage". Other classes weren't that bad from what I recall (and depending on DM any PC could die at any moment no matter what the level), but it's been a long, long, long time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a binary poll so it is really not going to get any nuances, but ultimately I read "true" as the "levels matter" answer, and whilst that is certainly true in old school, I don't think it is only an old school answer.

A lot of other games often don't have levels or similar power progression than D&D, so I think it is rather natural if to a lot of people that progression being a big deal is strongly associates with D&D, and thus being seen as one of its defining features.

Interesting. Because I absolutely believe levels matter, and if that was the intent I would have voted "true" without question. I just really really really don't like what most people refer to as "zero to hero," because in my experience, the thing people are referring to when they use that phrase means, to me, being forced to sit through the levels that are simultaneously the most stressful and the least interesting: I could lose my ability to participate at any moment due to a single unlucky roll, and yet I have almost no tools to leverage against that environment (by design.) It makes me feel like a trapped animal, metaphorically anyway. Further, because many campaigns are not "long runners," starting at low level means finishing at a lower level most of the time, so I won't get to see the cool mechanics of high levels or fun combinations I would like to implement.

Hence, I almost always avoid "zero to hero." But I very much enjoy the process of going from a competent but green adventurer (meaning, too high to be "zero" but not yet much of a "hero") to being a legendary figure with a storied past (what I consider to be a "hero," which many others apparently consider to be a "superhero.") I enjoy levels as a metric of showing that you have grown and the fun of "numbers go up."

 

[DEFCON 1]

False. "Zero to Hero" is a narrative construct, not a mechanical one.

Thus it matters not what the mechanical level of the PCs are when we determine their background at the start of play. They can be a bunch of kids starting at Level 1, they can be a trained military unit starting at Level 1. The character level is purely for gameplay purposes.

And thus, every campaign of mine has the characters at whatever starting point in their backgrounds the campaign is set up for, which does not necessarily mean they are Zeros to begin with, and likewise does not necessarily mean they will be Heroes at the end.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suppose it depends what zero means. I think the accumulation of power is built into the very fabric of D&D play. But the starting point can be anywhere from just another random commoner to a seemingly ordinary person with a special destiny, to an already somewhat experienced adventurer, or if you start at higher levels than 1st, potentially even a seasoned veteran. So, I guess no?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think the poll is particularly informative as people's answers seem to mostly depend on how literally they interpret "zero."

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Same. My homebrew is way high magic, to the point that the next time my group returns to it, I'm thinking about including magitech smartphones.

Yeah, that is exactly what I want too. Good way to phrase it.

I actually like high magic settings. At the same time, I want the characters to develope organically in within the setting.

It can be done, sure, and many people do just that. For my part, my feeling is that characters evolve very differently when they get an advanced start. I'm not going to make someone start at 1st level when everyone else is 8th, but when I'm starting a new campaign, I always prefer to start at the beginning, at first level.

This can be done as Heroes though.

Most of Spiderman's major struggles in all forms of media come well after he becomes a well known NYC crimefighting hero.

I think a big issue is that many don't know how to tell stories of challenge with extreme weakness in the protagonist and people aren't always willing to allow vulnerabilities in their played heroes.

The powerhouse with weaknesses is a story not told enough or told in the same way too often.

 

[Yaarel]

Same. My homebrew is way high magic, to the point that the next time my group returns to it, I'm thinking about including magitech smartphones.

Call them "crystal balls" or "magic mirrors", and you are good to go.

Similar concepts include a goblet that one fills with water or wine, and then scries within the liquid surface.

Keep in mind, the viewer doesnt see tiny images of scrying inside the ball, mirror, or goblet. The surface that is partly transparent and partly reflective is a method of entering a meditative state of mind. The viewer actually experiences the scrying in a waking dream, a full-on first-person virtual reality.

 

[Quickleaf]

Can't answer either Y/N, because it greatly depends on the specific campaign.