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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with your general thesis that a D&D style party generally works better with characters who are "experienced" than with a bunch of farm kids on their first journey outside the village.

The complication, of course, is that the core mechanical conceits of D&D are based around starting with very few abilities and quickly rising to have a lot of abilities.

I have noticed, though, that my games that have been most successful story-wise have been those where the characters started at higher levels (anywhere between 5th-10th) and only gained a few levels throughout the campaign.

In Heroes of Myth & Legend 'level' is less associated with experience and is more representative of connection with fate and how their destiny is impacting the world. XP and such is not really a thing, though characters do advance.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, first I reject the thesis that the group dynamic necessarily works better with experienced characters, or that experienced characters is the rule. From the Goonies, to Harry Potter, to the Loser's Club, to the X-Men, to the Breakfast Club, there are tons and tons of stories of groups of adventurers learning to be heroes together. It's basically a genre unto itself. And I agree that starting with experienced characters gives them less scope for power growth - leveling up is probably the key innovation of D&D. And you can always start at higher levels.

I just don't agree that "PCs should be competent," per the title of the thread (emphasis added). That's one type of story, but I don't see what makes it more valid than any other, and I don't see that it makes the games more fun, unless it's what you prefer. In which case, bless. I love starting with a weak, clueless character and seeing what becomes of them!

 

[Wolfpack48]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks. How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated? When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

 

[uzirath]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks. How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated? When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

I'm all for negative outcomes. More dramatic tension. More need for teamwork. Etc. Good stuff.

 

[DammitVictor]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks. How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated? When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

I think D&D calls for too many checks. A person can jump a certain distance on a 10, but it's highly unrealistic and highly unsatisfactory for someone to ever roll a 9 or 11. (For example.) As a multiply-disabled, uneducated and untrained noncombatant, I expect that characters meant to represent action heroes should be able to do more in terms of normal human athleticism and "common sense" lore knowledge than I can.

It's not a matter of how often they succeed or fail at extraordinary tasks. It's a matter of ordinary tasks that are too difficult or even unattemptable to the majority of characters.

 

[Staffan]

I’d be interested in knowing from those who want competent characters how you view (in general) negative outcomes in combat or skill checks. How do you react if your character is injured or incapacitated? When they don’t succeed in climbing the cliff?

Characters should rarely fail at tasks at which they are supposed to be competent. Parker does not fail to open locks. Han Solo does not crash into things he does not mean to crash into. MacGyver does not fail to gimmick stuff up. Aragorn does not lose a track, and can use tracks to reliably figure out what has happened in a battle that took place days ago.

If they're operating outside their primary area of competence, failure is fine. Parker's not so good at grifting. Han Solo is an OK mechanic at best. MacGyver is a fair driver but I wouldn't rely on him in that capacity. And Aragorn... well OK, Aragorn is just all around badass.

 

[Staffan]

Well, first I reject the thesis that the group dynamic necessarily works better with experienced characters, or that experienced characters is the rule. From the Goonies, to Harry Potter, to the Loser's Club, to the X-Men, to the Breakfast Club, there are tons and tons of stories of groups of adventurers learning to be heroes together.

The Goonies are kids. So is Harry Potter, and Harry Potter is very much a "main character + supporting cast" story which lends themselves better to zero-to-hero. Loser's Club is horror, which is different. The X-Men team that actually took off was the one with several experienced characters on it. And I'm not sure where the Breakfast Club comes in, as that movie takes place over a single day and doesn't really have any adventuring-type challenges for the characters – or are you talking about some other Breakfast Club than the John Hughes movie?

 

[S'mon]

Starting the campaign as a newb and starting as experienced both work fine IME. They each give a different feel. I start my Arden Vul campaign with experienced PCs at 3rd level, but I recently started a retro "5e Basic" campaign with PCs starting as 1st level novices; both are fun, both work.

Some genres suit starting at higher level, eg Swords & Sorcery tends to work best with highly competent protagonists who advance slowly. I've run Primeval Thule in D6 system and Xoth in Dragonbane, both worked better for the settings than starting with 1st level D&D PCs (I ran Thule in 5e too, it worked far better at levels 3-8 than before or after). But a game about novice adventurers on their first dungeon delve should start at 1st level - unless you want plot protection, which is probably better done with Fate Points than with more levels.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Characters should rarely fail at tasks at which they are supposed to be competent. Parker does not fail to open locks. Han Solo does not crash into things he does not mean to crash into. MacGyver does not fail to gimmick stuff up. Aragorn does not lose a track, and can use tracks to reliably figure out what has happened in a battle that took place days ago.

If they're operating outside their primary area of competence, failure is fine. Parker's not so good at grifting. Han Solo is an OK mechanic at best. MacGyver is a fair driver but I wouldn't rely on him in that capacity. And Aragorn... well OK, Aragorn is just all around badass.

expertise and reliable talent mechanics should be far more present in the game, especially for martials, they need them to undercut the swingyness of the skill system's d20s and so actually be reliably competent in their areas of expertise.

 

[Corinnguard]

Even competent characters, regardless of what level they happen to start with or how high their skill modifiers happen to be, can flub their skill checks by rolling low on a d20. The opposite is also true, you can be incompetent and roll high on a d20. It all depends on how the dice are rolled and how you role-play the results.