Differing levels

[jdizzy001]

Have you ever started your players at different levels? I did once in dnd 4e. The results were mixed, it didn't effect the game at all as I expected. What did you notice when you tried? Oh, and by about the sixth session, everyone has caught up to each other.

[Omote]

In earlier versions of D&D and in C&C I have had PCs of varying levels. The level spread was usually within 3 levels though. I did play in one campaign where (and I didn't know this at first) my 6th level character died and per the CK you had to come back as 1st level! The CK was pretty good at running the game that way, and I advanced back up to my previous PCs level (previous level -1) fairly quickly, but yeah it was hard.

I would say stick to character levels that are within 1-3 of each other. Except very high-level thieves. They can advance so much faster in C&C that other classes that the level variation is needed for them to survive it seemed.

~O

[Captain_K]

When starting a group I give a set experience and the levels fall where they may. I recall a new DM said, "You can play and 5th lvl PC you want." Even ones from the Dragon Mag? Yes..... My 5th lvl from the PH Bard Kicked BUTT. But the new DM kept his word and we had fun with it.

But I think most folks like to be in a team of peers.

[finarvyn]

Agreed. I think that most adventures work best with similar party levels, e.g. encounters which are a challenge for one level might be a walk-through for another.

In addition, I think that party dynamics work best when everyone considers their character to be an equal. Sometimes Frodo likes to adventure next to Gandalf, but sometimes he resents the fact that Gandalf can steal the show as often as he likes.

[jdizzy001]

I dont mind a 1-4 level spread, but I actually like the idea of a huge level spread (ie frodo and gandalf). That is, IMO, the greatest weakness with level based games versus skill based games like the d6 system.

[Lurker]

I dont mind a 1-4 level spread, but I actually like the idea of a huge level spread (ie frodo and gandalf). That is, IMO, the greatest weakness with level based games versus skill based games like the d6 system.

You beat me to the punch on that. Back when I ran games a lot, I did it all the time for Star Wars d6. It depended on your background story, so if you had a good story that justified being more experienced you'd get a bump to your skills. It always worked fairly well.

I've done it a bit in D&D type games back in the day, but not nearly as much. I never did the Frodo vs Gandalf spread. Usually 2 - 4 level spread. Plus it would depend on the high level of the character. It is a bigger difference between 2nd to 4th level than it is 4th to 6th.

[Captain_K]

Does it matter what the CK wants, isn't it what the players want or like... I think even the simplest monkey know, unfair is unfair.... jealously is a truly hideous beast.

[jdizzy001]

I guess that is what I'm bemoaning, the fact that many players would get upset that they aren't as strong as the other players. Heck, I've seen it in games where players were the same level and one player was able to capitalize on their player abilities more often than another player.

[Lurker]

Does it matter what the CK wants, isn't it what the players want or like... I think even the simplest monkey know, unfair is unfair.... jealously is a truly hideous beast.

Of course it depends on the party. If it would have had an issue, I'd not have allowed it.

However, is life fair, is every team made up of exactly the same age/experienced people ? With that outlook, it made the games I did it in feel more realistic. Look at Star Wars IV, it had 18/19 year old kids wet behind the ears, but will some good skills, an experienced smuggler & his side kick, and an old highly experienced Jedi. And though Luke was whiney, he didn't whine that Ben of Han was more experienced than he was. H learned from them and lived through things he otherwise wouldn't have because he was with them.

Also, the younger/less experienced characters quickly caught up - or at least closed the gap - to the older more experienced characters.

However, like I said, if it would be an issue for the players I gamed with (Luckily most of my groups I ran game with could, but there is one that truly couldn't wouldn't handle it) I wouldn't even think of running a game that way.

[Treebore]

I run them all of equal XP. Fair is fair, and no one wants to fall behind because life got in the way of their attending a few game sessions, or because they simply joined later. Plus its also unfair to the party. They are far better off having a character in their party that is on par with them, than several levels, or more, below them. Especially if its a Wizard or a Cleric. IE no fireballs or more powerful cure spells. So I just assume the party recruited a new character on par with themselves. Or if a player misses a session or 4 due to life, that their PC was off doing something on their own to earn the XP, but no loot. Unless the party decides to give something they earned to them. Which I have seen be done.

[Captain_K]

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, "Treebore, You're a genius!" I hate keeping track of experience, so I simplified it. You sir have made it super fair and super easy. The group gains experience, not the individual. Makes sense because the group gains it. That said, my only sad note it we have a simple system to give out game bonuses at the end of the night. I'd have to give a new type of bonus for "heroism", "purple heart", "stupidest lesson learned", etc.

[Treebore]

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, "Treebore, You're a genius!" I hate keeping track of experience, so I simplified it. You sir have made it super fair and super easy. The group gains experience, not the individual. Makes sense because the group gains it. That said, my only sad note it we have a simple system to give out game bonuses at the end of the night. I'd have to give a new type of bonus for "heroism", "purple heart", "stupidest lesson learned", etc.

I do similar. In that case, total the XP, average it, then give 10% less to the new character. Unless its a player replacing an old character, then just give them their old XP. I actually look at it as more awarding XP to the player, rather than the character.

[Kayolan]

Generally speaking, I don't want there to be a huge difference between character levels. I think this goes back to my early days of DMing. Players would come and go, and new characters couldn't start at first level if the others were already higher, it just wouldn't work out well for obvious reasons.

I remember reading this advice in the OAD&D DM's Guide:

If you have an existing campaign, with the majority of the players being
already above 1st level, it might be better to allow the few newcomers to begin
at 2nd level or even 3rd or 4th in order to give them a survival chance when
the group sets off for some lower dungeon level. I do not personally favor
granting unearned experience level(s) except in extreme circumstances such as
just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or
she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of
cleverness, risk, and hard fighting.



I agreed with this then and still agree with it.

[Fizz]

Look at Star Wars IV, it had 18/19 year old kids wet behind the ears, but will some good skills, an experienced smuggler & his side kick, and an old highly experienced Jedi. And though Luke was whiney, he didn't whine that Ben of Han was more experienced than he was. H learned from them and lived through things he otherwise wouldn't have because he was with them.

I like this analogy. A game played like this would be genuinely one of role- (not roll-) playing, where the players aren't too concerned that one character is stronger than the others. I can see many Star Wars games like that, as the jedi-padawan paradigm is common. Not sure why that can't work in fantasy rpgs as well.

-Fizz

[jdizzy001]

It can. It would require a great deal of planning on the part of the CK, a great level of maturity from the players, and a deep desire to role play as opposed to roll play. Another good example would be from Wheel of Time: Eye of the World. 5 backwater farmer types (level 1 whatever class) roaming around the countryside with an Aes Sedai (a high level wizard or illusionist), a high level warder (fighter, ranger or paladin type) and a midlevel gleeman (a midlevel bard). As mentioned earlier, this type of game is easier to run with a skill based game as opposed to a level based game. Each encounter would need to be carefully balanced to allow players to shine, an example taken from the book would be when the party was cornered by their first Half-man. Lan took on the Half-man (a challenge worthy of his level) and the other players took on the trollocs (basically 1-2HD monsters).

As I mentioned however, even with a level difference in characters, after about 6 sessions, the XP gap vanished as the lower level characters caught up to the high level characters.

[Fizz]

Indeed, i think you are right. The encounter type is key to a fun game regardless of any set of levels or any set of classes. If the adventure is set up well, it can be fun for all characters regardless of how they differ in level or class. Conversely, a poorly design campaign would focus too much on one character (again, either by level or class), and one or more players are left feeling useless.

-Fizz

[Lurker]

It can. It would require a great deal of planning on the part of the CK, a great level of maturity from the players, and a deep desire to role play as opposed to roll play. ...

That is the key to soooo much . If the DM or players can't/won't handle it, don't even attempt it. If they can run with it and have fun.

Also rgr fizz on it being easier on skill based games than level games. However, it can work on level games too. And like jdiz mentioned, the difference closes as the game goes aolong

[Treebore]

It nice when its a movie or a novel, but no matter how powerful your companions are, when your first or second, or even 3rd level, and get hit with that Fireball or Lightning Bolt at the parties over all level, your dead.

Even in skill based games, odds are the more experienced characters are going to be much more likely to survive a given event, whether an attack from a tougher monster, or a spell.

So I just like to avoid bothering with, or worrying about, the over all problem and avoid it entirely by making new characters on par with the party.

If you want to add the complication, great. Me? I am going to keep my games as simple to run as possible.

Its hard enough for me to avoid killing PC's when they are of a higher level, I don't need the extra challenge of trying to avoid killing a significantly lower level PC.

[Fizz]

It nice when its a movie or a novel, but no matter how powerful your companions are, when your first or second, or even 3rd level, and get hit with that Fireball or Lightning Bolt at the parties over all level, your dead.

True, but that is where adventure design comes into play. I can certainly understand wanting to keep things simple. I think it all depends on the exact details of the adventure and how much work is required to fix it. (And what your players are ok with, too).

To continue the comparison, Luke didn't have to face-off against Vader in Episode IV. Vader was reserved for the high-level member Obi-Wan. Luke needed to gain a few levels over a couple more movies before taking him on.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

Campaigns are not about one character. They are about a group. I would either have to hold back to allow the lower level character to advance, or challenge the high levels as I should, and the low level will be dead. I am not holding back when all I have to do is solve the whole dilemma by allowing the new PC to be on par with the rest of the group.

[Fizz]

Campaigns are not about one character. They are about a group. I would either have to hold back to allow the lower level character to advance, or challenge the high levels as I should, and the low level will be dead. I am not holding back when all I have to do is solve the whole dilemma by allowing the new PC to be on par with the rest of the group.

I agree all characters should have a role in the adventure, but such level dichotomies can be accounted for in the adventure design, is what i'm meaning.

For example, with your fireball / lightning bolt example, maybe the low level character is carrying an artifact that saves him (kind of like the mithral armor that Frodo has in LotR). Or perhaps the low level character finds a hidey-hole that saves him.

In effect you compensate for low level with equipment / scenarios that improve their survivability. But there is certainly more work in this as the level difference increases. The biggest split i had was one of 5 levels: two characters at 2nd and two at 7th. (This was in my AD&D 2nd ed days.)

But i do agree the easy solution is to keep them all at similar level.


-Fizz

[finarvyn]

Some good conversation here. I won't say that you CAN'T mix high and low characters together, but I will say that most of the time it doesn't seem to work very well.

Take the Star Wars example. Having an experienced Han and a newbie Luke works somewhat because Luke has access to the Force and that gives him a talent that Han can't do. Reverse that situation and have an experienced Jedi with a rookie smuggler character and the adventure may fall flat because the Jedi gets to dominate things unless the adventure is set up specifically to make use of a smuggler's talents and that gets old fast in a long-term campaign.

I was playing in a 5E "Adventurer's League" session where we were starting a new hardback so everyone created new characters, except for one guy who used his DM XP to create a 4th level cleric. Even though the cleric tried not to dominate, I think the adventure was sour because everyone else would get wholloped and then the cleric would move in to save the day. Honestly, I think we all felt like we were his minions or something instead of real characters.

I'd prefer to keep character levels as consistent as possible to avoid these situations. Just my two coppers.

[jdizzy001]

You know, that would be a fun campaign too. A group of adventurers assigned by their lord to serve under the great warrior general during the war. However, upon arriving to their station they soon learn the great warrior general is a washed up has been. However, for reasons of which I haven't decided yet, it is in the PC's best interest to keep the public thinking the general has been is in deed a great warrior general. Therefore they have to go out on quests with him and ensure he survives despite the fact he is a high level npc, it is up to the pc's to ensure the general is "successful."

[Fizz]

I like that idea a lot. It creates plenty of interesting storytelling and tactical options throughout the story. If you run it let us know how it turns out.

-Fizz

[sirjolt]

Coming in a little late to this conversation but in a game like C&C where different classes advance at different rates, I've never really found this to be a problem. Having a 4th level Cleric in a party of 1st levels is annoying at first but will quickly diminish as time goes on. By the time that 4th level Cleric hits 6th level the other classes will be catching up fairly quickly. And the Thief is going to be the fastest advancer even if the player misses a few sessions. The way the advancement system works generally makes this a self-correcting problem. That said, I still wouldn't have a 4th level character with level 1 newbies unless everyone was a very experienced player.

[Captain_K]

The fast advance of low levels only is true at lower levels before the fixed exp. per level kicks in. Under 12th level the near doubling affect washes things out fast, but 19th vs 12th will forever stay separated.

I have found mixed in NPCs of much higher level (helping or teaching the group) or much lower level (need to be cared for) are the way to tell the story in a realistic manner. This helps remind PCs the world is NOT set for you to just barely win and you cannot toss about powerful stuff without killing off innocents around you.

Great conversation, great thread, good to see the community picking up again..

[jdizzy001]

I like this approach (using npc's to create disparity). Personally I don't play beyond level 12 (to many stories to tell, not enough time to tell them), but you bring up a good point about static xp accumulation.

[Lord Dynel]

I always start new PC's at level 1. Whether it's new players coming in or a new character that's a replacement to an older character they usually start at level 1. In the case of the latter, though, I sometimes give them a few levels (in the past my common formula was the average party level - 3). This is done more to "reward" the PCs who are surviving than to punish the PC that's new. And no one really see's it as a punishment, so it works out pretty good.

[Lurker]

I like this approach (using npc's to create disparity). Personally I don't play beyond level 12 (to many stories to tell, not enough time to tell them), but you bring up a good point about static xp accumulation.

That was true for me too back when I ran games. With that it worked for me at those levels, but I can see an issue for players at those high levels where the lower level characters never close the gap.