Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Staffan]

I really don't understand this sentiment. At what point does it become "the good part"? How do you know you've reached the good part?

When I am as good at thieving as Parker or as good at hacking as Hardison, or as good a leader as Picard. When I can confidently do things that make non-experts go "how the eff did he do that?"

What's really baffling to me about this claim is that Amos Burton or James Holden is each equivalent to like a 100 point GURPS character, starting Traveller character, or 1st to 3rd level D&D character. He's certainly not at the start of the story more than about 3rd level. In fact, in setting there might not be anyone who is equivalent to more than about 6th level in D&D terms. And this is probably verifiable by the author, because Expanse began life as a homebrew GURPS Transhuman Space game before it was a novel and so somewhere back there James Holden probably was a PC before he was a character in a novel. They are each about 25-30, have had a few hard life experiences, but are in no way at the start of the story high level characters in the setting. Rather, they are obvious RPG protagonists, because despite clearly being low level characters the high level NPCs are like - "Yes, we want to give you a job to save the human race." They are obviously Ta'veren, and the smarter NPCs can tell.

Amos Burton is both a frickin' combat monster (within the confines of a resonably realistic setting) and a really, really good mechanic, and managed to hack the job lottery in order to get a job in space, not to mention whatever skills he acquired as an abused child and a young criminal. Naomi Nagata is a genius hacker who had managed to write a virus that could make Epstein drives blow themselves up once they hit a certain threshold. Holden and Kamal don't have pasts quite that storied but are still really strong at the start of the story.

 

[Reynard]

Amos Burton is both a frickin' combat monster (within the confines of a resonably realistic setting) and a really, really good mechanic, and managed to hack the job lottery in order to get a job in space, not to mention whatever skills he acquired as an abused child and a young criminal. Naomi Nagata is a genius hacker who had managed to write a virus that could make Epstein drives blow themselves up once they hit a certain threshold. Holden and Kamal don't have pasts quite that storied but are still really strong at the start of the story.

In RPG-speak, I think Amos and Naomi's players had strong ideas of what they wanted to play and spent all their build points at chargen, while both Holden and Kamal's players were a little less sure and held back some build points until things got going. Holden's player decided to keep dumping points into luck and charisma, while Kamal's player was like "yup, let's add a few more points to pilot right about now."

I kid, of course, but I actually believe this is a totally valid way to make characters for an RPG. Obviously it works better in point based games, but it works well when the player isn't set on a particular build. It also feels a little like television ensembles where we have the broad description of the characters and their capabilities, but then new skills and background elements pop up at need. There are, of course, players I would be less inclined to do this with since they might spot-build, but player problems aren't necessarily system problems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Don't you think that in 40 years of gaming I've done it both ways? I've started characters at 7th level and 10th level and even 18th level. And I've played in CoC, D6, Gamma World, GURPS, Aliens, Chill, Boot Hill, Paranoia, RIFTS, etc. etc. and I'm familiar with many more rule sets. I think I've gone out of my way to repeatedly say that if you want to start out as high-level characters where high-level means "relative to setting" that that's a perfectly valid way to play.

But I'm getting really tired of the assumption that if people don't agree with you and have different subjective preferences that they are doing so out of ignorance.

I'm not suggesting you don't know what you like, and if it came across that way I apologize.

But the question is, are you the majority and I'm the outlier, or vice versa? I'm just saying we really have no way to tell because D&D has created so many expectations for so many people for so long.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

Might I suggest you play something other than D&D? There are plenty of RPGs that characters start as more competent characters and don't develop as significantly. There certainly isn't a need to change D&D from what has been a successful formula for it for decades, it seems a daft problem to have with D&D, you might as well have a problem with D&D because of it uses polyhedral dice, uses level based progression or it having dwarves and elves.

I totally agree with you, on the argument, but D&D is it's own particular thing and it does that well, to make sure a change would so fundamentally change D&D so as not to be D&D, and there are already plenty of RPGs that do what you want but better than D&D.

 

[Reynard]

Might I suggest you play something other than D&D? There are plenty of RPGs that characters start as more competent characters and don't develop as significantly. There certainly isn't a need to change D&D from what has been a successful formula for it for decades, it seems a daft problem to have with D&D, you might as well have a problem with D&D because of it uses polyhedral dice, uses level based progression or it having dwarves and elves.

Or just start at 3rd level. The fragile newb period in 5E is amazingly short.

 

[TwoSix]

Or just start at 3rd level. The fragile newb period in 5E is amazingly short.

Or even higher. Tier 2 into early Tier 3 is really the sweet spot for 5e.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not suggesting you don't know what you like, and if it came across that way I apologize.

But the question is, are you the majority and I'm the outlier, or vice versa? I'm just saying we really have no way to tell because D&D has created so many expectations for so many people for so long.

I don't really think this has anything (much) to do with system, much less D&D. I think this is an issue of aesthetics of play and that fundamentally it has to do with campaign design and GM aesthetics of story and color of action. There is nothing in D&D inherently getting in the way the aesthetic and there is nothing that creates the aesthetic just by having bigger numbers. The only thing that system really has to do with this is that at a fundamental level, how often does the fortune mechanic expect failure. For some games like FATE failure might be expected like 60% of the time as the normal state that the PC is in, but in D&D the things you are good at failure is only expected like 25% of the time and even 1st and 2nd level characters are pretty competent and can rely on their skills.

Since this is really about the "Fantasy" aesthetic though, this has to do with how actions are colored, how the player perceives his own character's worth, and what the character is capable of relative to what NPCs are capable of. And that I think is a big disconnect, because when you or others describe what they want, I don't see high level characters at all. I just see success with the color of triumph. I'm just seeing characters getting shining moments of awesome that have little to do with notions of high level as I understand it, and which instead have everything to do (in RPG terms) with just GM's protagonizing characters in play and validating success.

Now for me, as far as my expectations go, it has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with concepts like villain decay. I don't have that validation you are seeking from shining moments of awesome unless they come with moments of adversity that prove being awesome was actually awesome. This is true regardless of what media I'm consuming whether it's a novel, a TV show, or an RPG. I dropped Jim Butcher's Dresden files books like a hot potato after like three books because Harry was never really threatened by anything and didn't earn any of his victories because he was so freaking awesome and had so much plot protection that it was dull. I'd loved the series more of Harry was low level and actually had to be clever than if it turned out that right from the start he was like one of the highest level characters in the universe. It did absolutely nothing for me. But that's subjective. A lot of people loved that series. I considered Harry one of the worst written characters I'd ever encountered in fiction.

It's got nothing to do with D&D

 

[Staffan]

What's really baffling to me about this claim is that Amos Burton or James Holden is each equivalent to like a 100 point GURPS character,

(Also, a 100-point character in GURPS is absolutely incompetent at everything except possibly a very narrow skill set because of a ridiculous number of skills that each cost a ridiculous amount of points to get.)

 

[Staffan]

Might I suggest you play something other than D&D?

I am playing other games than D&D, though the current campaigns aren't really scratching my itch for competence either.

Or just start at 3rd level. The fragile newb period in 5E is amazingly short.

It's not the fragility I have a problem with (well, not much). It's the incompetence. 50% chance of success is a horribly low chance for anything you're doing at more than a hobby level. I want success chances of at least 2/3 on things I'm supposed to be OK at, and 90% or above on things I'm supposed to be good at.

I don't really think this has anything (much) to do with system, much less D&D. I think this is an issue of aesthetics of play and that fundamentally it has to do with campaign design and GM aesthetics of story and color of action. There is nothing in D&D inherently getting in the way the aesthetic and there is nothing that creates the aesthetic just by having bigger numbers. The only thing that system really has to do with this is that at a fundamental level, how often does the fortune mechanic expect failure. For some games like FATE failure might be expected like 60% of the time as the normal state that the PC is in, but in D&D the things you are good at failure is only expected like 25% of the time and even 1st and 2nd level characters are pretty competent and can rely on their skills.

A "medium" DC in 5e is 15. A 1st level character built using the standard array and using their best stat and a skill in which they're proficient will have a +5 bonus, which means they need a 10+ to succeed. That's not "pretty competent". That's really bad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't really think this has anything (much) to do with system, much less D&D.

....

It's got nothing to do with D&D

And I'm unconvinced that's necessarily the case for many people. But there's probably no point in continuing this discussion; I disagreed with about 90% of your post, and it'd just turn into a massive back and forth.