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

[Thomas Shey]

It is if you assume that for example a cook or a blacksmith can only improve at their craft by killing monsters and taking their stuff. But no edition actually assumed that (even if perhaps some people got the idea that they did).

I wouldn't have assumed that either, but the poster I was responding to seemed to.

As for XP, 1e AD&D explicitly reduced the XP reward if the risk was minor. The example I remember is that if you're 10th level and still fighting kobolds, you should probably gain like 1/10th the XP that you gained fighting them at lower levels because the risk was minor.

Yeah, but it kicked in a lot earlier than that. Truth was if you had a 4th level OD&D fighter up against a goblin, his risk was really pretty minimal, and the first time he connected the goblin was probably gone. He wouldn't get a lot of experience for that--but he'd get it.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, but it kicked in a lot earlier than that. Truth was if you had a 4th level OD&D fighter up against a goblin, his risk was really pretty minimal, and the first time he connected the goblin was probably gone. He wouldn't get a lot of experience for that--but he'd get it.

Like so many of the rules and guidelines of 1e AD&D many tables just ignored the comments on pages 84-85, but my point is that 1e AD&D was actually assuming that PC's would mostly face level appropriate encounters and that if they sought out encounters that weren't level appropriate, they should get a lesser award. For example, there are also comments to the effect that if you do face goblins at higher level, that the numbers should be increased to make the challenge more appropriate. And yeah, goblins are even without adjusting the XP no way to level up at higher levels either in terms of the XP they offer or the treasure they could be expected to have, given that XP requirements in early editions of D&D increased exponentially.

But the idea of encounter level and challenge rating we see show up in 3e are just codifications and clarifications of ideas that were already present in prior editions. Which is one of the many reasons for me, 3e just felt like a continuation of the game I was already playing just with modernized and cleaned up rules, and my house rules initially largely consisted of translating parts of my 1e game that weren't translated into 3e by the design team. Granted, if you came into 3e without 1e experience, you ended up playing a very different game than what I ended up playing, especially after the abomination that was 3.5e.

 

[rmcoen]

I want to see "meaningful" Growth. I'm less interested in Diablo IV now, for example - the story is complete, and my "growth" isn't new skills, it's 5% more damage, or 1.3% faster casting. And I always face foes my level (or higher, in nightmare dungeons), so 5% more damage is matched by the monsters having 5% more health. No growth.

I am fine with the aforementioned supers games or GURPS concepts -- a 250pt super, for example -- but that still has opportunities for growth. Maybe, like Leverage, I'm not going to become really any better at my core thing. But I can pick up new things, and get better at those. Like Prometheus, my Human Torch clone, isn't going to noticeably improve his 15d6 killing armor piercing Plasma Burst with 3XP earned from an adventure; he can, however, start to learn some martial arts moves (okay, just one) for while he's a "normal human" after that blast! Or pickup Investigation as a new skill, because all problems can't be melted.

In D&D (or anything with levels), the issue is "in comparison". In 5e, a guard has 2 HD. A soldier has 3 HD. So how do I compare, being a 1st level fighter? I have 1 HD, but it's a better one; I have Second Wind and a Fighting Style. So am I "competent" compared to the guard? the soldier? or better? you can draw some comparison. But then at 2nd level, you face a Bandit Captain (CR 2); he has 10 HD! Now you look back at the town guard and go "who gave this kid a badge?" The stats are all over the place, making it hard to draw any kind of comparison.

In my current campaign, I decided to go with "start at 1st level, late teens or early 20s", plus "common NPCs in the world are level 2 and level 3, with some experienced or talented level 4s; very rare level 5s, and you probably know all their names". The PCs were "well-trained", with room to grow. Then I capped PC advancement at 5th level like the rest of the world, even if they got there fast [with a story-based reason that (when triggered) allowed "legendary" advancement to level 8]. The party is level 8 currently. Now they earn additional feats every so often. And sometimes they face goblins and giant wasps, sometimes ogres, and sometimes dragons. They can still "grow" through feat acquisition, language training, and (homebrew) skill specialization (i.e. +3 with Religion, but +5 with Undead Lore), but the world still kinda makes sense. (And that Bandit Captain in my world isn't a 10HD mess, he's a 3rd level Fighter with several defensive tricks up his sleeve ...)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm beginning to realize that when people complain about D&D in this thread they are mostly complaining about 5e and not D&D as a whole.

In my particular case I'm probably complaining about the entirety of the run of the system. But as I've noted before, zero-to-hero is the least of my issues with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but the question is, is that that way for any reason other than 50 years of habit?

There are plenty of other games that start LCs at a higher level of competency. The current Star Trek Adventures game, for example. And you can always start your PCs at a higher level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's one of my big problems with D&D. That's the whole point of this thread. I don't want to play someone fresh out of the Academy. Been there, done that. I want to play someone who knows what they're doing, and I'm not interested in spending months or years of game time before getting to the good part.

And more notably, it becomes a more interesting mix if there are several characters who all are competent in their own ways and come from different backgrounds. Amos Burton, Naomi Nagata, James Holden, and Alex Kamal might all be working for Pur'n'kleen right now when they're picking up a distress call, but they are all highly competent in their fields and come from very different backgrounds. I mean, I guess it's possible to run multiple campaigns starting as nobodies and, once competent, funnel one character from each into the real campaign, but that sounds like a whole lot of unnecessary effort.

May I ask what is stopping you?

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are plenty of other games that start LCs at a higher level of competency. The current Star Trek Adventures game, for example. And you can always start your PCs at a higher level.

Of course there are others. That doesn't answer my question, however.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, but the question is, is that that way for any reason other than 50 years of habit?

Of course there are others. That doesn't answer my question, however.

Because it is easy to start characters at higher level/with experience than it is to try and kludge together "0 level" rules. It is more inclusive to people's preferences if the option is already there, as opposed to forcing people to somehow find or create the option.

What level based games should do is be explicit that character creation can happen at any level and describe what that means. "Creatinga 1st level character is like creating a college graduate heading out on their first job search; they are trained and competent, but lack real world experience. Creating a 5th level character is like creating a seasoned professional who still has plenty of room to grow." Or something like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it is easy to start characters at higher level/with experience than it is to try and kludge together "0 level" rules. It is more inclusive to people's preferences if the option is already there, as opposed to forcing people to somehow find or create the option.

What level based games should do is be explicit that character creation can happen at any level and describe what that means. "Creatinga 1st level character is like creating a college graduate heading out on their first job search; they are trained and competent, but lack real world experience. Creating a 5th level character is like creating a seasoned professional who still has plenty of room to grow." Or something like that.

Depends on what the specific game thinks a 1st level character is, but yeah.

 

[Reynard]

Depends on what the specific game thinks a 1st level character is, but yeah.

Sure, but the point is set explicit benchmarks and encourage people to use them. Point based RPGs have been doing it for 40 years. I am not sure why D&D has failed to explain it.