Pit Fighter wrote:

Very few of them actually want to play a below average barely competent beggar who then turns hero.

Zero to Hero always struck me as a Tolkien reference, Particularly in relation to the hobbits. Merry and Pippen end up performing some remarkable feats by story's end.

Pit Fighter wrote:

They just don't want to be in the MCU but with dragons and dungeons.

If that's the case, then I'm surprised that 5th Ed D&D has been so popular. I haven't played myself, but all my friends who have emphasize how you don't have to start off as an incompetent newb.

Pit Fighter wrote:

While I haven't played long term in BoL (only about 8 sessions so far total across two campaigns), I do think that for a 2d6 system BoL does let you start out too optimized for easy success rolls.

See, I view that as a feature, not a bug. I want my heroes to succeed 9 times out of 10. It's easy enough for a GM to make the opponents competent enough that defeating them (or achieving whatever feat one is trying to accomplish) isn't a foregone conclusion.

Pit Fighter wrote:

That's easy to hotfix as a GM by limiting starting points (attributue, combat, and career) and slowing down AP distribution.   But too easy out of the box?  It's definitely possible.

To me, what you're suggesting is altering the game into something that doesn't especially emulate Sword & Sorcery fiction. Which, if that's what you enjoy, more power to you. I wouldn't want to play in that game. Nor have I found myself with an overpowered character who achieves easy victory with the Rules as Written. But, again, whatever makes you and your table happy.   

Pit Fighter wrote:

For my first campaign, I asked the GM if I could optimize a mage as I wanted to fully try out the magic system from the get-go and he was fine with it as he also was curious.   Between starting out with a mind of 4 (with the boon that boosts it by one) and a magic career of 3 and the Sorcerer Kings boon, I was rolling 3d6 keep the two highest + 7.   Most of my spells cast were first magnitude so the penalty was 0 to -1.   That's a 91%-94% success rate right out of the gate according to anydice and I wasn't bad in the other stuff either (though I wasn't good either though, just not abysmal as one would expect!).

91-94% sounds like an excellent success percentage to me. (Though I must admit I would never play a sorcerer in a Sword & Sorcery game. I don't like playing magic users in any setting, but in Sword & Sorcery I have a hard time viewing them as anything but bad guys. Personal bias.) 

My thief, after 10 or so Advancement Points, was able to scale an unscaleable tower. Though not without some tense moments requiring the spending of Hero Points. He now uses that achievement to bolster his assertion that he's the greatest thief South of the Axos Mountains. He qualifies it only because he hasn't been North of the Axos Mountains yet. (Yeah, he brags about being a great thief. Good enough for the Gray Mouser, good enough for me!) 

Pit Fighter wrote:

That does raise the question of where you go from there long term for me as you can mostly cap out in your chosen field pretty easily early.

I figure you pick up additional careers. The Twain gained additional expertise in Sailor as their adventures progressed. Under the right circumstance, you could pick up levels in Noble. 

Sorry for the long-winded response. Mostly it boils down to "I guess we approach the game a bit differently." Hope I made it clear that I'm not suggesting you're 'wrong' for playing the way that you enjoy.

Pit Fighter wrote:

No offense taken or inferred and I agree.   Play however you prefer as fun is the goal!   I suppose I fall a bit closer to the zero than your hero on that scale, lol, when it comes to preference as a starting character. 

I think part of it, for me, is having been stuck in so many games where my character is supposed to be top-notch at what he does, but doesn't play that way. I'm reminded of a convention game where my character in a Daredevils game was supposed to be a "Great White Hunter" in the Pulp tradition, yet the GM had me roll for hunting each day of our travels and I *never* bagged anything. In that instance, I think at least part of it was a GM setting targets too high, but the system/character design definitely didn't help.
 

Pit Fighter wrote:

Was that the point/central premise/plot of the adventure at the convention?   If it was just some backstory turned into gameplay with no risk to your character's safety, IMO there shouldn't have even been a roll.   One mistake IMO that modern D&D made since 3/3.5e was getting rid of the taking 10/taking 20 rules where you assumed basic competency on the part of characters where there was no risk with failure and no time pressure.   You simply were able to do things based on your character's level of competency without rolling.   Even older versions of D&D just threw the roll away completely and said you just succeed.

At this point, I don't think I could even say. It was back in the '90s. The game was not memorable, but the frustration is unforgettable. 
 

Warlord of Lemuria wrote:

I believe that one of the strengths of Bol/Everywhen is that a game can be tailored from the start. Want to be a little less heroic? Start with one less career and one less character creation point, which does do more from the start and those need to be earned in the game. Plus, handing out minor enchanted items (not huge magical weapons, more like amulets and talismans) as rewards instead of APs can also add to the game without bending it too far out of shape. A talisman that makes elementals more friendly to the bearer-no dice roll needed, not a game-breaking item, and it can be lost or stolen.

These are wise words Pit Fighter! Starting the campaign with PCs as Toughs, restricting Hero Points, and having crappy starting gear is another way to go to delay competence if you or your players value advancement as a major part of the game. Personally, as I explained upthread, I prefer starting as a skilled hero and seeing advancement more as a development of a character's place in society, rather than increasing numbers written on a sheet. And being mean with Advancement Points helps a lot too. But as Paul and I agree - whatever floats your boat is the right way for you! There is no 'right' way to play BoL or any other game.

And PCs in BoL can be killed by Toughs, sometimes easily with the right rolls - I've seen it happen more than once!

Umm...don't ask me maths questions! I'm dyslexic and on top of that I'm also crap with numbers, which probably has another name in Greek and may be a related condition. 

Off the top of my head around 65% seems about right for the start of competence, but how that relates to BoL is harder to see (for me at least). In BoL if you can add 1 in either a combat abilty or a career to a value of 1 in an attribute, then you only need to roll a value of 7 on two dice to get 9 - a simple moderate success. I think your chance of rolling 7 on two dice is 16.67pc, which doesn't seem that high to me. But you will probably be able to add 2 to your roll from somewhere on your sheet. And of course you may roll more than 7. And then there are bonus dice muddying the water further.

I don't think that BoL mechanics make for an easy comparison to percentages. I know that in BRP, having a 65% chance is better than something lower, but you can still fail very easily on a percentage roll in BRP. BoL is designed so that most of the time, for simple tasks, you will usually succeed.

You can make characters weaker at the begining of a campaign very easily as outlined above, but if you think the chance of success is too easy in BoL, then you would need to fiddle with the core mechanic, which frankly I don't think is a good idea.