One issue I have with D&D and many of its descendants is that the default method of character creation is designed to create young, inexperienced characters who get threatened by something like a giant rat or a bandit. Some people argue that you need to start low in order to have a proper "hero's journey" and start talking Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Campbell's "Monomyth" and stuff like that. The issue is, those are primarily solo stories. There is one Hero, and though they may have a cast of supporting characters they are primarily the story of that One Hero and their growth from "young person with a great destiny" into, well, a Great Hero who can defeat the Darkness or whatever.
But if anything defines RPGs, it is that it is a group activity. I mean, sure, you can play one-on-one or sometimes even alone, but it is primarily about a group of characters. And stories about groups generally start with them already experienced. Take any Star Trek crew, or the Serenity crew, the Guardians of the Galaxy, the All-New All-Different X-Men, team Leverage, the crew of the Rocinante, the A-Team, the IMF, and so on. They are already mature characters when we get to know them. In some cases they are newly recruited as a group, but they're still highly competent individuals. And that's because an ensemble show doesn't have room to give us detailed origin stories of every member of the ensemble. Save the background stuff for when it becomes relevant to the present.
And starting out as experienced characters gives more room for bringing in background elements. Someone who started the campaign as a 17-year old 1st level wizard's apprentice probably doesn't have much background to draw on that didn't happen during the game. But Amos Burton? Yeah, that guy's got a lot of past in his past, and it could pop up at any time.
In one way, I think this might have been relevant to the success of Critical Role. When we first met Vox Machina, they were already 9th level or so. They had established group dynamics, and had made allies and enemies already. That might have been a reason I had a hard time getting into their second and third campaigns – I just didn't find the origin stories interesting.
Of course, that doesn't mean one shouldn't have room to grow, both in an interpersonal way by building relationships and dynamics within the group and in a more direct way by becoming more powerful. To use Leverage as an example: Parker starts out as one of the best thieves in the world, and doesn't become appreciably better as a thief over the course of five seasons. But she does have a lot of personal growth, by establishing friendships with the rest of the crew and a romantic (such as it is) relationship with Hardison. She also becomes more adept at other aspects of pulling off heists, such as grifting and planning. So there's definitely room to grow even if you start off competent.
Anyhow, that's just a bit of rambling on my part, prodded on by my realization that the difference between Hero's Journey and Already Competent often has to do whether the story focuses on one person or a full cast.
Oh, and Lord of the Rings is a bit of a special case, in that it basically splits into two. While Frodo goes on his Hero's Journey (along with Sam), the rest of the Fellowship goes on to do Badass Things (albeit with a side quest for Merry and Pippin to get buffed by the ents). And that's basically an illustration of my thesis: it's the single hobbit and his friend (while some would argue that Sam is the Real Hero, narratively he's more supporting cast) who goes on the Hero's Journey, while the group goes on to do Badass Stuff. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are fundamentally the same characters after the books (Aragorn might be King, but that's just a matter or recognition, not of him leveling up or anything), but Frodo is fundamentally changed.
But if anything defines RPGs, it is that it is a group activity. I mean, sure, you can play one-on-one or sometimes even alone, but it is primarily about a group of characters. And stories about groups generally start with them already experienced. Take any Star Trek crew, or the Serenity crew, the Guardians of the Galaxy, the All-New All-Different X-Men, team Leverage, the crew of the Rocinante, the A-Team, the IMF, and so on. They are already mature characters when we get to know them. In some cases they are newly recruited as a group, but they're still highly competent individuals. And that's because an ensemble show doesn't have room to give us detailed origin stories of every member of the ensemble. Save the background stuff for when it becomes relevant to the present.
And starting out as experienced characters gives more room for bringing in background elements. Someone who started the campaign as a 17-year old 1st level wizard's apprentice probably doesn't have much background to draw on that didn't happen during the game. But Amos Burton? Yeah, that guy's got a lot of past in his past, and it could pop up at any time.
In one way, I think this might have been relevant to the success of Critical Role. When we first met Vox Machina, they were already 9th level or so. They had established group dynamics, and had made allies and enemies already. That might have been a reason I had a hard time getting into their second and third campaigns – I just didn't find the origin stories interesting.
Of course, that doesn't mean one shouldn't have room to grow, both in an interpersonal way by building relationships and dynamics within the group and in a more direct way by becoming more powerful. To use Leverage as an example: Parker starts out as one of the best thieves in the world, and doesn't become appreciably better as a thief over the course of five seasons. But she does have a lot of personal growth, by establishing friendships with the rest of the crew and a romantic (such as it is) relationship with Hardison. She also becomes more adept at other aspects of pulling off heists, such as grifting and planning. So there's definitely room to grow even if you start off competent.
Anyhow, that's just a bit of rambling on my part, prodded on by my realization that the difference between Hero's Journey and Already Competent often has to do whether the story focuses on one person or a full cast.
Oh, and Lord of the Rings is a bit of a special case, in that it basically splits into two. While Frodo goes on his Hero's Journey (along with Sam), the rest of the Fellowship goes on to do Badass Things (albeit with a side quest for Merry and Pippin to get buffed by the ents). And that's basically an illustration of my thesis: it's the single hobbit and his friend (while some would argue that Sam is the Real Hero, narratively he's more supporting cast) who goes on the Hero's Journey, while the group goes on to do Badass Stuff. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are fundamentally the same characters after the books (Aragorn might be King, but that's just a matter or recognition, not of him leveling up or anything), but Frodo is fundamentally changed.
