Levelling from 0 to 1

[mshensley]

It's fairly obvious that was what he was suggesting.

I suspect that mixed level parties will be as bad an idea in DCCRPG as they are in D&D 3.x and 4.

I hope that isn't the case. Mixed level parties were the norm up until 3rd edition and they worked perfectly well. Unbalanced parties are also very common in fiction. The party in LotR could easily be represented by one player playing all four 0 level hobbits. Then you have a couple of low level pc's (elf and dwarf), two mid level pc's (ranger and fighter), and one high level pc (wizard).

[GnomeBoy]

I suspect that mixed level parties will be as bad an idea in DCCRPG as they are in D&D 3.x and 4.

I ran a campaign (using 3.5) from 2009-2010 and there was almost always a mixture of levels, due mainly to the wizard burning XP to place permanency on stuff and one character who had a very fortuitous draw from the Deck of Many Things. It didn't seem any different to run than when I've had players all smack bang at the same XP total...

How is it that I seem to have avoided all the stuff about 3e that people don't like about it?

[Atlatl Jones]

I hope that isn't the case. Mixed level parties were the norm up until 3rd edition and they worked perfectly well. Unbalanced parties are also very common in fiction. The party in LotR could easily be represented by one player playing all four 0 level hobbits. Then you have a couple of low level pc's (elf and dwarf), two mid level pc's (ranger and fighter), and one high level pc (wizard).

They worked well in earlier editions because the experience point progression was exponential: each level cost roughly double the XP of the previous level. So if the entire party is 7th level and you start a new character at 1st level, by the time the party is 8th level your new character will be 7th level, give or take some variation from each class having its own XP table.

Do the classes in DCC have their own XP progressions, or are they unified like in 3e?

[moes1980]

...One suggestion that I have is that after the 0 level adventure is over, those that survive become level one, and those that don't roll up new level one pcs. However, those that survived get a little bit of an extra boon....

+1 on saves vs. fear springs to mind...

While you could give some sort of extra, one could argue that advancing to 1st level is its own reward. Characters at 1st level get to choose a class with all of the benefits that come along with that class.

If some players have to re-roll a character funnel and start over at level-0 they don't get those advantages, so the system is already designed to deal with that issue. (Unless you are suggesting that even players whose level-0 characters all died should also get to start at 1st level....)

I was suggesting that players who's level 0 characters died would roll up level one pcs, but those that had level 0 pcs that made it to level one would have a bit of an extra boon. If I remember right, when I ran it that way for my DnD game a year or so ago, players that lived had something like 3 extra hps, a couple of extra skill ranks, perhaps a bonus feat, and perhaps an extra low level spell to cast or something like that. Basicialy, if they survived the adventure and leveld, what ever they got for level one was layered ontop of what they got for being level 0. At the time I was trying to add incentives for my players to play a level 0 adventure as they were complaining about how it looked impossible to survive, and their characters were to weak and other such sob stories. I thought this way would give them incentive to give it a try as all they could do is get extra little bonuses for survivng, and if they died, no big deal, they still get a level one for when the campaign really starts to take off.

But, if your thinking that a level 0 pc that dies has to start over as a level 0, even while the campaign moves into its level one adventure, that sounds like it could be a pretty big penalty, although, I am thinking in terms of DnD 3.x system, not DCCRPG system, so that might work just fine in the setting. But I kind of like the idea that those that did survive got an extra little boon, its like a badge of honor on the character that not all players will recive.

As for mixed levels, I bet mixed levels work fine as they do in all other system I have ever played (every edition of DnD, Hackmaster 4th edetion, Hackmaster new edition, and a bunch of other games), as long as they are not to far apart (say, 2 level difference is probably max).

Getting really excited about this new game!

[finarvyn]

If some players have to re-roll a character funnel and start over at level-0 they don't get those advantages, so the system is already designed to deal with that issue. (Unless you are suggesting that even players whose level-0 characters all died should also get to start at 1st level....)

It's fairly obvious that was what he was suggesting.

I suspect that mixed level parties will be as bad an idea in DCCRPG as they are in D&D 3.x and 4.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, actually, and it still isn't. I'm pretty sure you are correct, but not 100%. That's why I asked for clairification on the matter.

His suggestion was that characters who advance to first level should get an extra something, and it sounded like he meant something on top of the usual something you get when you become first level. That's what is confusing to me, and suggested to me that maybe he meant an extra reward for those who get to advance the first time as compared to those who advance in a later adventure.

And I agree that mixed-level parties don't tend to work well. However, it's possible that it would work in DCC since a level-0 character is technically only 100 XP behind a level-1 character.

[jmucchiello]

I ran a campaign (using 3.5) from 2009-2010 and there was almost always a mixture of levels, due mainly to the wizard burning XP to place permanency on stuff and one character who had a very fortuitous draw from the Deck of Many Things. It didn't seem any different to run than when I've had players all smack bang at the same XP total...

How is it that I seem to have avoided all the stuff about 3e that people don't like about it?

How disparate was the level difference? Remember all the extra stuff the wizard was making permanent improved his character above what his level would indicate. Did you give the lower level characters more XP as the book suggests to do as well?

3.x can handle parties with +/- 2 levels of range. AD&D can handle +/- 6 levels of range. I played in a game where everyone was 8th or higher and a new player joined at 1st level. Sure, we watched out for the new character a bit, and gave a bunch of "cheap" magic items to bolster his effectiveness. But in AD&D that character quickly rose to 7th level before most everyone else gained two levels.

As for why I think DCCRPG might have problems with it, it's just from how the classes gain effectiveness: better spell results, better attack results, etc. The higher level monsters might expect such results making lower level characters less effective against them. Since there won't be a big treasury of monsters though, it may be less of an issue that I was originally thinking, relying of DMs knowing what is or is not too dangerous for his party (or the consequences of overdoing it).

[Harley Stroh]

How disparate was the level difference? Remember all the extra stuff the wizard was making permanent improved his character above what his level would indicate. Did you give the lower level characters more XP as the book suggests to do as well?

3.x can handle parties with +/- 2 levels of range. AD&D can handle +/- 6 levels of range. I played in a game where everyone was 8th or higher and a new player joined at 1st level. Sure, we watched out for the new character a bit, and gave a bunch of "cheap" magic items to bolster his effectiveness. But in AD&D that character quickly rose to 7th level before most everyone else gained two levels.

As for why I think DCCRPG might have problems with it, it's just from how the classes gain effectiveness: better spell results, better attack results, etc. The higher level monsters might expect such results making lower level characters less effective against them. Since there won't be a big treasury of monsters though, it may be less of an issue that I was originally thinking, relying of DMs knowing what is or is not too dangerous for his party (or the consequences of overdoing it).

Great question, and I'm not going to claim to know the answer as I haven't explicitly tried out a wide level range yet. (Watch out, Expendables!) I think this would be a great challenge for anyone who will be trying the beta release. Let's rev this thing until it breaks.

However there are a couple thoughts to take into consideration. A 1st level wizard wandering around with a party of 5th level PCs is going to be squishy, for sure. But it wouldn't be impossible for a 1st level warrior to have the same hp as a 5th level wizard. Okay, not so squishy. Or at least, as squishy as someone else who is level appropriate. ("Kid! Stay in the back! You're the archer until you bust your cherry on the dogs of war!" Heh. Or something like that.)

Also, the spell mechanics make a big difference. In AD&D your 1st level m-u had one fire and forget spell. After that, he was hucking daggers from cover. But our wizling's spells aren't fire and forget; if he's lucky and cautious, he can go all day. And he can get in a whopper of a magic missile, if he plays his cards right.

And who doesn't want a lucky 1st level halfling tagging along? Or the youngblood dwarf, sniffing out gold?

So I suspect that there might be an even wider range of potential adventuring parties. I'm not 100% certain, but I'm excited to see how it shakes out.

//H

[jmucchiello]

And I agree that mixed-level parties don't tend to work well. However, it's possible that it would work in DCC since a level-0 character is technically only 100 XP behind a level-1 character.

What? 100? didn't know that. That's terrible. I hate the idea even more. It only takes 100 XP to jump for bumbling fool with a sword to pretty good with a sword? It took years of daily training for squires to be turned into knights. Are knights also 0-level? Or higher? The higher they are the more limited character backgrounds become. Since it makes no sense for a 0-level character to have background as a 2nd or 3rd son if he is no more proficient with arms and armor than the potato farmer's boy. Someone above was saying, after gaining 1st level and the class abilities should train for a few months to gain the abilities. Months? Should be years? You can't go from not knowing which end of sword to hold to as proficient as a freshly knighted knight in a few month. It takes training from childhood. Same thing with magic and thievery.

Am I missing something?

[Ravenheart87]

Am I missing something?

Yeah, reading previous posts in the topic.

[geordie racer]

As for why I think DCCRPG might have problems with it, it's just from how the classes gain effectiveness: better spell results, better attack results, etc. The higher level monsters might expect such results making lower level characters less effective against them. Since there won't be a big treasury of monsters though, it may be less of an issue that I was originally thinking, relying of DMs knowing what is or is not too dangerous for his party (or the consequences of overdoing it).

It's not about the DM always laying out appropriate encounters, it's about the players being smart in a 'Bilbo vs. Smaug' stylee rather than wading in gung ho. Even Conan ran from the 'dragon'. Know your limitations and bend the situation to your advantage, or survive to fight another day.

I do think a 1st level wizard would potentially be of more use to a party of 3rd-level warriors than a 1st-level warrior to a party of 3rd-level wizards. But it isn't a done deal, due to the randomization of spells etc. So no automatically optimal parties.

Here in Britain squires got to be knights more through lineage, patronage and the judicious use of courtly manners to attain favour rather than just swordplay. Hence it was a long process. No meritocracy here. 100XP to 1st level sounds fair to me for untested farmers son surviving combat/casting from a scroll/burglarizing a manse.

[Ravenheart87]

We don't even know yet what 100 XP really means...

[geordie racer]

We don't even know yet what 100 XP really means...

true, but not long now !

[GnomeBoy]

I ran a campaign (using 3.5) from 2009-2010 and there was almost always a mixture of levels...

How disparate was the level difference? ...

I think when the Deck thing kicked in the party was 12th, 13th, and 17th, or thereabouts. There was an NPC in the party as well, and I think he may have been around 10th Level at that time. And yes, I used the 'differential' XP rules, because even at midnight I can apparently still crunch those kinds of numbers (go figure!). Over time the levels evened out to where at the end of the campaign they were all Level 20, just at different XP totals. Hmm, somebody might have just slipped into 21st Level at the final tally...

Maybe it was easy because I don't plan encounters to be at the level of the party? I look more at what they can and can't do, and build accordingly... I use the CR as a baseline, and if they can handle say invisibility easily, scale things up, if they aren't so good with say flying things, maybe scale down a bit.


More-or-less back on topic: Is it fair to say that I think if we wanted to have a realistic progression from hick to champion, we wouldn't have been playing D&D all these years? We like spell-slinging, sword prowess and skulking effectively, don't we? I have generally felt that Levels go by too fast since Second Edition (and probably just felt differently in my pre-2nd Ed days). I'd never get away with slowing down the XP accumulation too much -- mutiny ain't pretty.

[moes1980]

If some players have to re-roll a character funnel and start over at level-0 they don't get those advantages, so the system is already designed to deal with that issue. (Unless you are suggesting that even players whose level-0 characters all died should also get to start at 1st level....)

It's fairly obvious that was what he was suggesting.

I suspect that mixed level parties will be as bad an idea in DCCRPG as they are in D&D 3.x and 4.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, actually, and it still isn't. I'm pretty sure you are correct, but not 100%. That's why I asked for clairification on the matter.

His suggestion was that characters who advance to first level should get an extra something, and it sounded like he meant something on top of the usual something you get when you become first level. That's what is confusing to me, and suggested to me that maybe he meant an extra reward for those who get to advance the first time as compared to those who advance in a later adventure.

And I agree that mixed-level parties don't tend to work well. However, it's possible that it would work in DCC since a level-0 character is technically only 100 XP behind a level-1 character.

Sorry my post was not clear and I just realized that my second post failed to address one of your questions which is, what happens if all the pcs die at level 0. As I play it, if every one dies than the campagin is pretty much over and we start a new campagin but, a group could handle it any way they want. They could start over with all level 0 pcs (which would be my vote) or they could all make 1st level pcs.

I think one confusing thing here is I am working off of my experince with running a 0 level adventure to kickstart a game out of the 3.x rules, which is different than running DCCRPG games. In 3.x, running a 0 level pc basicaly meant running a NPC as your character, so you were a level one acolyte or level one guard, or something like that. So moving form that to a regular class character almost like multiclassing, as you would have both the benifits of a level one pc, and a level one npc class (which was the "level 0"). This gave those pcs that survived this level 0 a little bit of extra kick (and I do mean little) for the rest of the pc's life.

However, with DCCRPG being its own system that is designed for level 0 play in mind, I can see why my suggestion could be confusing and even odd. It is like I asked "if a level one character dies on their way to level two, he should remake a level two character, but all the other level two characters should get extra bonuses..." suonds pretty strange huh? I guess thats what happens when I try to make suggestions about a RPG system I know little about and at the same time refrence another system. I think my mistake was assuming that DCCPG is similar to 3.x. But the more I hear, the more different it really is from other systems, and that is a good thing

[moes1980]

If some players have to re-roll a character funnel and start over at level-0 they don't get those advantages, so the system is already designed to deal with that issue. (Unless you are suggesting that even players whose level-0 characters all died should also get to start at 1st level....)

It's fairly obvious that was what he was suggesting.

I suspect that mixed level parties will be as bad an idea in DCCRPG as they are in D&D 3.x and 4.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, actually, and it still isn't. I'm pretty sure you are correct, but not 100%. That's why I asked for clairification on the matter.

His suggestion was that characters who advance to first level should get an extra something, and it sounded like he meant something on top of the usual something you get when you become first level. That's what is confusing to me, and suggested to me that maybe he meant an extra reward for those who get to advance the first time as compared to those who advance in a later adventure.

And I agree that mixed-level parties don't tend to work well. However, it's possible that it would work in DCC since a level-0 character is technically only 100 XP behind a level-1 character.

Sorry my post was not clear and I just realized that my second post failed to address one of your questions which is, what happens if all the pcs die at level 0. As I play it, if every one dies than the campagin is pretty much over and we start a new campagin but, a group could handle it any way they want. They could start over with all level 0 pcs (which would be my vote) or they could all make 1st level pcs.

I think one confusing thing here is I am working off of my experince with running a 0 level adventure to kickstart a game out of the 3.x rules, which is different than running DCCRPG games. In 3.x, running a 0 level pc basicaly meant running a NPC as your character, so you were a level one acolyte or level one guard, or something like that. So moving form that to a regular class character almost like multiclassing, as you would have both the benifits of a level one pc, and a level one npc class (which was the "level 0"). This gave those pcs that survived this level 0 a little bit of extra kick (and I do mean little) for the rest of the pc's life.

However, with DCCRPG being its own system that is designed for level 0 play in mind, I can see why my suggestion could be confusing and even odd. It is like I asked "if a level one character dies on their way to level two, he should remake a level two character, but all the other level two characters should get extra bonuses..." suonds pretty strange huh? I guess thats what happens when I try to make suggestions about a RPG system I know little about and at the same time refrence another system. I think my mistake was assuming that DCCPG is similar to 3.x. But the more I hear, the more different it really is from other systems, and that is a good thing

[moes1980]

And I agree that mixed-level parties don't tend to work well. However, it's possible that it would work in DCC since a level-0 character is technically only 100 XP behind a level-1 character.

What? 100? didn't know that. That's terrible. I hate the idea even more. It only takes 100 XP to jump for bumbling fool with a sword to pretty good with a sword? It took years of daily training for squires to be turned into knights. Are knights also 0-level? Or higher? The higher they are the more limited character backgrounds become. Since it makes no sense for a 0-level character to have background as a 2nd or 3rd son if he is no more proficient with arms and armor than the potato farmer's boy. Someone above was saying, after gaining 1st level and the class abilities should train for a few months to gain the abilities. Months? Should be years? You can't go from not knowing which end of sword to hold to as proficient as a freshly knighted knight in a few month. It takes training from childhood. Same thing with magic and thievery.

Am I missing something?

Actually, it makes more sense to level quick like that, and to level more slowly as you go along. Think about some one who takes up a martial arts or a fencing class. At the first class or two, they are level 0 as they don't even know the basic stances, attacks, and defense moves. But in a few months, with diligince, they can have those basics down pat, and have a very basic level of competency and knowledge about general methods of the fighting style. But after a year or two of studying that particular fighting style, your skills start to platue out, you get diminishing returns for the time you invest in practice, other than mainting your current skill level. Thats why it does not take long for someone to go from white belt to yellow belt comparied to going from yellow belt to what ever color is next. And that is why the experince points required to attain higher levels gets larger with each level you gain.

I think 100 xp for leveling from 0 to one is about right. Really, you should level at the end of your 0 level modual, and move on, as I would expect the level 0 game to be extreemly deadly and challanging, so that there is a real sense of satisfaction upon completing your first 100xp alive. And as some one pointed out, having to play a level 0 pc for an extended time could lose its luster. Finally, it makes sense in light of the fact that these level 0 characters are being described as funnel characters. The 0 level adventure I think works best as a prolog to the main campaign and so it should only last a session or two.

But, if you want to have it last longer, just adjust the xp tables to make it take longer. Its the GM's game after all, and if he/she wants to run a campaign with the level 0 feel for most of it than he/she should!. After all, that flexibility to create adventures and stories is what makes role playing games so great!

[kataskicana]

Not to get all 'real' but numbers aside one good 'adventure' survived is enough to go from inexperienced to experienced if you look at how things work in the military.

Since its almost June 6th... those that went through D-Day even without a lot of fighting were never 'green' again. You see stuff, you do stuff, you learn from your successes, from your failures, and most of all from others costly failures, and you go from there.

[finarvyn]

What? 100? didn't know that. That's terrible. I hate the idea even more. It only takes 100 XP to jump for bumbling fool with a sword to pretty good with a sword? It took years of daily training for squires to be turned into knights. Are knights also 0-level? Or higher?

Some of the scale issues may be adjusted after the Beta rules, since Beta is designed for levels 0-5 only and the November rules are supposed to go from 0-10. However....

Certainly if you define level-0 as "bumbling fool" and level-1 and "pretty good" then your argument is well founded. DCC, however, tends to think of it as "inexperienced" to "some experience" and the step isn't as huge as you might think.

While I don't think I've seen specific data for knights, using OD&D as a scale 4th level was a "hero" so a decent knight could be as high as 4th. A lesser knight less than that. A famous knight of the round table (Lancelot, Galahad, etc) somewhat higher. (Perhaps 5th in the old scale, closer to 10th when the rules scale up.)

Not to get all 'real' but numbers aside one good 'adventure' survived is enough to go from inexperienced to experienced if you look at how things work in the military.

This is a good way to look at it. Many people haven't ever really been in a good fight, particularly with actual weapons. I would suppose that exposure to this would harden a person somewhat, give them a different perspective.

And it's not like a level-1 character was ever that awesome in the first place. I think this issue is being blown way out of proportion.

[jmucchiello]

Certainly if you define level-0 as "bumbling fool" and level-1 and "pretty good" then your argument is well founded. DCC, however, tends to think of it as "inexperienced" to "some experience" and the step isn't as huge as you might think.

So then knights are not 1st level, they are 3rd? 5th? Squires spend years bumbling with a sword before they can be called knights. When the blacksmith's boy goes from 0 to 1st level in Fighter class. How does he compare to a noble who has practiced with a sword since he could hold a practice stick?

[kataskicana]

A squire (regardless of how much training) or the son of a noble with some or no training could both be level 0... they are exactly one step from being a level one adventurer...

they need to have taken the critical step of making a decision to seek out adventure (or be put in a situation where adventure finds them) and in doing so probably be put into a life or death situation or three.

You can fire a ton of rounds at the range, but until you are in a fight and have people shooting back and are having to shoot at real people with real potential collateral damage... level 0. Fire 10 rounds at the range or a 1000... level 0.

[moes1980]

Also, im pretty sure that a squaire "trained" for years because an adult is not about to give a 10 or 12 year old boy a sword and armor and expect him to stand up against 17-20+ adults and survive. They were not allowed to truly be in a fighting situation untill they matured and actually would have the physical strength to survive. Im no historian but its something to think about (makes me think about the Disney Sword and the Stone when young arthur struggles with just carrying a long sowrd, much less using it).

[finarvyn]

It took years of daily training for squires to be turned into knights. Are knights also 0-level? Or higher?

So then knights are not 1st level, they are 3rd? 5th? Squires spend years bumbling with a sword before they can be called knights.

All these questions about knights...

As I noted before, I don't think that there are any specific "knights" rules in the playtest doc and as such don't expect to see any in the Beta rules, either. The level numbers I quoted are those that I think are most appropriate for a campaign, not anything official from Goodman Games.

However, there is nothing keeping you from starting characters off at levels higher than zero. If you deem that a squire, having spent years of training, could start off as 2nd level that's okay. The DCC RPG rules for level-0 characters are designed to simulate common folk who get swept up in adventure, not someone who went to squire-school or boot camp. Nobody is saying that a farmer with a pitchfork would gain as much experience in a single adventure as a squire who had trained with weapons for years.

[finarvyn]

Also, im pretty sure that a squaire "trained" for years because an adult is not about to give a 10 or 12 year old boy a sword and armor and expect him to stand up against 17-20+ adults and survive.

An interesting question, and one I'd have to research more to be certain of how it was done back then, but keep in mind that if one goes back a few generations the life scale was pretty different. Many people got married at 14-15 and often only lived into their 30's. We tend to look at current lifespans, augmented by modern nutrition and medical care, and forget that it wasn't like that centuries ago.

For example, I'm pretty sure that there are examples of soldiers who enlisted in the American army during the Revolutionary War at age 15-16. (I think 16 was the legal age back then.) Wikipedia (not always a reliable source) says that some countries even today allow for 16-year-olds to enlist in the military and in Bolivia "recruits as young as 14 are conscripted; volunteers can start military training at age 15, exempting them from compulsory service."

Anyway, training at age 10-12 might not have been that unusual at all, particularly if they might be expected to see battle shortly thereafter.

[Ravenheart87]

You can think of level 0 character as a squire before knighting. Squire would be even good for a profession. But if you still can't wrap your head around the concept, then leave level 0 playing out of your campaign. Or play a different game. Why bother with DCC RPG if you keep finding things that you don't like or understand?

My favourite Knight class so far is the one from the new HackMaster (you can find it one of the HackJournals, or KoDTs). In order to become a knight, you have to be a worthy lawful fighter (good stats, at least level 5), honourable, trained in horsemanship, social skills, knightly weapons, you must have no physical flaws, phobias, and you must serve a lord or master with a cause.
You have to work hard to become one, and to stay on the path. I like it much better, than the usual story abouth the dude, who choose to become a paladin because it's cool powers, then acts like an idiot, and cryes once the GM tells him, that he looses his powers because he was a jerk.

[jmucchiello]

People, I'm asking this question conceptually. I don't give a damn what the beta copy of the rules does or does not say about knights. I am examining the implications of such a short trip from 0-level to 1st level and what does it mean to BE 1st level.

GRRM's Song of Fire and Ice: Sir Loras of the Flowers is a Knight who has never seen real battle. He has trained with sword and lance since he could stand and ride. He is beyond 1st level certainly. Rob Stark has the same training and is also untested in real battle before he leads an army against the Lannisters. Jon Snow is nearly untouchable with a sword compared to the raw recruits when he arrives at the wall. Does Jon Snow really not gain 1st level before he goes beyond the wall and has his first real battle?

My point here is that the chance of a blacksmith's boy chasing some rats and becoming first level having the same swordfighting skills as any of these characters is nearly impossible. They trained for years at swordplay, the blacksmith's boy has a couple lessons under his belt. So conceptually, do all competent* feudal knights have to be above 1st level?

I have no problem with this. I know of DMs who play 3e where the average city guard is 8th level (and all that implies about the rest of the world) in order to keep the players respectful of authority at least for a little while.

Thieves are even worse in this regard. You really think a street urchin hasn't been in enough real fights to gain 100 xp (and beyond) before they turn 15?


* Competent being a key word here. Obviously Joffrey Baratheon hasn't had competent arms training if Arya Stark can disarm him.