In a few of theh threads I have been following it appears that there a couple different styles of games out there.
One with characters that are "Lordly" the characters are the most powerful individuals in town
One were the characters are just part of the world, and their are plenty of individuals at the characters level of power, as well as plenty above and below.
Personally I prefer the second scenario. Where my characters are just trying to make their way in a dangerous world.
But it seems, from the post I have been reading that a lot of people prefer to be "big dogs" in their campaign worlds.
I was wondering if others saw the same split.
The real question was though who do different gaming groups reconcile these different and (to my mind) conflicting attitudes at their gaming table?
Option 2 for me as well. They're always something bigger and badder than you out there. As far as reconciliation between the differing points of views you listed, I think it's been a gradual thing. All the players I've had can accept the fact that while they may be big dogs in their region of the world, when you move them out of that element, suddenly they're small fish in a big sea.
To be honest, I can dig both types of games. Reconciling the two can be difficult though. The advice I would give is thus; people often equate large epic strugles with high level. These two things are not mutualy dependant, infact, most examples of great deeds done throught history are not by "powerful" people. Many great deeds have been done by those ordinary people who were willing to rise to the ocasion. In my experience, my players have pulled just as many glory stories out of low level games as high level games.
Saddly, there seems to be a general concesus that only high level characters can be capable of great deeds and that low level characters are just schmucks hoping to survive long enough to do something important. Sure, at low levels you probably won't be killing any dragons, you may not even be the "big dog" in town, but that doesn't mean that your character won't be doing meaningful things. Remember, a hero is known for his deeds, not his character level.
I like option 1. I always see the PC as the heroes of the game. In my game the player characters are the center of a lot of attention. Even at low levels thier deeds draw the attention of others, usually more powerful others.
Just to keep things challenging the PCs will need to always face more and more powerful opponents. As the PCs deeds grow so does thier notariaty. Either they succeed and grow more powerful and noteworthy or they die trying (hopefully a spectaluarly noteworthy death).
I do not think the heoroic game style is tied with high level PCs. I have never played in a campaign higher than ninth level with third edition or tenth level with AD&D (usually campaigns and game groups fade by that time).
I guess I always like to be the hero ( or anti- hero) in the game. So I tend to DM that way. I most note that I always enjoy a good GMed gritty roleplaying experience, where my character is just surviving (Dark Sun comes to mind). But I tend to want to be the hero.
..., a hero is known for his deeds, not his character level.
I agree.
..., a hero is known for his deeds, not his character level.
Quoted for Truth!
Because this can't be quoted enough, I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
Because this can't be quoted enough, I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way.
I think a lot of gamers feel this way because we are constantly saving the world (or trying to destroy/ dominate it).
The big fish in the small pond phenomenon is kind of an inevitable feeling. As first level characters, they have a reasonable challenge against small groups of goblins, tiny kobold bands, a few things like that, and they get to feeling pretty cocky in the small town of first level and 0 level characters. Then they find that first hint of powers far beyond their current first or second level status, and realize that they are big fish for their little pond, but the stream that the pond feeds leads to a much bigger pond and they are no longer big fish, but small fish again. The reasonable challenge is for the player to always seek to become more, but always face challenges of their level or greater.
Player characters who only look to thump things weaker than they are not seeking a true challenge. And come across more as bullies than heroes, thereby, no matter how noble the reasons for their actions (though at the same time, it's the responsibility of the DM to keep them facing the challenge.)
As a DM i have no problem with at least a few challenges below the party's level in any adventure, but that's more the exception than the rule. Fourth and fifth level characters shouldn't be running into goblins and kobolds unless you've structured the encounters into fourth to eigth CR encounters (which, because of their organizations and deep secrets, these creatures can do in numbers and preparations) I try to minimize any encounter with a CR below the party level. Never seek the TPK, but always make them wonder. It keeps the smile on the party's face wider as they stagger out of the dungeon, knowing they had a good workout.
Just my opinion