>Bulk Slabchest, retired fighter
>He spent the past 30 years running a tavern and enjoying himself
>When his creditors come after him, he must don his armor again and earn enough to save his business, and maybe a little extra
What's wrong with this character bio?
>>44054230
Depends on what level your character is starting at. If it's 1, Houston we have a problem. If he's like level 4-5 to start though, or even as low as 3, it'd be perfectly fine and anyone that says otherwise is a dolt.
>>44054265
30 years is a long time, you could completely forget how to fight properly if you didn't keep practicing. Also, he probably started adventuring in his late teens to early twenties, at his youngest this man is now 45-55.
>>44054230
I could actually see this as a level 1 character; he may have been a career soldier who never personally went toe-to-toe with enemies (or did so, but not enough to level). You could also fluff that he may have been 2nd- or 3rd-level once, and has forgotten a fair bit.
Besides, anyone trying to shoot down a concept that obviously isn't disruptive flavor-wise or abusively high-op needs to stop running games.
>>44054281
He's got a gut, but look at his arms. He's still strong. He's just shifted from a showman type physique to a lifter's. Lifting barrels of whiskey is heavy labor. And while he's dulled, you don't just forget years of experience and practice. That stuff stays with you. Give him a few weeks and he'll be back on his feet.
>>44054230
>What's wrong with this character bio?
the name isn't Gristle McThornbody
>>44054230
You forgot to mention having to team up with his disgruntled ex-parter, Butch Vanderhuge.
>>44054315
Fighting for your life is not riding a bicycle. While he probably hasn't forgotten the theories behind everything or remembering to do basic don't-die shit like keeping on your feet etc., applying everything is a whole different matter.
Dick Fistneck
Bulk Slampec
Ratchet Slamzone
Smash Ironstag
Buff McRockmuscle
Dirk Fistfist
Brick Plankjaw
Gaston Thornsteak
Dick Lampchest
>>44054281
this >>44054315
This is the problem with "my dude is totally a veteran he just forgot how to fight so he's level 1 now" backgrounds. They simply don't hold water, unless maybe the dude was level 2 when he retired, which, basically, means the background is pointless. You might as well play a 45 year old barkeep/tavernkeep who was never a fighter to begin with till today; it's the same thing and you're not splitting hairs with the fluff. I mean yeah, conversely it means you should be able to have that background if you wanted to, but it just seems trite, not to mention people who do this sort of thing tend to do the whole "my guy has been around the block even though he's level 1 so he knows all this stuff he wouldn't normally" routine and it's boring, stale, and meta-cheating as fuck.
What I want to know is: Why are people so appalled with the notion of playing someone at level 1 who's actually level 1, and it makes sense? Why have 5 pages of background when anything that happens to the character once he becomes an adventurer is going to be a hundred times more interesting/thrilling than his life prior to that, unless hes the (un)luckiest fuck in the world and that shit's boring too. Just be a tavernkeep whose livelyhood gets burned down or some shit so he takes the crap from his lost and found and goes out to earn the coin to rebuild. Boom. Perfect. He can have plenty of bar stories to tell around the fire without coming off as a level 1 know-it-all.
>>44054459
And the most iconic of all:
Big McLargehuge
>>44054421
>>44054371
>>44054230
You guys better no be trying to hedge out Flint Ironstag.
>>44054459
>>44054475
Go throw money at the Kickstarter if you haven't already. Fucking nostalgia, man.
>>44054230
>>44054371
>>44054421
>>44054475
>the chosen heroes with the blessings of the gods who managed to get into a love septagon before leaving the town walls have failed
>a retired adventuring party has to dig their now old gear from their attics and trophy cabinets to Save the Day
>because they know how to get shit done and not fall for the weekly evil overlord's tricks
>mimics? Yeah the trick is the hinges. Look carefully and you see it's all one organism
>got to know how to pack supplies to last and endure, but not so you can't access them
>turns out being the Chosen Hero doesn't impart basic survival and dungeoneering knowledge
I'd play it.
>>44054230
He isn't a sexual tyrannosaurus that fucks men and women with paladin-like zeal.
>>44054230
>not Blast Hardcheese
>not Dirk Hardpeck
>not Butch Deadlift
>not Buff Drinklots
>not Brick Hardmeat
>not Bob Johnson
>>44054447
>>44054471
What about level 5?
Honestly you can actually make a good case about level 5 as the party will probably level up to 5 in a month or two of play, or possibly even in two weeks if you encounters every day.
>>44054498
see my initial post here >>44054265
>>44054315
>That stuff stays with you.
No it doesn't. Thats muscle memory type shit and unless you keep reinforcing it you eventually lose it. It has some weird thing to do with sleep actually and how REM sleep catalogues the days events. Either way theres TONS of articles of how jocks in highschool were #1 QB and now they couldn't do basic footwork or proffesional athletes retiring and a decade later have to learn how to swing properly again or how to juggle a soccerball. sure the knowledge is there but the body forgets.
>>44054513
Which is why it's fine to say they lose a couple levels, but no more than that. Face it; level 2 is not that big a deal, so forgetting that much is fine. If he were say, level 4-5? No way. He might fall as low as level 3, but that's pushing it. The early levels are mostly raw talent and stats anyway, so there is not that much to forget.
>>44054483
No.
>Joel
>Felicia Day
>Patton Oswalt
There is nothing here that I want.
>>44054508
If someone gets up to level 5, then falls down to level 1 again.
>>44054526
I'd see that but the real problem then is no matter his previous level he'd fall to lets say level 2(as a cap for just raw skill and talent). You know someones gonna say he was level 20 or something and then try and be the only level 10 in a group of 1's.
>>44054549
That's falling too far. I would accept losing 2 levels at most, but there comes a point, again, where you have to ask "why are you so determined to play this when you could just play a tavernkeep who was such for 30 years, then had to pick up a blade?" Honestly, answer me why pulling teeth over having some adventuring experience that means basically nothing by your own admission is so important?
>>44054540
Felicia Day is the only bad thing there, really. But I think the show being around again is worth it.
>hating Joel
You're a sick man. Mike is great too though, before you start thinking I'm baiting you or some juvenile shit.
>>44054526
>The early levels are mostly raw talent and stats anyway, so there is not that much to forget.
and after all that time, that's all he's got left, with any lingering memory of his glory days being why after three decades of retirement he's still a Fighter and not a Commoner
>>44054599
Yes, which is why I am against people doing it to begin with.
>>44054612
That's be taking "player agency" away though. Just let him be a fallen hero starting at level 2 max. And he can work his way back to his former glory.
Its like losing your sword arm so now you're back to level 2 and gotta relearn back to 20 using your offhand then saying "why not be a one armed swordsman then?"
>>44054601
the Tavernkeep that had never picked up a blade wouldn't be a fighter yet, he's just a tavernkeep with a sword, he wouldn't of had the martial training that a fighter is assumed to have at even 1st level
>>44054603
>still doesn't see the problem with years of adventuring knowledge as a low-level PC
Okay. This character would make a great DMPC/NPC, but not a PC. But hey, whatever floats your boat. If your group allows it, good on ya.
>>44054639
you mean those years of adventuring knowlege that over the course of thrity years of total neglect would ammount to half remebered trivia at best?
>>44054664
Yeah, because he wouldn't be telling those stories to anyone who'd listen as a matter of pride. Over, and over, and over. Don't you have a grandfather? It's like that.
>>44054631
A level 1 fighter is not much better than a farmer with a blade who knows where the pointy end goes. Even in systems where you start out "heroic" it's all in your stats at level 1. A tavernkeep who's broken up countless brawls and probably had to finish a few himself would be just as formidable as a level 1 fighter, so why not just call him a level 1 fighter?
>>44054628
>player agency
I hate this term. It implies that that players have open season on character concepts. You wanna be a loli wizard too? TTRPGs are a joint effort among all involved. Stop putting the players on a pedestal. Nobody likes a GM that lords bullshittium and railroading over them, and nobody likes a player that is insistent on playing an abusable character concept.
>>44054725
>A level 1 fighter is not much better than a farmer with a blade who knows where the pointy end goes.
Ok, no.
In d&d 3.5, a fighter stards with a Base Attack Bonus of +1, and has a bonus feat. They can also pick up any weapon, so long as it isn't exotic, and use it.
A farmer who knows where the pointy end goes is a commoner with a bab of +0, using a weapon they get aren't familiar with, so they take a -4 penalty on attack rolls, and they don't get a bonus feat.
>>44054601
I'm not the person you're replying too, but here's why your argument makes no sense.
Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Your argument is:
"Honestly, answer me why pulling teeth over having some adventuring experience that means basically nothing by your own admission is so important?"
I assume you mean by this:
"Why would one create a character with prior combat experience if it does not translate mechanically into a combat advantage?"
I answer you with this:
I would create a character with prior combat experience because I enjoy playing a character that is a veteran of a war, I enjoy playing a character with comrades lost in battle, and friendships forged during a cold wet march into hell. It often helps to ease a character into a combat focused campaign, which is mostly what I play, regardless of what the GM bills it as.
It is far harder for me to realistically say that my ex-tavernkeep who has no prior combat experience is going to decide that becoming a monster-slayer/bounty-hunter/dungeon-delver than it is for me to say my ex-tavernkeep who enjoys the rush of battle and has memories of battle and glory would do so, though.
It is not "so important" as you say. I wouldn't argue if the GM said "No, we can't have any war veterans or the like because of <setting restriction/party restriction/etc.>". But it is something I enjoy that adds flavor to my character and makes the idea of throwing man into a pit filled with snakes to find a bag filled with gold make a little more sense to me, and I like that.
>>44054827
>D&D is the only system
Okay sport. Now go on about how I've moved the goalposts and get all hairy autismo on me. I need some entertainment tonight.
>>44054843
That's fine and dandy, and if you won't try to justify meta-knowledge or cheat with it, more power to you. But I know better than to assume anyone on this board is capable of being trusted like that, so pardon my justified lack of faith. Nothing personal, but there you go.
>>44054852
3.5 is merely the system I have most experience in.
Most systems I can think of off the top of my head usually have first level heros being something special that puts them a cut above some berk with a sharp stick.
>>44054864
I GM pretty frequently, mostly only D&D Basic, and find that players gravitate towards having their characters be from combat professions because it gives their characters what most would see as necessary pre-requisites to becoming adventurers at level one for the types of games I run.
If the character is mechanically a level one character (or whatever limitations you apply mechanically to the character at the start of a campaign), Could you provide me with an example of a system or campaign where having prior combat experience would affect the game?
How could they abuse this knowledge?
I just have a hard time coming up with a situation where it provides them any mechanical advantage if game rules are followed, but that may be because I generally only play D&D.
>>44054725
Grampa telling a story about how he once killed fitty men in the army is a very different thing than still being able to DO it. Those stories are part of why after sitting in his tavern doing nothing longer than the generic first level fighter has been alive, going by the random starting age charts, he's still a fighter and has the bonuses there of.
A 1st level fighter is still miles better than a 1st level commoner, which is what a tavernkeep that never picked up a sword til the game started would be. Depending on the specific game being played he has over twice as many hit points, he has higher saves and attack bonuses, he has proficiency in his weapons and armor, he has his bonus feats or fighter powers, or weapon specialisations or whatever special thing the fighter gets in that game. All these things he would not still have without that prior experience.
>>44054932
I'm mostly talking about people asking to know more things than they should because "my character has previous experience!"
>group encounters bugbears
>player playing the ex-fighter tavernkeep cracks the MM and starts rattling off info
>GM asks "wtf"
>player says "my character has experience... he'd know this stuff!"
Go on and tell me this has never happened to you, even from players you would never have expected it from. And it's not usually that blessedly obvious. It's usually much more subtle, and therefore more problematic. I have some players I could actually trust to run a character like that, but on 4chan? Not a chance.
>>44054484
>the fatherly fighter-turned-carpenter who just wants to be a good role model for his boy
>brings him along sometimes and lets him take a swing at the monster when he's weak
>"Now Son, you just gotta think of this here Orc as a nice slab of oak, and the sword as our trusty mallet. You'll get it boy, I know you've got it in you."
>>44054951
You missed the point of my post. The point was not the mechanical shit, but the meta-knowedge and thereby cheating that could be involved. A big part of any RPG encounter is surprise at low level, and learning how to fight certain creatures. A player already knowing how can be problematic, as can a player assuming that said fluff entitles them to knowledge they shouldn't have. But I'm getting tired of echoing the same shit over and over again to berks who can't read, so I'ma shove off.
I'll close with this: if you have players that can be trusted to run that concept, then more power to you. I have them too. But when I approach something like this on 4chan, I assume the players are 4channers, and I therefore assume they are shit, and can't be trusted to play properly, so no, I'm not gonna be fine with it. But who cares what I think? It's odd to me that most of my prattling wasn't just met with "okay man, whatever" since it really has no bearing on your own lives.
>>44054979
>powerlevelling your children
My .. God. It's genius.
>>44054484
Now THIS I can get behind. If everyone in the group has a similar concept like this, then it's more than a green light, it's a high-five.
>>44054979
>>44054996
Ha. I'd also allow this.
>>44054932
that reminds me, it's not basic, but it still seems worth rembering that in 1st Edition AD&D level title of a 1st level fighter was "Veteran"
>>44054959
I'm not him, but it's never happened to me, even in the most cancerous of Roll20 PUGsthat, no joke, had three shota/lolis which no one commented on or made any kind of acknowledgement that they existedI've had about three sessions out of close to a hundred where someone has acted in-character with knowledge they couldn't have known about without metagaming.
>>44054852
Nobody who talks about 'first level fighters' will be assumed to be talking about anything else unless they specify, don't be pathetic.
>>44054959
I think the problem lies in that the hypothetical GM is being asked to grant free knowledge when an intelligence/wisdom (or system equivalent) check should be used. If your game has no value placed on character knowledge, then that situation would be an issue.
If a player makes a mage who attended a wizards college, he can make an intelligence check to recognize a magical effect.
If a player makes a character who was once a master chef, he can make an intelligence check to see if he recognizes the elements of the dish.
If a player makes a character that fought in a war, he can make an intelligence check to see if he recognizes anything about the enemy.
If you're upset because players are making characters that are pre-disposed to being adventurers that kill monsters, then you should think about explaining that to them before hand, or not playing games where the characters spend a lot of time killing monsters.
>>44055020
And doesnt that make a whole lot of sense for a game relying largely on monster killing to create conflict?
>>44055055
Ahh, there it is. Good boy.
>>44055051
You're either lucky or naive. I can't tell. But either way, if your group is having fun, what do my comments matter on the subject?
>>44054979
This sounds like child abuse.
>>44055068
>make stupid point
>get called out
>act like a smug moron
The hell is your problem? And I am not even the same person, its just obvious that nobody would talk about first level fighters without specifying unless they were discussing D&D or a related game.
>>44055068
>If I act condescending enough, I won't even have to understand context or demographics
>I'll be an unstoppable force of stupidity
What system uses the term 'first level fighter' with any level of consistency, that isn't D&D or a D&D clone, and isn't some obscure god's-mistake of a game.
>>44054230
If the player does not plan to misuse it, there's no problem what so ever.
>>44055064
>spellcraft
>profession: cook
>profession: soldier or knowledge: military
You don't even need some bullshit background to justify it; just take the damn skills. But yes, players arguing for free knowledge justified by background fluff is the main crux of my issue. And yes, I will project that retardation onto gamers here, because most of you are shit, nothing personal. Again, my opinions shouldn't matter, but I will operate on my own assumptions, whether you think it's fair or not.
As far as pre-disposition, I have no problem with explaining yourself into lvl 1 fighter or rogue or bard in your background. That stuff is all reflected in your skills anyway. You should do that. But knowing the same shit a level 6 fighter would know at level 1? No.
>>44055092
>>44055106
>bawwwww time to ad-hom!
>>44054230
i am very aroused
>>44055068
Not him, but you are clearly a smug cunt. "Level one Fighter" heavily implies D&D-esque Systems.
>>44055115
And here's your (You)
>>44055110
Why are you so obsessed with people on 4chan, nobody brought that up except you.
You don't get to post your assumptions then go 'lol just an opinion guys' when people point out they are unfounded or completely outside of their experience.
>>44055123
Just ignore him, he is mentally a child like all shitposters.
He clearly has no interest in actually defending the stupid shit he posted.
>>44055123
I am none of those things but I play them on TV.
>>44055126
thnks m8
>>44055127
Because this is where we are and this is where we're talking about this, so I have to assume you chodes will be the ones playing the games and I think most of you are terrible people? Doesn't stop me from enjoying the place, and I would think by now you'd all realize, like I do, that nothing anyone says around here should matter to you, at all. Should be water off a duck's back. But it seems not everyone got the memo.
>>44055110
I dont understand.
What does a level 6 fighter know that a level 1 fighter cant know until level 6?
Are you talking about feats? if a level 1 fighter knows level 6 feats, then you arent following the rules of the game and that is clearly the problem.
>>44055134
You know nothing about me, same as I know about you. Though, I did say since you're here you're a shitty RPer and a shitty person (most likely anyway) so I suppose you calling me a shitposter is justified. Though, frankly, between you and me, calling people that you don't agree with shitposters is actually incorrect, because it just means you're frustrated with their opinions not synching up with your own, and you can't let it go. It doesn't mean they are shitposting. It just means you don't care for what they have to say.
>>44055155
>what is meta knowledge
Look it up, I'm tired of explaining it.
>>44055165
And I explained to you that the "gaining meta-knowledge through backstory manipulation" is remedied by the wisdom/intelligence check.
I don't think I'll get tired of explaining it, because that's my personality. It's why I gravitate towards GMing and posting on forums about the topics I don't mind explaining things about.
>>44055160
>calling people that you don't agree with shitposters is actually incorrect, because it just means you're frustrated with their opinions not synching up with your own, and you can't let it go.
Nah, you're shitposting.
Remember, if you disagree that just means you're frustrated with my opinion not synching up with your own, and you can't let it go.
>>44055160
No, you are a shitposter because you post stupid things on purpose then act smug and insult people who call you out on it.
if you were not a shitposter you would have admitted anybody saying 'first level fighter' can be assumed to be discussing a DnD game.
This has nothing to do with 'opinions syncing'.
>>44055183
Nah, I did tell you you were entitled to your opinion man. But hey, if it's this easy to make you mad you must be a peach at the table. Plus, I am entitled to disagree with you because you already threw the first punch. But I won't, because what you think of me really doesn't matter. If I cared, would I bother telling you all this shit you can't stand to hear?
>>44055178
I already addressed that issue. I guess you missed it. And I don't mind explaining things to people a few times, but I've done so way too much in this thread already. It's almost getting to be like work.
>>44055165
To explain, again:
If a character says:
"My character was once an omniscent god who knew everything and is now a level one fighter,"
That would be ridiculous. That range of knowledge is so large that you could make a wisdom/intelligence check to remember anything that has happened to anyone or anything during your lifetime.
If a player says:
"My character was once a general in a grand military host that laid waste to an entire kingdom. He was shackled and imprisoned for 25 years after a rebellion lead to the end of his campaigns, and has recently been released."
I would say:
"Your character could probably pass knowledge checks relating to military tactics or general facts about the lands he has conquered."
The character's meta knowledge is limited to their success on intelligence checks.
Give me a single example of a situation where a player could express that his character should intrinsically possess some knowledge about the setting due to past combat experience that can't be remedied by "make an intelligence/wisdom check to see if you know that".
I find the argument that concepts can be created which provide so large a range that the intelligence check can be abused (the ex-omniscience example) but not one where combat experience could be abused.
No meta knowledge is intrinsically known without intelligence checks, that is the entire point of having those attributes in the first place.
>>44055251
Oh, so when that player makes a roll for his character, if he fails, then he himself, as the player, won't use that meta-knowledge anyway? Or just do it without letting it be known he's doing it in a more subtle way?
Wow, dice work wonders at your table. And don't lay that bullshit on me about your players being angels who would never do that. If you think so, you're disgustingly naive.
>>44055064
>And doesnt that make a whole lot of sense for a game relying largely on monster killing to create conflict?
I think that specificaly comes from two things. The wargame roots of D&D where they basicaly scaled down Chainmail to the personal level so prehaps the first level fighter PC was literaly a vertran trooper from that game, but without access to the chain mail rules I can't be sure there. The second being the idea that even at first level the PCs are already a cut above the average nameless spear carrier.
>>44055266
>Oh, so when that player makes a roll for his character, if he fails, then he himself, as the player, won't use that meta-knowledge anyway?
then the ass was probaly going to do that anyhow regardless of his PC's background.
>>44055301
And then proceed to justify it when he eventually gets caught with said background.
It's best to just avoid these things by nipping them in the bud.
>>44054230
>What's wrong with this character bio?
It implies you're higher level than 1.
>>44055307
But you've lost most of those levels by slacking off in a tavern for thirty fucking years.
You're back to level one, and gaining more levels is really just regaining the old ones by getting back to shape and rediscovering your killer instinct.
>>44054230
Absolutely nothing. Provided you aren't out of your depth. Then again, no amount of bio-vetting will save you.
>>44055306
and then he's going to come up with some other excuse, the problem there is with the player not the background, no matter what that type of player makes you're going to have the same exact problem just with different window dressings.
>>44054230
>What's wrong with this character bio?
Absolutely nothing
>>44055306
Can you provide an example of a background for a character that a player could not justify meta-knowledge with?
>>44055313
You know, I think I've actually seen some video games RPGs use that as the justification for why the hero of the last game is back to lvl 1 for the sequel, but I can't rember which one it was... might of been Rance
>>44055324
That's actually a fair assertion.
>>44055340
As is this.
>>44055329
>best evil king ever.
>>44055266
>you're disgustingly naive
No you are just making absurd assumptions and banning a range of interesting character backgrounds for no actual reason. Not everyone is as shitty as your players apparently are and its your fault for continuing to allow those people to even play at your table if they refuse to stop doing it.
>>44055340
not him, actulay I'm one of the ones arguing in favor of the concept, but now I'm kinda curious, farmhand is out becasue that implies knowlege of plants, animals, bartering and other such things. Military recruit could argue that his formal training means he knows tactial stuff. That's two of the default generic fighter #412 backgrounds out. There's "I was trained in seclusion by my dad who adamently refused to teach me anything beyond the basics of sword play" but that's kind of an extreme example.
>>44054476
>forgetting Rock Hardcheese
>>44055369
And it's gotten itself a season 2. More Dicky!
>>44055321
>if you're out of your depth no amount of bio-vetting will save you
fix'd that for ya
>>44055251
>broad skill categories or quantifiable player-defined backrounds? Never heard of them
>>44055432
"broad skill categories or quantifiable player-defined backrounds"
So the player is saying he picked something like "Background: Sailor" from a list, and now gains knowledge pertaining to his background without having to make any checks?
If the system does not provide limitations on said knowledge, nor does it state that there is any check required for accessing said knowledge, then it can be assumed the character would be learned enough to have said knowledge at his disposal.
OR
if there is a check required but the range of information is so large that the player is constantly making checks to access the information,
Then what you have is a problem with the amount of knowledge at the disposal to a low level character according to the game rules, your problem is with the system, not the characters choice of background.
>>44054371
I think Stump Chunkman is better
>>44055489
lol next they will argue that "blah blah my system isn't broken it just expects me to do a reasonable amount of policing, which I do" without understanding that the system gives them the OPTION to be okay or not okay with it, and they choose to not be okay with their player's choices without some sort of pre-arranged agreement, which is a social disagreement between two people, not a gaming etiquette thing.
>>44055489
>"Not being a dick"? How's that?
>I don't use systems with broad categories of competency. I also don't use systems with extensive list of useful* skills. I mostly just bitch on /tg/
*"Useful" is an important word. Craft: Basketweaving and Knowledge: Beavers are not useful.
>>44055595
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Could you please explain?
>>44055595
Yeah I am not that guy either, but I am trying to follow the conversation and your posts aren't very well composed. Are you high or something?
>>44054230
My opinion is that it's fine as long as your stats reflect it. The "getting back his skills" could be represented by leveling up. Plus, nowhere there did you say he was a GOOD fighter. He could've retired at level...idk, 2? 3?
>>44055616
Almost any backround is fine as long as it's:
1) You don't Henderson the character's abilities. Seriously, that shit is stupid
2) It's supported by the system. It's just as okay to have "Leader of men 5" as a background in 13th Age as it is to have a Siegecraft+4, Logistics+2, Command+3, etc. in GURPS
0) Most importantly, as long as you and your players behave like sane and rational people and not one-upping each other like dire assholes in a jar.
>>44055633
>Are you high or something?
Almost. Very tired and had a few minutes of sudden dickishness. Sorry
>>44055678
Np man, owning up to it and apologizing makes you better than 98% of people in that situation.
>>44055343
From memory he only reverts back to level 1 in Rance IV
In Rance 2 he was bumming around until he needed money so he deleveled (though he isn't particularly high in 01 anyway)
In Rance 03 he used all his money on girls and even sold off the holy sword and the holy armour so he deleveled. At the end of Rance 03 he is by far the highest he has even been in the series (>600 when him at level 60 every other game is easily enough to beat the final boss).
But he gets deleveled for blasphemy.
Rance 4.1 and 4.2 don't really count.
Kichikuou isn't canon and levels aren't that important but he's been reasonably active. Still weaker than in IV because it's been over a year.
Rance 5D he starts fairly low.
Rance VI he starts low because bumming around for years.
Sengoku Rance he starts in the 40s because it's pretty soon after VI
He spends about six months after sengoku just bumming around and playing with Suzume so he and Suzume are both low leveled.
IX doesn't have levels.
In addition to everyone having a level cap (which can be temporarily increased by items) people can also lose levels.
People who gain levels quickly like Rance lose them quickly.
People who gain levels slowly lose them slowly etc
>>44054230
>When his creditors come after him, he must don his armor again and earn enough to save his business, and maybe a little extra
By the time he's done with his adventurers, the creditors have already repossessed his bar, sold the land to someone else, who has in turn refurbished it into Mossyfoots' new and used clothing shoppe.
Bulk now has to pay the new owner twice what the land is worth, and then pay to renovate it back into a bar...
...Just open a new bar.
>that part of the thread that's nothing but a series of catty greentexts replying to each other
>>44055343
it wasn't an RPG but I remember in the first assassin's creed you have your gear and rank stripped for pissing off your boss and you have to work to earn your shit back. it didn't make sense to me at the time how the best assassin ever suddenly turned into a fucking scrub but whatever
>>44054230
The name's a little goofy but otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with it. 30 years of the easy life would plausibly justify a low-level character with plenty of experience that should have them at a higher level.
>>44054230
Slab Bulkhead!
>>44055080
Being a squire would probably be child abuse today.
>>44055080
What? You're the kind of neighbor that would try to report me to social services because I take my son hunting, aren't you?
>>44054313
Just multi-class him. Level 3 Warrior/Commoner, Level 1 Fighter/Barbarian.
>file deleted
Uh, what?
