Congratulations you took an incredibly roundabout word salad way of describing a reality simulator. Reality simulator doesn't mean our reality FYI. NPCs do not have full character sheet because they are negligible and the ones that aren't do have full character sheets. What makes them different are their races, culture and biology. I don't think you understand how pen and paper systems work.
It's you who keeps bringing up Pen&Paper as a "reality simulator" (don't worry, I'm fully aware of the world being fictional) - but any serious simulation (and you take this one *very* serious, it seems) should be consistent and make sense as a whole. "NPCs are negligible" doesn't make sense as an agrument without the world the simulation is supposed to portray making that distinction as well, and therefore having an in-world explanation for the lack of complexity of most NPCs.
It's entirely possible to restrict actions from a gameplay point of view? Yes. Levels are part of gameplay. Experience is a part of gameplay.
And yet, background doesn't 100% figure into experience, there's no defined system for that, otherwise you'd have every player list what their character did before the campaign started, and that would have to be translated by an exact formula into XP or milestones, resulting in their appropriate character level (or the other way around: take character level and limit by some exact formula to what is possible for a character of that level to have accomplished before the campaign started - again, heavily subjective (and therefore subject to DM decision) anyway.
I didn't say you don't have skills I said that your skills are not noteworthy if you are low level
Yes, and your only interpretation of 'noteworthy' seems to be by game terms metric. Something that is quantifiable on the character sheet. But guess what, someone with a Persuasion bonus of +6 at Lv1 is deemed *very* persuasive, while someone with that bonus at Lv 20 would be mediocre at best. It's all relative, and doesn't serve to describe strength + weaknesses of a character in general, narrative terms. Trying to translate char sheet progression into narrative and vice versa in a 100% way is what you apparently like to do, and that's fine - just don't expect everyone else to follow your dogma on this.
I am 30 years old and a father of two children and work in a highly demanding field. Do not try to diminish my person because your argument is falling flat.
Oh, are we really going there?
Also, accusing me of something you yourself brought into it, and all in the same sentence? Should I maybe quote your own signature to yourself now?
simulation
/sɪmjuːˈleɪʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
imitation of a situation or process.
"simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"
the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
"the method was tested by computer simulation"
I don't know about you, but DnD never managed to trick me into believing it was real, nor that it was a particularly well-crafted representation or computer model that could deliver accurate predictions of how things could work in a fantasy setting. None of those definitions work for me here, so: Nope, DnD ain't a simulation for me. It's a game system designed especially for player convenience - well, let's say with the *goal* of player convenience.
Please. You agreeing with something or not does not alter reality. I don't consider that anathema at all as long as they didn't try to pass their low level characters off as having artisan level combat, crafting or social skills. Again, you are creating a problem in your own head and arguing against it as if it was my point. I am going to spell it out for you.
I don't debate the existence of objective reality, it's just you who takes a lot of your own convictions and misrepresent them as objective reality to which everyone else has to subscribe - or be "wrong". If this works well for you, by all means, stick to it. Just maybe accept that other people can easily seem to ignore said objective reality and have fun doing that. Take the example of the poster above me - wizened old crone at Lv1. I don't see a problem with that, not even with said crone saying she knows a lot about herbs, nature, remedies etc. - in game terms, level-adjusted via proficiency bonus to what a Lv1 character can do obviously, but in narrative, still damn knowledgeable about this stuff. It doesn't bother me, and I find it more enriching than any notion of narrative-gameterm-consistency.
but you cannot be a level 1 character that is a veteran of many wars and a champion of the army as a level one because that is not how the system works. / In your backstory you are this great epic warrior but in actual combat you are barely more competent than a farmer.
You can make even that extreme example work if you really want to, and quite easily: said champion was betrayed, severely wounded / cursed or otherwise incapacitated, and now is barely back in action, having to basically re-learn a lot while in constant pain that limits what he can do (represented by character level, comparable to a level drain of older editions. Also due to the betrayal and general shunning of his person, his renown is now barely worth more than the normal soldier background, he can pull a few strings, call in some remaining favours, but that's it.
