# Everyone starts at 1st level



## the Jester (Jun 14, 2009)

How would you need to change the game to keep it fun for everyone if you wanted all pcs to start at 1st level, even if the party was significantly higher level?

How much do you need to flatten the math curve for this to be viable? 

How many hit points should a 1st level pc fighter have in this scheme? What about a 10th level fighter? 20th level?

Gathering opinions- I'm working on a project that includes this design philosophy. What would YOU do? What can you suggest?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 14, 2009)

I'd suggest using the level 1 PC as a shield.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 14, 2009)

Make sure that there's only two levels. 

Seriously, a huge level disparity is basically a huge mechanics disparity: your party mates are hitting things you could never hit, are taking blows you could never take, and are dodging things  you could never dodge. If you throw "lower-level" challenges at the party, they aren't actually challenging for anyone (since the higher-level people clean them up). 

You'd need to have a basically flat (or only 5-15% variation) mechanics curve for that to remain fun without some serious DM Fiat.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 14, 2009)

We did this back in 1e and I heard someone on the board (diaglo maybe) that still does this.  If the first level character survives the fights they do tend to level faster.


----------



## Gog (Jun 14, 2009)

Al I can think of would be that any attack from or on a creature gets adjusted for the lower level pc bu HP stay the same for the bad guy. For instance;

PC -15 lvl   Bad Guy - AC 30 Atk +22 (2d6 +33)

PC -1 lvl   same Bad Guy as above - AC 18 Atk +2 (2d6 +3)

The HP are still 200 or whatever, lowering the HP for the 1st lvl would make it easier for him to kill the bad guy but I think that's a little unfair to the higher levels. The problems I see with this are at a certain level there are tons of spells to deal with (depending on the system) and it would require more work for the DM. 

For XP I would give them the xp for the lower CR (or whatever it is called) plus a bonus of some sort based on the difference between the lower CR and the upper CR. The upper level PC would get xp based on the upper CR and would not include the 1st level guy in anyway in that calculation.

I would think getting them closer to the average level of everybody else fairly quickly would be a good idea.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 14, 2009)

Depends on the system. I don't think its viable past a certain point in any system. If the party is level 10, I don't think adding a new character at 1st level is ever going to work out well. Making new characters start out lower depends on the system. 

Old School(OD&D through 2E, and retro clones)--I think the game can bear a bit of disparity. I'd say that a 1st level character can be added to a party as high as level 4 without hassles, and if the DM doesn't advance the difficulty of the game it can go a bit higher. 

3E--3E has a higher power curve and encounter power curve than Old School or 4E, so lower level characters are less viable here. 

4E--RPGA adventures allow for a 3 level difference(1st level through 4th level) and I think this would be the guideline. Anything more and you run into serious balance/encounter issues. 


I'd say the guideline would be at most 3 levels lower. The second consequence of doing this would be catching up xp wise, which is easy in Old School and much harder in 3E/4E and would require some sort of DM fiat.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 14, 2009)

What game?

D&D would be hard to do this with.

Vampire, much easier.

In a game where power levels multiples better (e.g. 2nd level is nearly twice as good as first. 3rd level is more than 3 times better than first), you'd need to either:

1. Do a LOT of changing to the game.

2. Do a lot of changing to "first level" which would take away the whole point.

3. Expect that new characters are:
     a. completely ineffective (which might be ok)

     b. super min/maxed as much as possible for survival

     c. all sneaky long ranged types to both survive and contribute



If you're talking D&D, i'd NEVER expect a defender / fighter who wasn't focused on ranged attackes to fulfil that role as 1st level among a group of 4th level and up characters.


Maybe cap the game at 4th level?



BTW. I don't mean to threadcrap, I just mean to point out that there are some really extreme challenges built into your question...BUT it could be done by changing EXPECTATIONS of players going into the game...sorta like in a Cthulhu game, you expect to lose/die.

One other ramification:
This will encourage selfish behaviors of survival among players who are higher than 1st level (and possibly suicidal behavior among new 1st level guys). Higher level guys will be LOATHE to die, while new 1st level characters will pale in comparison to the old character (and hence, players will not be invested in them).


One question: what is the reasoning behind your wanting to do this? I ask this because there may be other ways to reach your goal.

For instance, if you want a feeling of continuity, here is one way for players to introduce "new" characters:
1. Have hirelings in many adventures. These (or other NPCs) are statted out by players...heck, even the "bad guy" turned good could be used in this way. (This might also be a good way for you to alleviate some of your dm responsibilities). When a player dies, the hireling (usually of a level 3 or less than the pcs) becomes the new player character.   Do this, and you have a "pool" of potential new pcs from which to draw, and it makes sense that they "step up" to join the party.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2009)

Step 1: As DM, design combat encounters that contain level-appropriate opponents for each PC.

Step 2: During the combat, match up the level-appropriate combatants (this is common in superhero comics, let's call it the "X-Men Effect")

Step 3: Profit!

This works using any edition of D&D.

Alternately, you could allow PC's to try combat maneuvers that are _not_ described mechanically ("I through my cloak over the dastard's head so he can't see!"). Resolve these by pure DM Fiat. This also works in any edition of D&D.

As for a mechanics-based solution? I got nothing that wouldn't make the concept of "level" meaningless.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 14, 2009)

Consider this speculative comparison between a hypothetical 1st and 10th level dwarf fighter, let's call him "Boldo". I'm using a few assumptions here regarding magic item distribution and monetary resources. 

Does it look like these guys could adventure together, and the 1st level guy would be viable standing next to the 10th level guy? Obviously, he's not as burly, but would these guys be playable together?

*BOLDO (1st level) * 
HP: 22
AC: 16 (+3 chain mail, +1 helm, +2 heavy shield)
Fort: +3
Ref: +0
Will: +2
Attack with axe: +5 vs. AC; 1d8+2
Coolest Attacks: _Sweep-_ make one attack each at up to three adjacent targets; +1 vs. AC for 1d8+2. 
_Push-_ add a secondary attack on a melee hit; +3 vs. Fortitude; Hit: push enemy 1 square.


*BOLDO (10th level) * 
HP: 51
AC: 20 (+6 _full plate +1_, +1 helm, +2 heavy shield, +1 class)
Fort: +4
Ref: +1
Will: +3
Attack with axe: +12 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
Coolest Attacks: _Sweep-_ close burst 1; +9 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
_Rapid Strike-_ 2 attacks on the same target; +7 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
_Push-_ add a secondary attack on a melee hit; +10 vs. Fortitude; Hit: push enemy 1 square.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Does it look like these guys could adventure together, and the 1st level guy would be viable standing next to the 10th level guy? Obviously, he's not as burly, but would these guys be playable together?



The 1st level guy looks durable enough... but either the 10th level guy is going to hit nearly all the time or the 1st level guy is going to be the Prince of Whiffs.

Neither are desirable outcomes.


----------



## Oni (Jun 14, 2009)

For 4e?  The first thing I'd do would be to get rid of the half-level bonus that gets added to about every die roll.  That right there would flatten the powercurve tremendously.  The difference between higher level and lower level would then be items, hp, and number of abilities known.  I might trim the number of HP gained at a level as well, to flatten the HP curve a bit.  I think that would probably do it.  Being higher level is obviously better, but being lower level wouldn't make you helpless.

[edit: I might also give +1 hit/damage bonus at levels XYZ to show an improvement in skill, while simultaneously dropping +X items since I'm not terribly fond of them.]


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2009)

First off, it depend on HOW high up the other PCs are. A first level PC can still create a meaningful contribution if his peers are 2nd-5th level (though he should take on the weaker foes and avoid enemy casters) but levels 6th-9th the PC is best served hiding/sniping and praying for good roles. After 10th+, the first level PC should be played like a Call of Chuthulu PC; run from everything; burn the books, and have a spare PC or three ready.


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 14, 2009)

I honestly just don't think it's viable with the system as written.  It might be feasible for the GM to fudge things, but that may or may not be a good idea.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2009)

Out of curiosity, why is it important for characters to start at 1st level?

I mean, games like Traveller assume each character, whenever they begin play, will be competent.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2009)

Give the 1st level halfling rogue a ring of invisibility.

That always ends well.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2009)

In D&D (and similar class/level-based games) this simply does not work (well).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Jun 14, 2009)

I recently ran a few sessions of 4e  with a thrown in high level PC (15 in a party of 9s) I just factored his level to the encounters, and made sure that I kept monsters within both level ranges. This seemed to work, he was awe inspiringly hard but didn't overshadow the rest of the party.

As long as you keep within the level range for fights you'd be okay I think. If you run heavy on skill challenges just cut the new guy some breaks on DCs and you should be good.


----------



## fissionessence (Jun 14, 2009)

The first level character gets all the hit points and half level bonuses of the average encounter level. They only get powers and feats according to their 1st level, and those increase over time. They're still much less powerful, but at least can hit stuff and don't die right away.

~


----------



## Filcher (Jun 14, 2009)

"Save the cheerleader."

Make the 1st level PC absolutely crucial to saving the world. If the higher level PCs let him/her die, the universe implodes.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 14, 2009)

We did this in the old days.  It wasn't a big deal, as long as the rest of the party was level 7 or 8 or less.  All the level one guy had to do is hide behind the fighter and scoop up his share of loot and he'd pretty much level up FAST.  Admittedly, standing back and chunking a rock isn't very heroic, but it can be fun sometimes.  Not much different than a journalist tagging along with a group of marines.  A few sessions and he'd catch up with the other guys, if he lived.  I'm not too sure it would work well with 4e, though.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, why is it important for characters to start at 1st level?




Organic character growth and history in a long-term campaign. It's not _essential_ that pcs start at first level, but I _vastly prefer_ it, and it is simply not viable in 3rd and later editions. (In 1st and 2nd it actually worked out pretty well, although much better in 1st than in 2nd.)


----------



## Mircoles (Jun 14, 2009)

Everyone that comes to the game should have fun, if your starting someone at first when everyone else is higher in level, your basically penalizing them for being new to the game.

I don't really think that there's a way to make it fun for the low level guy either, practically every combat is an instant death situation for him.
 So, not only does have to deal with the confusion of starting in a new campaign, but he also has to deal with being almost compleatly useless in combat. 

It's a lame old school practice that needs to die and stay dead.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 14, 2009)

I disagree.  Old school games are more about exploration than combat, and a 10th level pc is no better than a first in this regard.  It's not for everyone, but deveoping a character from scratch is often more fun than starting at 6th level.


----------



## Vaslov (Jun 14, 2009)

I'd say if both the DM and Players were up for the challenge and agree it would be fun it could work.  It would be a lot of work though.  The DM would need to constantly need to find challenges for the various players at different levels.  And the players would have to enjoy taking on the "non-big combat" challenges.  I've seen it work, but I do not think the mechanics should be changed if this is your goal.  It means constantly tinkering with the encounters.

The 1st and 10th level character should stay out of the level 20 fight.  They probably shouldn't even be in the same dungeon.  They should go off to keep the kobold from running with the key information while the big boys keep the dragon busy or smooze with the local law to make sure the rest of the party who is off saving the world on another plane doesn't come home to find their lands have been confiscated.  Personally I find constantly coming up with split party challenges is very draining, especially for the DM.  YMMV.

While I have done this in the past it is not always the game I want to play.  I'd be sure the DM and Players are all excited about the concept before making a go of it.  I had a blast keeping my low level character alive, but I was also charged up when the next campaign started as now I could join the big boy fights.

As others suggested a game system with a small power curve over time helps with this as well.  WHFR & CoC come to mind as the best examples I can think of.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 14, 2009)

As a player I *much* prefer starting at 1st level, whenever possible.  Carefully done, (and with right players and campaign), mixing and matching levels is viable in any version, and could be a great story hook to boot.  Mixing levels seems like it would be particularly easy to do in 4e, since the math is so rigid.

Some good suggestions were already in terms of having lower level enemies for the lower level folks to fight, etc.  But also consider having places for the lower level characters to take cover, (to boost AC and possibly minimize the number of enemies that would engage).

Also, you may also have a kit for the new meat:  an item to boost AC, and/or Fort, Will, Ref, attacks, or something to give an extra daily--anything that would get the new player closer to par with the rest of the group and help him or her to survive.  Just have one of the higher-level players toss it to the new one with a "Here, kid.  You're gonna need this stuff to survive.  But its only a loaner!"


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 14, 2009)

the Jester said:


> How would you need to change the game to keep it fun for everyone if you wanted all pcs to start at 1st level, even if the party was significantly higher level?



Back in my AD&D days, this was what we always did.   Start a new character and join in, that's 1st level.

The whole thing about starting PCs at the level of the party, or one level behind or whatever came around in 3e, for the groups I played with anyway.

It was viable compared to later editions of D&D for several reasons:

1. The XP handed out in higher level games meant that lower level PCs would level up very rapidly.  In the first D&D campaign I ever played in, I joined a game with 9 PC's averaging about 12th level.  I leveled up once per session for the rest of the campaign, when my PC was 14th level.

2.  Damage totals were lower, especially melee damage, meaning that PC's were less likely to be killed in one hit even in higher level games.  My first PC, the one from the above example, was a Cleric who started with 8 HP, and since the Death's Door (aka -10) rule was in effect, she wouldn't die until she hit -10.  In practice this meant that most times monsters hit her she would be at critically low HP or knocked out, but she wasn't killed because the number of monsters that could do 18 or more points of damage in 1 hit in AD&D was pretty small.  You had a non-negligible chance of not being killed outright by a min-strength 5d6 Fireball or Lightning Bolt, and you could probably soak up a casting of Magic Missile without dying.  This meant my PC was getting knocked out a lot, but I was still getting lots of XP and certainly enough to level.

3. We didn't use miniatures, thus in a more narrative-oriented combat it was accepted, even expected for the less powerful PC's to state that they were standing back out of the fight and just running up briefly to heal or something, or staying in the middle of the group if it was a large melee.  The DM accepted this and the monsters generally attacked the fighter-types that were attacking back unless it was a huge mob of monsters (like an orc horde or waves of zombies or something) where there were enough to attack everybody.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> In D&D (and similar class/level-based games) this simply does not work (well).




No, it works _great_. This is how I run Empire of the Petal Throne (1975/OD&D) and I haven't gotten any complaints.

In the rules, you gain levels based on accumulating Experience Points. These come from two sources: killing monsters (not much) and gaining gold (a *ton*).

So far, the experience has been that "rookies" have to hang back for an adventure or two and do ancillary tasks: provide supporting fire with missile weapons, guard the flank/rear, use flaming oil (a big tactical component in many battles), hold the light sources and provide additional knowledge (such as languages not already covered in the party).

After a couple adventures, the XP rewards that roll in from the large amounts of treasure bump them way up there. I would expect a rookie to gain a level every couple of sessions on average... sometimes one might gain nearly two levels in a single session.

Very soon, rookies get up to speed and become second-stringers. And soon after that, they're first-stringers just like the old veterans.

Seriously, I think that most people who think this would be a problem are either playing a new school game (no XP for treasure) or have just never really tried it in the first place.


----------



## Keldryn (Jun 14, 2009)

I think that the old-school play technique of "hang around behind all of the tough characters and contribute in minor or nearly meaningless ways" would still work in 4e.  A 1st level PC doesn't need much XP to level up, and the character would probably catch up to the others relatively quickly, at least in the heroic tier.  Maybe give them a couple of higher-level magic items to help compensate; consider them family heirlooms and remove them from whatever treasure parcels are given out until they've been "paid off."

I've never been a fan of this approach, and I was always allowing new characters (whether new players or replacing a character who died) to start at one level below the party average way back in 1e and BECM games.  A new player just trying out the game is likely to get extremely bored hanging around watching everybody else play for the first few sessions; I'd hate to have a potential new player give up on the game because they never had a chance to experience what gameplay was actually like.  But I've also lost much of my "make the players work for it" mentality as I've gotten older.  Back when we were all in high school and playing every week (or more often), I was often hesitant to "give away stuff for free."  Now that we're in our thirties, most of us married, some of us with kids, and all working full-time, we can actually get together once or twice a month to play and I want those sessions to have as high a "concentration of fun" as possible.  I don't want anyone sitting around without being able to contribute meaningfully for even one game session, as it seems disrespectful of that person's time to penalize him because his character died or he had to miss four sessions in a row because of family or work commitments.

Not trying to get into wrongbadfun accusations here; I just really dislike the idea now.  

I would question how it provides organic character and history building when the character will basically be going from a 1st-level nobody to a hero of the caliber of the rest of the party at the likely rate of one level every session (or two as he catches up).  There are already a lot of complaints about how quickly PCs level up in 3e and 4e and how it's not very believable for characters to go from peon to superhero in a year of game time; I find that starting at 1st level with a party of higher level PC and catching up strains the suspension of disbelief even more.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 14, 2009)

Hmm from my point of view I don't see the point in starting a character at a lower level/points total than the rest of the crew.

The organic experience I get is from leveling up with a party all together from 1-6 is from the shared experience of it, not the leveling process on its own.

I'm 1st and the rest of the party are superheroes at 20th of so, erm no thanks.
The only way I would be willing to do this is if it was for roleplaying reasons or the lower level character had some kind of massive advantage that the higher level characters didn't (political influence, speaking/reading an ancient language, having more money that god etc.) preferably both.

I like everyone in a party to have their unique niche of what they are good at at such a level disparity without an extreme advantage Mr low level xp will only have the niche of being sucky


----------



## malraux (Jun 14, 2009)

This is a serious game. (NSFW language)

I really can't see starting well below the rest of the party working real well in 3e or 4e.  Even though you tend to asymptotically approach the level of everyone else, you'll always be behind.  You're also easier to hit, quicker to die, do less damage, have lower skill abilities, etc.  In fact, based on skills, there's little reason for an N+10 level party to take in an Nth level adventurer.  The non-trained abilities of the party will be pretty close to the trained level abilities of the new adventurer.  At best I could see it working only with <5 levels difference, at which point there's not much of a point to begin with.

That said, I could see possibly doing something like treating the character as having amnesia.  Every fight or so, the character recovers more of his memories and abilities such that he effectively levels quickly.  But this would be accelerated greatly from standard leveling (especially as he approached party level).


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2009)

Mind you, the "rookie hanging out and throwing oil" idea works best when the New PC...

1.) Isn't the primary source of his class function (IE: isn't the primary meat-shield, healer, trap-finder, etc)

2.) Has enough people of competent level to "hide behind" (Its easier to be the third line of a team with 6-8 people than one where your PC #4). 

3.) You can "skip" levels from XP gain (IE, a 1st level thief gains 5,000 XP in kill/treasure, so, he can now skip 2nd and go direct to 3rd)

4.) The player and group is comfortable with the rookie/veteran system; some groups and players aren't comfortable with this dynamic (the rookie feels useless and bored; the veterans feel tied down with an "XP sponge" who isn't pulling his weight). This will vary from group to group, of course.

5.) Isn't replacing a dead PC with a rookie constantly; I found that having a moderate-level PC and having to start from scratch can grind even the best veteran player. I wholly suggest replacing dead PCs higher than 1st level (1/2 level was my rule waaaay back in the day, now dead PC's level -1 is the rule) and this is doubly true if more than one PC died at once (or nearly so; its very frustrating to have one 7th-8th level PC survive and a bunch of n00bs join, so its back to the Caves of Chaos we go until we can get back to the Giant's Steading...)


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2009)

It seems to me there's a bit of the mentality here that *DEATH MUST BE PUNISHED*, and it's certainly nice to have players rewarded for good decisions & suffering a bit for bad ones, but IMHO being punished for your whole next PC's nasty, brutish and short career seems less than fun. It might encourage me to stab the high-level PCs in their sleep so we could all start over together. (Note to self: don't play a Rogue.)

Anyway, here's another *PUNISH DEATH* technique that my group came up with, mostly as a joke, but it might actually work -- particularly in 4e where monsters are easier to run.

I call it the *Monster Barrel*.

[h2]Monster Barrel[/h2]
One player is in the Monster Barrel. He runs the monsters (as handed to him by the GM). The GM is strictly a referee.

If a PC dies to a monster's attack, that PC's player spends the next session in the Monster Barrel, and the current MB player plays a new PC (or comes back from the dead).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Bumbles (Jun 14, 2009)

That monster barrel seems interesting, but it could be problematic for some games.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 14, 2009)

To address a lot of the comments here: being a fun game for widely mixed levels is one of the explicit design goals of the project I'm working on. Many of the standard assumptions of _what you get for leveling_ are under a process of significant reconstruction in this project. If you look at the example pc at 1st and 10th level above, you'll note that the gap in stats is actually fairly narrow- and it's figuring in his feats and exploits and stuff, so it's not like there will be another +3 put on top of it.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jun 14, 2009)

Play a Palladium game.
Any of them

Levels never matter, it's he who has the most money that wins.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> No, it works _great_. This is how I run Empire of the Petal Throne (1975/OD&D) and I haven't gotten any complaints.
> 
> In the rules, you gain levels based on accumulating Experience Points. These come from two sources: killing monsters (not much) and gaining gold (a *ton*).
> 
> ...




Well, this is basically saying that it does not work.

If it would work, it would not be necessary to bump them up to high level quicker than they are supposed to.

Why not start them at the high level right away and skip the unnecessary boredom for them.

Yeah, you _can_ build the adventures allowing them to hang back and do something, that seems meaningful (but really isn't, since the higher levels could just do the same with pretty much no effort at all).

In the end, they are just tagalongs who are there to get leveled up.

I don't see the point of starting at level one, when the party is actually much higher level.

Organic growth? This isn't organic growth, this is forced growth.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Organic character growth and history in a long-term campaign.



What does 'organic' mean in the context of character growth? I seems to refer to characters that are developed over time in response to in-game events, rather than built according to a predetermined build path. 

But isn't that decided by player preference? Simply starting a PC at 1st level doesn't guarantee the player won't use a canned build. In fact, it _encourages_ it, because a level disparity encourages players to wring every last drop of mechanical advantage from the system.

Also, doesn't character history effectively _begin_ when that character starts play? (Much to the chagrin of those who favor ten pages of backstory)



> (In 1st and 2nd it actually worked out pretty well, although much better in 1st than in 2nd.)



Starting everyone at 1st level certainly did work better in the older edition. But why was it easier in 1st than in 2nd (in AD&D for a while and 2nd for nearly a decade). Baseline 1e and 2e are almost identical mechanically.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2009)

malraux said:


> This is a serious game. (NSFW language)




Thanks!

This was the first thing that came to mind, when I first opened this thread, but I couldn't find the video. 

Go, Boba Fett! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> No, it works _great_. This is how I run Empire of the Petal Throne (1975/OD&D) and I haven't gotten any complaints.



It works better for a game that's built around OD&D's rules. BTW, I'm a little jealous... I've never played EPT, but I read two the novels by M.A.R. Barker back in high school and loved them. He out Vance's Vance in places. 



> So far, the experience has been that "rookies" have to hang back for an adventure or two and do ancillary tasks:...



Ah yes... D&D... a fantastic game of _performing ancillary tasks_. There are some people who prefer D&D to be a fantastic game of high adventure.



> ... hold the light sources and provide additional knowledge (such as languages not already covered in the party).



Perhaps 1st level PC's could serve as the party's accountants? They could spend the adventure back in the relative safety of a walled town and contribute by tallying the gold brought back. They would still get XP from being paid, right? 



> After a couple adventures...



Why treat meaningful participation --in a mechanical sense, at least-- like it's a privilege? Requiring PC's to start at 1st level only makes sense if the entire campaign is construed as a competition between the players.


----------



## Vascant (Jun 14, 2009)

I have been running it this way since the 80's and see no reason to change.  Do people die, yes of course they die and being brought back to life is seldom worth the effort (Just ask any cleric).  I also do not run CR based encounters but rather situational based, meaning if you walk stumble into a dragon's lair that has been there for 1000 years he suddenly won't drop in size just to be fair to the party's current level.  

  More to the topic, if someone is forced to start over (because all PC's do start at first level) then he or she is usually hired or starts as a henchman of someone else.  After all, no respectable adventuring party just lets someone in as an equal you have to earn your way into the ranks.  I award XP's to the lower level members not so much based on what they kill but rather how they handle their tasks given to them by other members or such.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Well, this is basically saying that it does not work.




No, I'm saying that it basically does work.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> If it would work, it would not be necessary to bump them up to high level quicker than they are supposed to.
> 
> Why not start them at the high level right away and skip the unnecessary boredom for them.




I thought I was clear on this, but nobody who has started a character back at first level has said anything to suggest that they have had a boring time. I run a fun game and get nothing but compliments on it.

Also, I don't level them up "quicker than they're supposed to". We go by the rules on that point, and the rules work exactly the way they were intended to. Almost as if they were written by somebody who knew what he was doing.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, you _can_ build the adventures allowing them to hang back and do something, that seems meaningful (but really isn't, since the higher levels could just do the same with pretty much no effort at all).
> 
> In the end, they are just tagalongs who are there to get leveled up.
> 
> ...




I don't know what you're talking about here, but it sounds nothing like my campaign.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Organic growth? This isn't organic growth, this is forced growth.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



What she said. And, as someone else pointed out, organic growth is leveling up _with the party_ from 1st onward.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Ah yes... D&D... a fantastic game of _performing ancillary tasks_. There are some people who prefer D&D to be a fantastic game of high adventure.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Perhaps you're thinking of it from a different perspective. Though most of my game has involved the exploration of a megadungeon, it has not been that exclusively. Most episodes include getting into trouble in the big city on the surface, as well as providing leadership to the refugee population that the PCs are a part of.

For example, a Priest who recently started (a 1st; he hit 3rd pretty quick though) was an acolyte at an important temple in the big city. He provided a vital contact (his superior), who in turn was able to get them the ear of the high priest. This opened up a lucrative mission by essentially getting them a bunch of information about a tomb on a lower level, and resulted in them returning an artifact that landed them a land grant (a crummy land grant that is infested with monsters and cannibal lunatic froglodytes of course... it's more fun that way!).

Plus, and perhaps I simply haven't stressed this... my game is about exploration and interaction rather than combat. Figuring out where to search, how to get around death traps, and how to solve weird puzzles involving things like geometric orientations and Fibonacci Sequences are all level-independent tasks. They recently had to get across this strange starry gulf to access a strange shrine on the other side... there was both puzzle solving and action, but the action had nothing to do with character level. Being chased around by an animated idol called for some rolling, but level didn't matter.

Now, in a combat/tactical oriented game, I guess being down a level or two would make a difference. But while I do have some combat, it's hardly the focus of the sessions. I go more for the thinky, talky, explory stuff.


----------



## Creamsteak (Jun 14, 2009)

I would certainly be interested to give it a shot one way or another. With the right player's any game is possible. In 3e, I think you could do this in an E6 game fairly well. In 4e, I'm not sure if I would prefer to adjust for those circumstances on the back end (changing the leveling rate so that lower level characters catch up more quickly) or on the front end (remove the 1/2 level bonuses, give everyone 3 powers of each type instead of gaining new powers per level), strip out the +'s to magic items, focus on just one tier of play (you could start at 11th for a paragon tier game instead of 1st), etc.

If someone asked me if I wanted to play in one, I'd certainly try it before I'd shoot it down.


----------



## Squizzle (Jun 14, 2009)

This is stolen from someone on rpg.net:

Keep the static bonuses (mostly: anything that gets half-level bonuses) equivalent to what the highest-level party member gets. If a level 1 PC joins a game with a level 14 party, the PC gets +7 to skill and ability rolls, attack rolls, defenses, etc. PC also gets HP appropriate to a character of their class at party-highest level. Treasure, etc. is appropriate to party-highest level.

Appropriate to level 1, the character gets two at-wills, one encounter, and one daily. As character gets XP, add powers as needed.

The goal is that the player gets the learning curve that someone gets when starting from level 1, but isn't an awkward combination of useless and dead.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Plus, and perhaps I simply haven't stressed this... my game is about exploration and interaction rather than combat. Figuring out where to search, how to get around death traps, and how to solve weird puzzles involving things like geometric orientations and Fibonacci Sequences are all level-independent tasks. They recently had to get across this strange starry gulf to access a strange shrine on the other side... there was both puzzle solving and action, but the action had nothing to do with character level. Being chased around by an animated idol called for some rolling, but level didn't matter.



 Ah-ha! Yes. Player challenges are far less level dependent than PC challenges.



Korgoth said:


> Now, in a combat/tactical oriented game, I guess being down a level or two would make a difference. But while I do have some combat, it's hardly the focus of the sessions. I go more for the thinky, talky, explory stuff.



 Yeah, in a combat/tactical game, or a game where the PCs use spells to solve problems (as mine did in 3.x). And to be honest, that's the kind of game I've come to expect as the baseline. Cool stuff can (and does) happen above that baseline, but the games I run should (IMHO) be playable even with a merely adequate DM, because frankly I have off days too.

It sounds like your games are far more free-form than mine. Kudos to you.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here, but it sounds nothing like my campaign.




I got a few question then for you...

1.) How many players at the table?

2.) How many of the "classic" roles are already filled with HL characters when the n00b is brought in? (tanker, sneaker, healer, nuker?)

I think these will answer the discrepancy of experience here.

In a group where you have 8 PCs, with a mage or two, a thief, a cleric (or two) and a bunch of melee types (rangers, fighters, paladins) then it really doesn't matter what level your 9th PC is. He'll grow into his role by hanging out with the "big boys" and peppering foes with his sling/bow/crossbow. 

In a group with 3 PCs, and/or where you lack a specific role (no tank, no healer), that first level PC will be expected to "fill that role". Imagine how well a first level fighter is going to stand up against a group of gnolls (or giants!) or how well that first level cleric can patch up his high-level thief friend when he just took 22 points of damage and is poisoned. (On the plus side, the cleric will soon have another 1st level thief-buddy to be hanging around with!)

As groups get smaller and character role becomes more important; the more important it is to start that new PC at a higher level so he can perform his role properly. 

If anyone is going to argue that a 1st level mage can hold his weight with a 9th level fighter, 10th level thief and 8th level cleric AND do his intended game function (big bang spells), THEN I'm going to question your integrity!


----------



## ST (Jun 14, 2009)

So to see if I'm caught up here -- this works as long as you don't use CR-based encounters, reduce the benefits gained from leveling up, and your players know to keep low-level characters basically out of fights entirely until they've leveled up. (which also requires changing the XP system, so that characters of lower level can catch up).

I would say that works as well as it's likely to, so mission accomplished. Obviously it's a change that requires you to rethink a lot of the fundamentals of how the game plays, so it's not going to go over well with people who _like_ those fundamentals the way they are.

Mechanically the lingering issue I see is that even with BAB increases from levels reduced a ton, you're still going to have the higher levels hitting every round or the lower levels whiffing constantly. That's not really fixable with linear increases to a bonus +d20 vs. a static defense score.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2009)

In terms of mechanics, one thing that helps a lot is to reduce the ratio of hit points. 4E does that, but maybe not enough. A fighter with constitution 15 doubles hit points by 7th level; one could halve the rate of increase so that HP take 12 levels to double.

Also, high-level characters in old games could go for a long time with reduced HP scores. A worn down superhero might have fewer current points than a fresh fighter of much lower level.

The same applies to chances to hit, for fighting types (i.e., everyone in 4E). That's not such a big deal in old (especially original or "classic") D&D, but in WotC's designs, defenses tend to improve in tandem with attack bonuses. So, instead of (say) 70% vs. 35% (2x), you might get 55% vs. 5% (11x).

By making all this open ended (or at least proceeding apace for 20 or 30 levels), and by flattening the experience point scheme, the newer designs exacerbated the difficulties.

As mentioned earlier, a character joining a higher-level expedition is often a high-reward option in old-style games. The level of risk greatly depends on circumstances, but the experienced are unlikely to be able to protect the novice from all things that would be dangerous to them and "overkill" to the newcomer.

Adventuring with peers may be preferable, but that option depends on a more flexible campaign structure than today's prevailing one in which "the party" really is THE party.



			
				1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide said:
			
		

> If your campaign has a mixture of experienced and inexperienced players, you should arrange for the two groups to adventure separately, possibly in separate dungeons, at first. Allow the novice players to learn for themselves, and give experienced players tougher situations to face, for they already understand most of what is happening -- quite unlike true 1st level adventurers of the would-be sort, were such persons actually to exist.
> 
> 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.



Note the emphasis on *players'* experience!


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2009)

ST said:


> So to see if I'm caught up here -- this works as long as you don't use CR-based encounters, reduce the benefits gained from leveling up, and your players know to keep low-level characters basically out of fights entirely until they've leveled up. (which also requires changing the XP system, so that characters of lower level can catch up).




No. This works if surviving an encounter (even if it means doing nothing mechanically important in it) grants you the same share of XP as everyone else. It also helps if monsters have "level sense" and can target their attacks at the stronger targets rather than have a giant lob a boulder at the first level thief during the surprise round of combat.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 14, 2009)

I think it would be doable if the group is careful, at least with one low level character.  But what do you do if more characters start dying?

Each character that dies significantly lowers the average level of the party.  If 2 characters die and are replaced by level one chars, it's possible that the party is no longer strong enough to beat the encounters as written.  So you have to do a lot of fudging to keep the adventure on track.

Starting new characters at the lowest level, or level minus one, keeps the average level of the group fairly close together.  This means you have to do minimal tweaking of upcoming encounters.  I guess it depends on how much you wing things.  If you have everything planned out in detail, or are using a published adventure, then starting at level 1 is probably not going to work.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 14, 2009)

Nifft said:


> I call it the *Monster Barrel*....



I call it sitting on your hands whenever there's no monsters to run. Which, the last game I "Just rant he monsters" in, that was 3/4ths of the at-the-table time.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 14, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> No. This works if surviving an encounter (even if it means doing nothing mechanically important in it) grants you the same share of XP as everyone else. It also helps if monsters have "level sense" and can target their attacks at the stronger targets rather than have a giant lob a boulder at the first level thief during the surprise round of combat.



If that's the case, then high level PCs should have throngs of 1st level characters around them. Quick, safe leveling.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> If that's the case, then high level PCs should have throngs of 1st level characters around them. Quick, safe leveling.




That's my point; when you go exploring, you want to be Kirk, Spock, Bones, or Sulu, not Ensign Rogers.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I got a few question then for you...
> 
> 1.) How many players at the table?
> 
> ...




When our last rookie came in as a Priest, we had a party of 4 regular participants (2 Warriors, 1 Priest and 1 Magic-User). The party also typically brings along an assortment of hirelings and (especially since they've been moving up in the world) slaves. The last major foray into the underworld that they mounted had 5 PCs, 5-6 mercenaries, a pet dinosaur and a small number of slaves.

The next session we're going to introduce a new character (at level 1), another Priest (it's a balanced and forgiving class, always useful because in Tekumel the Priest is not only the medic but a linguistics specialist... and to use scrolls and some items you have to know the right language to read the invocation / instructions).

Right now they're in the middle of an overland expedition atop a great road that's like the Great Wall of China on steroids. They're leading a group of several thousand refugees and so have access to any number of able-bodied men to join in combat... though if they use up to many, they reduce the viability of their already endangered culture and they know it. A monster showed up at the end of last session (a 3-headed snapping ankylosaurus, essentially) and the heroes took care of it themselves, not risking any flunkies.

If any of that info helps....


----------



## Rechan (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Plus, and perhaps I simply haven't stressed this... my game is about exploration and interaction rather than combat.



So, you're responding to a thread asking "How do I change the system so combat works with x" by saying "I do X but my game isn't about combat"? 

The reason it _does_ work for you is because your game isn't about combat.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2009)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Plus, and perhaps I simply haven't stressed this... my game is about exploration and interaction rather than combat.



In that context, it may be significant that while EPT includes a list of skills, they do not play the same game-mechanical role as skills in WotC's D&D.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I call it sitting on your hands whenever there's no monsters to run. Which, the last game I "Just rant he monsters" in, that was 3/4ths of the at-the-table time.



 Yep. The *Monster Barrel* would demand both a certain player mindset and a certain DM'ing style.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, you're responding to a thread asking "How do I change the system so combat works with x" by saying "I do X but my game isn't about combat"?




I was just going off what he said in his first post. If that's not what the thread is about then my mistake.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 14, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In that context, it may be significant that while EPT includes a list of skills, they do not play the same game-mechanical role as skills in WotC's D&D.




True... rolls are rarely required to use skills. You've got the "Merchant" skill? Fine... then you know what the goods should be worth (at least approximately) and you can get a fair price (though we might still role play part of the haggling, just to see if you say something really clever or dumb that I can reward or punish you for). You've got "Fisherman"? OK, you successfully get fish out of the river... I don't care if it's a Level 12 river or all the fish in it are Level 16 WaveJump Salmon or whatever.  Having the skill means you know how to do it, just like knowing a language means you know it.

There are a few skills you roll for, such as the Seduction skill. Though I've never seen it used, because shortly after one of the Warriors acquired it he got hit with an impotence curse. 

...

Another mechanical thing I thought of... all monsters do d6 base damage. You compare its level to your level, and if it really outlevels you it can roll 2 or even 3 dice of damage. But if it's close to your level it will only roll 1d6. So that is generally more forgiving. Though there is double damage on a 20. We had a Warrior charge a demonic protoplasm (shoggoth, basically) that had 3 dice against her and it critted. She was soon rolling up a new character. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 14, 2009)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> So you have to do a lot of fudging to keep the adventure on track.



Yes, this is probably not well suited to a game with a track on which to keep.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Yes, this is probably not well suited to a game with a track on which to keep.




It is especially ill suited to dungeons where bound prisoners cannot immediately appear in the next room ad naseum.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 15, 2009)

How about redefining what it means to gain a level?  Perhaps your HP, AC, damage and hit chance don't appreciably change.  Instead you gain more options.  Each level you might gain a new daily power, or a daily becomes an encounter, or an encounter becomes an at-will.   Or you learn a feat.  At level 10 you have more things you can do, but for the few things the level 1 character can do, he can do them almost as well as you can.


----------



## rgard (Jun 15, 2009)

In 1E we occasionally mixed low and high level characters.  It worked fine except for when the plebes were caught with the rest of the party taking a 19 or 20D6 fireball.

Usually we played the lower level folks to about 7th or 8th level then moved them over to the higher level party.  Except for one, all of our pcs were played from 1st level on up.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 15, 2009)

On Puget Sound said:


> How about redefining what it means to gain a level?  Perhaps your HP, AC, damage and hit chance don't appreciably change.  Instead you gain more options.  Each level you might gain a new daily power, or a daily becomes an encounter, or an encounter becomes an at-will.   Or you learn a feat.  At level 10 you have more things you can do, but for the few things the level 1 character can do, he can do them almost as well as you can.




This is fairly close to what I have in mind.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 15, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Organic character growth and history



Just fake it. It's easy.

I made up a fake history for a WFRP PC once complete with cock-ups and near TPKs. Once you've played and read about enough rpg sessions you can see the same character types and situations repeat over and over.

The lone wolf. The paladin. The kender. The loony with the wand of wonder. The addiction to violence. The miscommunications. The paranoia.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 15, 2009)

the Jester said:


> This is fairly close to what I have in mind.




Have you looked at 1st Edition Gamma World?

In GW 1e, your stats and hit points are set at character creation (hp are xd6 where x=CON, so you have quite a few). Rolling to hit is, like in Chainmail, based on a matrix of Weapon type versus Armor Class... a Fusion Rifle needs to roll a y to hit AC z, etc.  When you gain a "level", you get to roll on a chart that has various benefits, such as gaining a to hit bonus, a damage bonus or a stat bonus.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2009)

As has been stated, remove the +1/2 level bonus PCs get and pluses on magical items.  Reduce monster attack bonuses, defenses, and skills to level 1.  Essentially, damage and conditions scale, but attack, defenses and skills do not.  This method assures that low level characters are capable of contributing, although not as much as their higher level counterparts.  There may also often have to be careful, since high level monsters deal more damage and they'll have low hp.

Alternately, you could have xp requirements (roughly) double every level.  (Level 2 at 1000; level 3 at 2000; level 4 at 4000; level 5 at 8000, etc).  You'd have to rework the xp values of monsters though (unless you want to severely slow the rate of leveling from 5th level on), which would mean that the encounter design mechanic of 4e would be completely defunct when including monsters lower or higher than the encounter level.  I'm not sure how you'd work around that.  Under this method low level characters are effectively dead weight, however they will level very quickly assuming they can survive.

Nonetheless, before implementing either of these methods, I would ask myself whether these rules would improve the _players'_ enjoyment of the game.

YMMV


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 15, 2009)

Crothian said:


> We did this back in 1e and I heard someone on the board (diaglo maybe) that still does this.  If the first level character survives the fights they do tend to level faster.




Might have been me, Crothian, as I do still follow the "rule" that everyone starts at 1st level.  The ways I make it survivable (in 3.5e rules) are:
1) You can take a "monster" race with a higher ECL, but 1st level character level.  You need to "earn off" the XP for the equivalent number of levels before advancing in the PC class.  If you start off as a lizardman or a centaur (the two I've seen), you are a bit more survivable at first.

2) Players have the option of taking over an existing NPC.  This happened recently, when a new player took over a local militia sergeant (3rd level warrior, in a party of 4th-7th level PC classes), who had been a guide for the PC's.  In his case, once he earns enough XP for 4th level, I'll convert the 3 Warrior levels to Fighter levels.

3) Extra equipment.  A new 1st level paladin just joined our 3rd-4th level party, but he does have a magic sword he inherited somehow.  He's had no trouble surviving so far.

4) Biggish parties.  Of my two active campaigns, the first (with the Warrior) has now 9 PC's, the second (with the Paladin) has 5 PC's.  This doesn't guarantee survival, but it does increase the chances they are not the target for the deadly X attack, or are outside the blast radius.

5) Lowish power levels.  I've never beyond about 10th level in 3.5e for the PC's.  And background NPC's don't scale with the PC's -- when they are 10th level, the average soldier or tavern brawler they meet is still a 1st level Warrior (or Commoner).  Monsters do get tougher, of course, but I still will throw in stuff like "a pack of 5 wolves" for a forest encounter table, regardless of level.  Some folks think that's boring, I think it's verisimilitude -- every once in a while, it's fun to see how outlandishly powerful you've become.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 15, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Maybe cap the game at 4th level?




Staying low level does make it a lot more feasible, nod, and up to 4th level (in 3.5 or AD&D) it seems to work without big problems.



Aberzanzorax said:


> This will encourage selfish behaviors of survival among players who are higher than 1st level (and possibly suicidal behavior among new 1st level guys). Higher level guys will be LOATHE to die, while new 1st level characters will pale in comparison to the old character (and hence, players will not be invested in them).




In my experience, it does make dying pretty serious (and quests to get people raised quite urgent).  But it doesn't make players more selfish.  When your character is in SERIOUS danger (can be killed, and may not be immediately replaceable with something "just as good"), there's more emphasis on survival through cooperation, from what I've seen.  For example, everyone carries rations, water, and a healing potion, just in case they get cut off somehow, and everyone knows where the other guy's potion is, in case he goes down and they need to feed it to him.  



Aberzanzorax said:


> One question: what is the reasoning behind your wanting to do this? I ask this because there may be other ways to reach your goal.




Mostly tradition.  Many of my players are grognards and agree with me on this.  Also, my universe supports this style of play, as not every encounter is "level appropriate" for any party.  Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's not, and part of the fun is knowing when to just fire some arrows, versus bringing out the big spells, versus running for your life.  When the players get freaked out about rolling poison saves versus the twig blights, because they aren't sure if they are in a "level appropriate" unknown encounter or something really weird and tough, that's coolness on both sides of the table.



Aberzanzorax said:


> Have hirelings in many adventures. These (or other NPCs) are statted out by players...heck, even the "bad guy" turned good could be used in this way. (This might also be a good way for you to alleviate some of your dm responsibilities). When a player dies, the hireling (usually of a level 3 or less than the pcs) becomes the new player character.   Do this, and you have a "pool" of potential new pcs from which to draw, and it makes sense that they "step up" to join the party.




I do allow converting NPC's as an alternative.

Another alternative I allow is bringing in PC's developed in a different campaign.  That idea REALLY is cool, I think, for people to be able to play "orphaned" old PC's from long gone campaigns.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 15, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> It's not for everyone, but deveoping a character from scratch is often more fun than starting at 6th level.




Especially for someone's very first PC, earning your stripes and paying your dues is a lot more fun (IMHO) than having everything handed to you.  Also, you really learn what everything means and how to use it, when you slowly and laboriously accumulated each power and piece of equipment.  A neophyte with a 6th level cleric isn't going to be very good at playing at a 6th level cleric . . . a neophyte with a 1st level cleric will figure it out fast.

Which reminds me, in the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game, 1st level or NPC were the only ways to get characters into the party.  I started 1st level characters into 5th level or so parties in that -- including a 1st level cleric who basically just summoned or healed for a while.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> That's my point; when you go exploring, you want to be Kirk, Spock, Bones, or Sulu, not Ensign Rogers.




Ah, Sulu is a good example of mixed leveling.  Spock and Kirk were clearly higher level that Sulu or Chekov (Chekov is always the first to fail a saving throw, Kirk or Spock the last), but it worked just fine for everyone . . . the red shirts were not PC's.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 15, 2009)

In 4E, I'd remove the 1/2 level bonus as a start. (Subtract this also from monster and PC attacks. You might want to go a step further and also remove item enhancement bonuses. In that case, drop monsters a further point per 5 levels. Or just give the PC higher level items. The other PCs could create them for him.

Of course, now the XP charts don't work as well as they used to - lower level monsters are stronger than they should be, and higher level monsters are weaker than they should be. Additional tweaking would be required.


----------



## Christian (Jun 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Starting everyone at 1st level certainly did work better in the older edition. But why was it easier in 1st than in 2nd (in AD&D for a while and 2nd for nearly a decade). Baseline 1e and 2e are almost identical mechanically.



Advancement rules changed between editions. The 1 xp per gp rule from AD&D 1E was fantastic for helping characters quickly shoot up in level when adventuring with higher-level groups.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 15, 2009)

for 4e: can we assume they cover the new guy in appropriate level gear?  Level 1 rolls with level 10s, they give him level 10+gear, meaning he could potentially gain 2 or 3 points of AC, non-Ac defenses, and to-hit. that would narrow the difference down to +5 from half level, or about a -25% chance to hit anything appropriately leveled, and anything appropriately leveled is 25% more likely to hit.  this ignores stat bumps too, so possibly 30% both ways from a +6.


----------



## CubeKnight (Jun 15, 2009)

Add one vote to "Remove half-level and +X magic items, and 4E should do the trick".


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 15, 2009)

The first question should be

How much does gear factor into level awesomeness?

If you outfit the 1st level character in gear that is about the same quality as the higher level party, how much behind will he be?

Across all editions of D&D, this has been true...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 15, 2009)

Also, since magic items weren't easily bought and sold, it was pretty easy to outfit a level one in decent gear in 1e.  In 3e, that +2 sword was always sold to help buy a ring of protection +3, but in 1e, those were used to outfit new party members, hirelings, etc.  And one encounter might net the new guy 1,000 gold which goes a long way toward leveling him.  Hell, an npc might pay the group in advance and wham, he's level 2 without drawing a weapon.

Jinx!  You owe me a coke!


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 15, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Also, since magic items weren't easily bought and sold, it was pretty easy to outfit a level one in decent gear in 1e.  In 3e, that +2 sword was always sold to help buy a ring of protection +3, but in 1e, those were used to outfit new party members, hirelings, etc.  And one encounter might net the new guy 1,000 gold which goes a long way toward leveling him.  Hell, an npc might pay the group in advance and wham, he's level 2 without drawing a weapon.
> 
> Jinx!  You owe me a coke!




1e this wouldn't be true since you need gp to get xp and treasure could be sold (just couldn't be bought)

2nd edition, this is where you would find PCs that had wheelbarrows filled with excess magic items they no longer needed but couldn't unload.

re: 1st level PC in higher level party

After you determine how much gear brings to the table, you then need to determine how lethal the game is...a hill giant in 4e is doing 2d10+7 (crit max of 27 pts of damage) so not enough to obliterate a 1st level melee centric PC. Similarly, a hill giant in 2e is doing 2d6 + 7 which while lethal toa 1st level PC shouldn't kill them outright 

Whereas in 3e, that poor PC is going to be a fine mist when the giant hits


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> No, I'm saying that it basically does work.




Yeah, I know what you are saying...  The point is, the way you are playing certainly does support that kind of level gap (as Nifft said, more player-focused game instead of character-focused).

You can easily have a game, that has a lot of roleplaying (level is unimportant) and player puzzles (level is unimportant).

The average game does not work that way, though.


Anyways, I still don't see the point. What's the advantage of starting at 1st level, when the rest of the party is like 12th?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm just wondering why everyone thinks characters need to be punished for dying?

In a roleplaying game where everyone is telling a story together is there no room for heroic sacrifices, risk taking and the like, where there is an amazingly good chance if not certainty of dying?

Why would you want to discourage these things from happening, the player is already losing a (hopefully) well loved character they've put a lot of time and effort into
*shrugs*


----------



## Nifft (Jun 15, 2009)

Ginnel said:


> I'm just wondering why everyone thinks characters need to be punished for dying?



 Because victory is meaningless if defeat is insignificant.



Ginnel said:


> In a roleplaying game where everyone is telling a story together is there no room for heroic sacrifices, risk taking and the like, where there is an amazingly good chance if not certainty of dying?



 To create a venue where such heroism is meaningful.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 15, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Because victory is meaningless if defeat is insignificant.
> 
> To create a venue where such heroism is meaningful.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Kinda like some of those old Nintendo games; 3 lives, no continues. Yeah, guess how many of THOSE I garage-sold.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 16, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Anyways, I still don't see the point. What's the advantage of starting at 1st level, when the rest of the party is like 12th?




Well, that's how the game works (when I run it) and how the world works. There are hardly any people in the world with that kind of power. To get there, you have to earn it. As a player, that's part of your reward for successful play.

Sure, it's fun to be able to hit on a roll of '8' and do 12 points of damage in a shot. But that's not the point of the game, is it? So if Biff the Mighty bites the dust, what's the big deal? He died like a man (we hope... dragon's breath, disintegrate, 1000' fall... something cool) and we should all go out with such a bang. Or maybe he died fighting hobgoblins... not as exciting but still honorable. He died facing the enemy, right? He got to explore weird realms and do crazy things, and so will your next guy.

Adventurers are like rock stars. They live fast, die young and leave one heck of a crater when they go out.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 16, 2009)

Nifft said:


> *Monster Barrel*
> 
> One player is in the Monster Barrel. He runs the monsters (as handed to him by the GM). The GM is strictly a referee.
> 
> If a PC dies to a monster's attack, that PC's player spends the next session in the Monster Barrel, and the current MB player plays a new PC (or comes back from the dead).




I did this as a player and as a DM.

I had one player whose character died take over an Ogre Mage, then backstab the rest of the monsters during their ambush. He then appealed to the other characters (actually the players) to allow him join the group.

What the heck... it's only a game, so I went with it.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 16, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> Everyone that comes to the game should have fun, if your starting someone at first when everyone else is higher in level, your basically penalizing them for being new to the game.
> 
> I don't really think that there's a way to make it fun for the low level guy either, practically every combat is an instant death situation for him.
> So, not only does have to deal with the confusion of starting in a new campaign, but he also has to deal with being almost compleatly useless in combat.




This is the core point that must be addressed.

D&D is a game... it need not follow reality when reality opposes fun.

No DM has ever been complemented for a great game because they meticulously followed a rigid system of rules. Great DMs are recognized because all players enjoy the game, not just the few who are of higher levels.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 16, 2009)

Anyways, I still don't see the point. What's the advantage of starting at 1st level, when the rest of the party is like 12th?



Korgoth said:


> Well, that's how the game works (when I run it) and how the world works. There are hardly any people in the world with that kind of power. To get there, you have to earn it. As a player, that's part of your reward for successful play.




When my company looses an employee (like an adventuring group), we try to replace that person with someone of approximately equal experience. We will not replace a 12th level engineer with someone fresh out of college.

That's how the world works.



Korgoth said:


> Sure, it's fun to be able to hit on a roll of '8' and do 12 points of damage in a shot. But that's not the point of the game, is it?




It's no fun to miss on a 17 either when others are hitting on an 8.

And it's no fun to do 3 points of damage when others are doing 12 points.

The point of the game is to have fun, and few people find running a lower level character along with higher levels to be fun.

Yes, you are an exception, but do not expect it from the majority.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 16, 2009)

The point of it all originally had to do with the original meaning of "campaign", something quite different from today's common context of "THE party" engaged in "THE adventure". Like many such things, the approach may not work so well when transplanted out of its native environment. 4E is very alien to that; as the designers suggest, "the game works better in a lot of ways if you just assume that the characters all gain experience and advance levels at the same rate".

For a lot of people, it has been (and continues to be) a lot of fun to play the game as originally conceived. It's a game of strategy more than a string of tactical set pieces. All sorts of aspects, from recovery of hit points and gaining of experience points to the dynamics among class capabilities, were fitted to that concept.

The basic principle you'll probably want to follow if trying "everyone starts at 1st level" with the newer game framework and a rules set designed for it is to *reduce the significance of levels*. Using old D&D, I found that the HP system from Arduin Vol. III served nicely. A male human fighter with constitution 14 got 35 HP (a female 36) at 1st level, going up +1 per level for 70 (or 71) at level 36.

With WotC-D&D, other level factors are more significant than they were in that context.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 16, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> It's no fun to miss on a 17 either when others are hitting on an 8.
> 
> And it's no fun to do 3 points of damage when others are doing 12 points.
> 
> ...




"The majority". Great. Well, I guess I don't let the majority play in my campaign. Power gamers need not apply.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 16, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Power gamers need not apply.




Have you read the forum rules? 

Anyways...

If the way you play/master your campaign works for you and your group, that is great.

But you are simply not answering the question of this thread with it.

The "average campaign" in D&D is combat-focused.
The question in this thread is, whether it works despite a huge level-gap (which it does not, in my opinion).

The "problem" does not exist in the way you play, since you are completely sidestepping it by not running a game, where levels and such are that meaningful (apparantly) and where character ability is not as relevant as player ability.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 16, 2009)

> Everyone starts at 1st level.




Yes, but it does not all have to be role played out to get the first level character back up to where the others are, while the others watch in inactivity.

There are two basic ways to create a higher level character from scratch.

1) Look at all the levels at once, and add them all in at the same time.

2) Create a first level character, then advance them level by level.

I prefer the second method.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 16, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> "The majority". Great. Well, I guess I don't let the majority play in my campaign. Power gamers need not apply.




While I definitely agree that "the majority" is a fairly useless barometer for whether or not something is useful to any one particular group, especially one that's been playing together for a while, I don't think you're fairly using the term "power gamers." People don't have to be obsessed with power gaming to want to start a game with the same sort of fun trinkets everyone else has. They may just not be "disempower gamers." 

There are a lot of RPGs out there, and I mean a _lot_. And I can't help but believe that this is because there are a lot of different things people want out of RPGs. New designs show up because folks aren't 100% happy with the last RPG they played. New games succeed because there are enough people who want to try a fusion of D&D with cyberpunk aesthetics and dice pools, or who are interested in a game with heavy social mechanics, or who like to play superheroes. And as such, it doesn't surprise me that there's a strong audience for fantasy game systems, including editions of D&D, with more emphasis on heroic action than tactical survival. People are wired differently.

I can certainly appreciate when a player sees "earning his stripes" as the fun part of the game, having to make do with less and hope for some luck. However, I don't think there's any flaw in someone's character if he looks at that process as "earning his fun" — a hazing ritual he has to go through to get to the part of the game he _likes_. Especially if the other players are already there. I don't see it as power lust. I just see it as a player wanting to do what the other players are _doing_, not what they _did_.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> "The majority". Great. Well, I guess I don't let the majority play in my campaign. Power gamers need not apply.



Well, that comment was really unnecessary (and not appropriate at all). There are many good reasons why you shouldn't let a player start at level 1 all the time.

4E and D&D in general is not very well suited to have someone restart at level 1 every time one of his characters dies. The reason is mainly that because of the level-based bonuses the level 1 char cannot do anything meaningful in an adventure created for a high level party. Survivability isn't really the most pressing issue.

While I agree that it can be fun (and often has benn fun for me) to enter play with a handicap, it's not for everyone (and a handicap isn't the same as being completely unable to compete).

I've often voluntarily picked suboptimal character concepts because I enjoy playing the underdog. But I also know when to stop doing it if it interferes with the other players' or the DM's fun. Many players expect that everyone in the party is contributing to the party's success in a significant way.

I can also supply an anecdote where having to start at level 1 really frustrated the hell out of me:
When ages ago I was looking for an AD&D group, I was invited to join an existing mid-high level party. But I had to start at level 1. I went through about a dozen characters in (almost) as many sessions. Then I had enough and stopped playing in that group. I actually got the impression that the DM and the other players thought it was fun to kill my characters as early as possible. It didn't seem to matter one bit what or how I played.

Actually, this was also the first of several longer breaks in which I didn't play D&D at all.

Finally, except when starting with a new rpg system it can quickly become tiring having to start over all the time. This can also be true when a TPK happens. At some point you'll simply want to see how the game's like on higher levels. That's when the time has come to stop restarting at level 1.


----------



## Technik4 (Jun 16, 2009)

I think players have more investment with a character they start at level 1 (even if they go through a rapid advancement and are level 3 after only a few sessions). For D&D to work as a game where you are truly invested in the character you are playing, death must have some meaning too. I've played in games where a player loses a character and since the rule is you can come back at the same level you died, the player made an exact copy of his previous character and declared it was his long lost twin. This player was NOT invested in his character, but wanted to play a certain class in a tactical combat game with some out-of-combat trappings. In my eyes, while D&D can be that game, it can also be a different kind of game.

In a game where everyone begins play at 1st level, new players start at 1st level, and characters that die must be raised or you begin a new one at 1st level, death is a very real element of the game and I'd wager you'd need a specific group of people (including a skilled DM) to play that game. While it's true mechanically you can contribute very little to a 12th level party at 1st level, there are still many ways a character can impact a story (even a combat) that are not level-based.

Here's some tables of starting points for 1st level characters that are joining higher level parties:


Party is 3 levels higher:
1: Wealthy - you start with starting gold multiplied by 200
2: Connected - you start with a roster of NPCs (up to 10) who owe you small favors or are already on good terms with you
3: Trinket - pick a magical weapon or armor to start with
4: Snake Eyes - you always re-roll 2s
5: Catalyst - you are an important element in an upcoming plot which the party must protect. Pick a level 1 spell, you can use it 1/day.
6: Pick 1-5 or roll on the 4-6 table


Party is 4-6 levels higher:
1: Rich Nobility - you are part of the nobility for a major region and part of the highest social caste. You can call in favors from a variety of people and start with a credit up to 20,000 gold.
2: Magical Birthright - pick an 8th level magic item to start with - the item only works for you.
3: Leader - you start with a band of followers (up to 30) and a base of operations with enough resources for it to operate for two more months. 
4: Prophet - you can see elements of the future and they always come true unless you personally change them. You are immune to illusions.
5: Genius - pick a skill, you only fail if you roll a 1. It is automatically favored for you and if it involves creating something the quality is noticeable (you could one day paint the Mona Lisa or sculpt the David).
6: Pick 1-5 or roll on the 7-10 table


Party is 7-10 levels higher:
1: Artifact - you start with an artifact, which operates but is not complete (it will either stop working or is not at full power).
2: Inhuman - you somehow are unnatural; you either contracted vampirism, lycanthropy, or are the progeny of a magical being (dragon, celestial, etc).
3: Wistful - you start with a Ring of Wishes with 3 charges and a treasure map.
4: Saint - you have been declared a Saint by a major religion and your god watches over you. Your faith has outfitted you as if you were a 10th level character (items the last Saint wore).
5: Lapsed Hero - you were a famous hero once and start with 8th level gear, but have not adventured in 20 years. Your inactivity combined with a nefarious spell has led to your present lack of skills. If you can break the spell you gain 3 levels immediately.
6: Pick 1-5 or roll on the 11+ table


Party is 11+ levels higher:
1-2: Heir - you are the son/daughter of a prominent member of the ruling social structure with all the associated benefits (and dangers).
3-4: Superman - your three lowest stats are changed to 18, 17, 16 and pick an element. Unless that element is present you do not die, but you can be knocked unconscious (negative damage stacks up to -100, but heals regularly). Your heritage is alien to the world.
5-6: Prodigal Learner - you gain triple experience until level 10 and double experience until level 20. Also pick a stat to change to 19. You never have multiclass penalties and all skills are favored. Your heritage has some fame (or infamy) associated with it.


If you would roll on a higher level table you can always pick something from a lower table (so if the party is 11+ levels higher you can select anything from the other tables) and the DM can improve it at their own discretion.

I'm not trying to say that these starts entirely make up for being level 1, but the game is supposed to be fun. Some of this stuff is hard to incorporate into a story, so its obviously up to the DM, but I tried to think of things that would make for a more memorable story/experience and not necessarily infringe on the regular party and its goals (though admittedly some of the higher tables do).

Personally I wouldn't want to start a game with character that were more than 10 levels higher than me unless my character would be important to the campaign in some way.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 16, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The point of it all originally had to do with the original meaning of "campaign", something quite different from today's common context of "THE party" engaged in "THE adventure".



This is true. But I'd quibble over your use of the word 'today'. By my experience, it's been 'today' for the past 25 years (ie, I've never played in a game that matches your campaign model, and I've been playing for roughly 25 years). 

I've never played in games with large level disparities. One or two, at the most. 



> For a lot of people, it has been (and continues to be) a lot of fun to play the game as originally conceived.



Of course. And more power to them. 



> It's a game of strategy more than a string of tactical set pieces.



This seems to imply a lack of strategy in a game comprised of tactical set pieces. 



> Using old D&D, I found that the HP system from Arduin Vol. III served nicely. A male human fighter with constitution 14 got 35 HP (a female 36) at 1st level, going up +1 per level for 70 (or 71) at level 36.



Sounds like a fine solution. Though it's a pretty radical change from baseline AD&D. Your male human fighter is starting w/five times more HP.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 16, 2009)

If you're designing a system around this goal, I can think of two things that would help a lot:

*1: Scale hit points and damage rather than attacks and defenses.

*In other words, a 1st-level character and a 10th-level character might have the same chance to hit a given monster, but the 10th-level character would do three or four or six times as much damage. This allows the 1st-level character to still contribute, albeit at a reduced level.

*2: Give priority to breadth-based advancement over depth-based.

*Breadth-based advancement is when you gain new options without increasing the power level of your "best" option. Depth-based advancement is when your "best" option gets better. To put it in (3E) D&D terms, breadth-based advancement is when your wizard captures an enemy wizard's spellbook. Depth-based advancement is when you gain access to a new level of spells.

Most systems I've seen conflate these two types of advancement; each time you gain a level, you advance in depth _and_ breadth. IMO, it would be much more sensible to mostly or entirely discard depth-based advancement and concentrate on breadth-based.

Under a breadth-based advancement scheme, a 1st-level character can fight alongside a 10th-level one without trouble. They can both do useful things in combat; it's just that the 10th-level character has a longer list of useful things to choose from.

(If this sounds familiar to E6 players, it should. E6 is really just a clever scheme to move D&D from depth-based to breadth-based advancement. Once you reach 6th level, you cease to gain depth and gain only breadth from then on.)


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 16, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> "The majority". Great. Well, I guess I don't let the majority play in my campaign. Power gamers need not apply.




Really, its now "power gaming" to want double digit hp before you face giants and dragons? Or to be able to cast second level spells before you enter the Tomb of Horrors? Or to not have to sit around slaughtering goblins by the droves with_ flame strike _while Bucky the Intern is advancing through half-a-dozen levels to catch up with his HL buddies?

The more I hear about how the game "used to be played" the more I'm glad I missed those years...


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 16, 2009)

A quarter-century (sounds even older that way ) ago would be 1984, and _Unearthed Arcana_ (which I think might in some ways reflect the shift in play style) came out the following year. By Second Edition Advanced D&D (1989), the shift seemed pretty widespread from what I saw.

Tactical set pieces can be set in a strategic context. "More than" is simply a matter of degree (in this case of focus on one aspect or the other), whereas your (Mallus's) "lack" has value-laden connotations; the implication is not mine.

The _Runes of Doom_ HP system was indeed a radical departure. It served admirably, though, the purpose for which it was designed (which happened not to be why we adopted it originally). Some fellows had to be away from the campaign for most or all of a year and more, when all the active characters were still fairly low level (so would gain quite a few in the meantime, and even new ones would probably end up but a level or two behind). This approach let the characters who had been on hiatus rejoin their comrades without being hapless, while letting the latter retain the other edges (not so overshadowing) they had earned.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 16, 2009)

I run a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  That game handles this dynamic very well.  There's a division between Heroes and White Hats - the champions and sidekicks.  Who would want to play a sidekick?  Lots of people, turns out, if the system supports them.

Here's what I would suggest.  Introduce a new mechanic into the game, Sidekick Points.  They're little metagame points that can be used to balance the odds and make the lower level characters much more survivable.  Call them luck, whim of the gods, or inspiration from being around the high level folks.

This is off the top of my head to make Buffy's Drama Points work with different levels in D&D, so bear with me.

- All new characters start with a number of Sidekick Points (SP) equal to the highest level character in the party minus their level.  So a 1st level joining a 10th level would get 9 SP.
- This is their cap, the most they can have at a time.
- Any time they level, they have a new cap and get refilled.
- They gain SP for doing sidekickish things - risking themselves to aid the heroes, helping out in non-level dependant ways, etc.  Being amusing companions.

SP will help them survive in the following ways.
- Spend an SP to automatically recover from dying (as if rolling a 20)
- Spend an SP to reduce damage from below -10 to -1.
- Spend an SP to add +5 to any roll.
- Spend an SP to reroll any roll.

The lower level sidekicks get to play out the role of a sidekick, which lessens as they go up in levels.

I know it works in Buffy, where you have a group consisting of The Vampire Slayer, Teen Robot Ninja, Werewolf Avenger, and Steve the comics fan.  And Steve is not only not annialated, but is a fun character to play.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 16, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Really, its now "power gaming" to want double digit hp before you face giants and dragons? Or to be able to cast second level spells before you enter the Tomb of Horrors? Or to not have to sit around slaughtering goblins by the droves with_ flame strike _while Bucky the Intern is advancing through half-a-dozen levels to catch up with his HL buddies?
> 
> The more I hear about how the game "used to be played" the more I'm glad I missed those years...




You don't know what you missed.

In those days a campaign was more than a series of adventures.  Players would often play 6 or 7 days a week.  The main game would be on one night, and on others the dm would run one or more players through side adventures, there were several ongoing plots running at once, and people often ran several characters in the same campaign.  A few shorter adventures on off nights and pcs were close to the same level as the veteran pcs.  Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.  
even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 16, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> You don't know what you missed.
> 
> In those days a campaign was more than a series of adventures.  Players would often play 6 or 7 days a week.  The main game would be on one night, and on others the dm would run one or more players through side adventures, there were several ongoing plots running at once, and people often ran several characters in the same campaign.  A few shorter adventures on off nights and pcs were close to the same level as the veteran pcs.  Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
> even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.




See, this isn't a edition-based point; I could do this same thing in any edition, but I'll compare experiences.

I played in a group in HS where there were 5 of us, everyone ran a game and everyone played in everyone elses game. We played as often as school/homework/jobs would let us. Our games very very story intensive and role-play intensive; NPCs to meet, plots to foil, places to explore. We also didn't do a lot of pointless combat either and the bulk of our XP was story-reward. Battles were EPIC insofar as if we were going to have a fight, it was a plot-related battle or an occasional goons-come-to-battle you moment. No random encounters here! Oh, and there was the occasional module for gold, magic, and some XP mining.

But I don't think what you described is what I "missed". There are a lot of good things I recall carried from 2nd to 3rd and even into 4th (but someone 4e is mutating them, and I don't know why. That's another thread.) They carried in Star Wars and M&M and even our brief stint in Vampire. I loved my PCs, I can tell you everything about my handle's namesake not because he was the 24th elven thief I rolled up but because he was the *first*!

Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 16, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
> even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.




I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.

It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed, worked or was fun in the first place. It's like people doubting that the moon landings ever happened... it depresses me because we've actually lost so much capability in space exploration that people now doubt we ever had it in the first place.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 16, 2009)

> Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.



I imagine that's so to a degree. If it's very different from one's expectations, then an old-style campaign on one hand -- or an "adventure path" on the other -- might be very hard to appreciate. Logistical factors have shaped different approaches to D&D, quite apart from any pre-existing strong preferences. As Mallus observed, by the second half of the '80s, one might never encounter anything but the kind of setup in which wide disparities among character levels are a drag even if one would not otherwise mind rolling up Remathilis IV.

The continuity of characters from campaign to campaign seems another custom that has declined, introducing in the long run more occasions for generating new ones (at whatever level the host campaign rules stipulate). More rapid level advancement might contribute to that. It used to be par for the course (from what I saw) for folks with 2 years plus of experience to have at least one character in the 10th to 14th level range, regardless of the spread in a whole "stable". (Rarely, one might have nothing closer than 8th or 9th, or a multi-class equivalent, but that was  usually workable; I don't remember anyone with only 7th or less and 15th+.)

Nowadays, I often hear of people "rebooting" campaigns after two years or less.

Although I agree with the conventional wisdom that starting at first level is an invaluable experience for a player new to D&D, I don't see a lot of point in repeating that many times unless one happens to _prefer_ play at that level (which some people do). One cannot really lose one's virginity more than once, and the tendency to recycle now-familiar elements and situations can lead to the game's becoming very stereotyped. To my mind, the elements of mystery, discovery and unpredictability are key aspects of play thus easily lost. Even without introducing new monsters and magic, the range of "old standards" usable increases along with character level and thereby provides a wider variety of permutations to explore.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 16, 2009)

Korgoth: I have thought just those things myself.

(If you missed it in theatrical release, check out the 2007 documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon" on DVD.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2009)

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters... After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign"

- Gary Gygax, powergamer


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

That (from DMG p. 111) is a fine compliment to the DMG quote I posted earlier! http://www.enworld.org/forum/4826702-post49.html
Again, note the emphasis on development of *players'* experience.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

The suggestion of giving a new (to the campaign) but experienced (at the game) player a character of roughly average level -- perhaps in a four-level spread generated with an averaging die -- does not, I think, necessarily apply to replacing a casualty when one has been in the campaign for some time. More properly (to my thinking), it is the player's responsibility to cultivate henchmen as backups. He who neglects that part of skilled play (perhaps starting by treating charisma as a "dump stat") should reap what he has sown. I would not allow such a slacker to start a replacement at a higher level than that determined by the formula for NPC henchmen at DMG page 175, or that of the lowest-level active non-henchman PC, whichever is lower.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 17, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.
> 
> It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed [snip]




FWIW, I first played AD&D in the late '70s, when I was a kid; I then found friends in 5th and 6th grades to play Basic D&D with, then later a larger rotating group at a library that we played AD&D with -- and I don't think we ever played the way you described. I don't know anyone (aside from via the Internet) who did play that way. 

Your play experiences were similar to Ariosto's; mine were more like Mallus's. There isn't, wasn't, and never will be one way to play D&D. So it's not that something's been lost, or changed; it's just different experiences, and the different styles that those experiences engender.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 17, 2009)

Technik4 said:


> Here's some tables of starting points for 1st level characters that are joining higher level parties:
> 
> Party is 3 levels higher:
> 1: Wealthy - you start with starting gold multiplied by 200
> ...




As one of the higher level characters, my first thought would be regret at sharing the looted treasure and experience with a lower level fodder who did not pull their own weight in battle.

My second thought would be that since the lower level fodder was wealthy, that I was looking forward to splitting its stuff when it died.

D&D is a game, and all players should be treated equally.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.



I have the opposite experience: I keep hearing about a definitive D&D experience that bears no resemblance to anything I've encountered. Also, one man's codswallop is another man's _amusing_ codswallop.  



> It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed...



You probably shouldn't imply that play styles that differ from your lack 'intellectual challenge'.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> As Mallus observed, by the second half of the '80s, one might never encounter anything but the kind of setup...



I feel I should point out I was introduced to the game by a high school friend and his father. His father's group had been playing for several years and stories of their campaigns don't sound like yours, either.

I wonder if a better indicator would be how a person came to D&D/RPG's: more from wargames or genre fiction? 

My wargaming experience is limited to Risk and a few games of Axis and Allies (does chess count??). However, I've been reading SF/F for as long as I could read.



> One cannot really lose one's virginity more than once, and the tendency to recycle now-familiar elements and situations can lead to the game's becoming very stereotyped.



This assumes all like-level experiences are essentially the same. Have you ever read more than one book in the same genre? More than one Shakespeare comedy?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> More properly (to my thinking), it is the player's responsibility to cultivate henchmen as backups.



I'd rather figure out how to stab a giant in the eye or wrap by brain around the Riddle of the Sphinx than deal with staffing problems.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

> I'd rather figure out how to stab a giant in the eye or wrap by brain around the Riddle of the Sphinx than deal with staffing problems.



That's nice.

My observation was (I thought obviously) pertinent to the old-style game in which henchmen are in fact and by design "greatly desired by the discerning players, for they usually spell the difference between failure and success in the long term view."

It would not be germane to certain other games, any more than would an observation concerning the Lawful Goodness of paladins, or the development of magic-users from relative weakness as prestidigitators to the most powerful figures as wizards, or any one of many other alien aspects.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

> This assumes all like-level experiences are essentially the same.



No; it reflects the observation that, having rung the standard changes, most 1st-level D&D experiences are notably similar in terms of game elements deployed.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

> I wonder if a better indicator would be how a person came to D&D/RPG's: more from wargames or genre fiction?



"Better than what?" is the obvious question. Even without knowing the answer, I think you're probably right. The game was originally designed and presented with wargamers in mind, and 1st ed. AD&D continued in that vein. The Basic sets were aimed at a much wider audience, and quite successfully so.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You probably shouldn't imply that play styles that differ from your lack 'intellectual challenge'.




I didn't. I try to choose my words carefully; I don't always succeed, for various reasons. But what I said was that in the style of play I favor, exploration and intellectual challenge are the point of the game (challenge the player vs. challenge the character, etc.).

There is no permutation of logic I'm aware of where that implies that other styles "lack" intellectual challenge; my point was conerning the "point" or focus of play. 

See, in [(p -> q)] and if you've got (p), (q) is implied. Also, (~q) implies (~p). But (~p) doesn't imply anything in that equation. Let (p) be Old School play and (q) be intellectual challenge... Old School implies intellectual challenge because it's integral to the point of play ("challenge the player"). So if you're not challenging the player, you're not playing Old School. But if you are challenging the player ("intellectual challenge"), that doesn't imply you're playing Old School and if you're not playing Old School that doesn't imply that you're not challenging the player.

Anyway, that's how you parse the word "implication". So don't get insulted, because all I was saying was that the essence of my style of play concerns exploration and intellectual challenge. I'm not dissing your style, whatever that is; I'm saying that mine is valid and these are the things that are integral to it.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The continuity of characters from campaign to campaign seems another custom that has declined, introducing in the long run more occasions for generating new ones (at whatever level the host campaign rules stipulate). More rapid level advancement might contribute to that. It used to be par for the course (from what I saw) for folks with 2 years plus of experience to have at least one character in the 10th to 14th level range, regardless of the spread in a whole "stable". (Rarely, one might have nothing closer than 8th or 9th, or a multi-class equivalent, but that was  usually workable; I don't remember anyone with only 7th or less and 15th+.)




Probably a number of factors here.

For one, play style has an effect on your character sheet. Even back in the olden times I remember discussions in Dragon about what to do if somebody brings a new character to your group who's higher-level than all the other PCs and has twice the number of magic items, most of which are also twice as powerful. 3e and 4e standardized "magic by level" and to some extent point buy systems specifically to fight against this process, so that people didn't get the idea that their characters were good only for one particular group. They wanted more cross-pollination. Of course, that's also a reason that there are systems to make characters in line with any given group's level, and that they encourage using them. If being 5th level is a bar to playing with a new group at 11th, they don't want you to be discouraged, they want you to be encouraged to jump right in, and the other group to be encouraged to take you. Hence, systems that make generating higher-level characters "fair." 

I also think setting has come to matter more. With the advent of things like Forgotten Realms, it became more interesting to a lot of gamers to develop their own settings. I can't remember where I read it, but I remember someone discussing the shift from GMs who make their own dungeons to GMs who make their own worlds. As more and more inspiration and published settings emerged, more people became interested in finding the world that fit their particular sensibilities beyond the dungeon. Consider the split between groups that loved Dragonlance and enjoyed having kender in their adventuring parties, and groups who didn't. 

It's an interesting situation. In order to encourage cross-pollination of gamers, you need a core set of expected sensibilities. But I think in order to encourage a lot of people to stay with gaming, you absolutely need to give them the ability to customize characters and worlds to suit their preferences. Right now the solution would be that it's easy to use expected mechanics to generate a character to fit a customized group.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jun 17, 2009)

Start a side game for the level one folks to get them at least caught up to just a few levels difference than your higher level party.
Alternately, maybe get the high level players to pick up temporary alts to run with the new folks until they get within reasonable range.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 17, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> It's an interesting situation. In order to encourage cross-pollination of gamers, you need a core set of expected sensibilities. But I think in order to encourage a lot of people to stay with gaming, you absolutely need to give them the ability to customize characters and worlds to suit their preferences. Right now the solution would be that it's easy to use expected mechanics to generate a character to fit a customized group.




An interesting point to all of the "standardization" vs. "rules-lite" debate. D&D moreso than most RPGS are governed by two principles; what material the campaign is allows (something all RPGs suffer) and how the DM has chosen to build his world. 

If I was bringing my Jedi over from my friends SAGA game to yours, as long as the levels were comparable and we all used the same source books, no one would care. Heck, in RIFTS your encouraged to find as many weird outliers in the Palladium system and go with it! But D&D, after its initial explosion of interest, became very difficult to move PCs from. There was no set standards, and as "alternate worlds" began to spring up (each with its own alternate takes and new options) shifting became very hard. I can't play my hobbit-thief in a Dragonlance party, I certainly can't in a Dark Sun game, and I don't think I'd want to in Ravenloft. 

Yet its the diversity (and ease of customization) that attracts us. My halflings CAN be different than yours. My gnomes are 20 feet tall and eat nothing but tar! There are dozens of published campaign worlds (lord knows now thanks to the OGL) and each has its own unique spin on Chargen. While it might be a hindrance for cross-germination, its a bounty to world-builders.

But for sure, its not something common to other RPG systems I know.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 17, 2009)

I would not have expected the standardization of 3E/4E to make transfers _less_ common. That's a good point, though, regarding the tendency on one hand for players to get into "exotic" types (the more so for proliferation of game-mechanical oddities, and greater importance placed on them) -- and on the other for DMs to get strongly attached to the consistency of equally peculiar settings.

In the old days, one might in my circle encounter "transplants" from Gamma World, Starships & Spacemen, Villains and Vigilantes, Gangbusters, and so on. However, 90%+ of characters were of AD&D _Players Handbook_ types (perhaps slightly different from standard, or subject to reincarnation or other effects commonly encountered in the course of an adventuring career). Spells, magic items, etc., were of course subject to careful scrutiny and potential revision and deletion. There was rarely a barrier, though, to continued play of characters developed over years in other "worlds".


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 17, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In the old days, one might in my circle encounter "transplants" from Gamma World, Starships & Spacemen, Villains and Vigilantes, Gangbusters, and so on. However, 90%+ of characters were of AD&D _Players Handbook_ types (perhaps slightly different from standard, or subject to reincarnation or other effects commonly encountered in the course of an adventuring career). Spells, magic items, etc., were of course subject to careful scrutiny and potential revision and deletion. There was rarely a barrier, though, to continued play of characters developed over years in other "worlds".




It certainly depended on the group. For example, consider the barrier of a character who has a beloved NPC — maybe a spouse, or a true love, or even just the friendly and distinctive bartender at the local watering hole — that is part of the player's concept of the character. The character isn't the same without his supporting cast. And the new GM might not care about his supporting cast at all, or handle them poorly to the player's mind.

That's a _tremendous_ barrier for some players. I know my wife wouldn't ever consider transplanting a character between worlds, because her character's social ties are a huge part of how she defines the character. You see who the character is based on how she reacts to the members of her church, her family, the local proprietors. The in-character goals are an important part of the play experience, and they're tied to those specifics.

Add in the expansion of more options among more RPGs. It becomes easier and easier to have a large list of characters you'd like to play someday but haven't gotten around to yet. For some, a new game is an excuse to create a new character, not an excuse to revisit a character left out in the pasture. They don't even have to be mechanical options, mind. I'd like to play a Sinbad-esque corsair at some point myself; but I also want to play him in an Arabian Nights-style game that showcases what's fun about the archetype, and would pass on the opportunity of having him go into a megadungeon in a very white-European-inspired setting. I'd want the corsairing, not the traps and suspicious doors and caverns filled with monstrosities.

People have the option to do more, absolutely. But I think that also applies to the play experience they're after. You can't help but see some splintering there. For some, the dungeon is the Descent Into the Underworld, the centerpiece of what the game is about. For others, it's an adventure site among many, fun for a bit but not something you want as the majority of the game. I think it's pretty awesome that we've been figuring this out, too, as more people have the opportunity to find the game that suits them perfectly.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 17, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> That's a _tremendous_ barrier for some players. I know my wife wouldn't ever consider transplanting a character between worlds, because her character's social ties are a huge part of how she defines the character. You see who the character is based on how she reacts to the members of her church, her family, the local proprietors. The in-character goals are an important part of the play experience, and they're tied to those specifics.




I think that's also a symptom of the gaming moving out of the "dungeon" into more "social" encounters. Before, when all you cared about was exploring X dungeon of Y stretch of wilderness, it didn't matter much who was the DM. It was just another "stretch of unknown" to explore and conquer. But as the game became more complex (involving plots and politics, re-occurring NPCs, and PCs with more depth and backstory) such things attached themselves to the PCs and their "place" in the world. Heck, try and move a name-level PC with a dominion from one DM to another and you see the inherent problem!

As a side note, I think part of this was the fact D&D never set out to define a "world" as many RPGs do. Palladium Fantasy is an RPG, but its also a setting. Ditto with White Wolf's "World of Darkness". D&D has no one world we all assume to run, we have world*s*, some unique (homebrews) some shared (pick a setting). However, I can't assume Remathilis coming from the City of Greyhawk is true for your game just because it was true in mine. 

(D&D does foster the multi-verse concept, which allows planar travel from world to world, but that was much more of a patch to allow such game-to-game travel. It'd been much easier to assume the default world D&D used was Oerth (for example) and spend 30 years mapping that out in ultrafine detail, rather than have a dozen settings like Krynn, Toril, Eberron, etc. It'd also be much more boring to have only one "D&D" world. Such is the trade-off.)


----------



## Technik4 (Jun 17, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> As one of the higher level characters, my first thought would be regret at sharing the looted treasure and experience with a lower level fodder who did not pull their own weight in battle.




Heh, I find this to be a telling comment. You are sharing experience with a fellow gamer and player at the table. Your regret at sharing experience despite what kind of character you play hints at your own playstyle. At the very least you could look at it as an investment in the future.


> My second thought would be that since the lower level fodder was wealthy, that I was looking forward to splitting its stuff when it died.




I specifically designed some of those options to not relinquish an undue amount of treasure to the existing group. A noble start with a large credit won't bequeath the party with his gold, he has family it will go to. If anything, it may leave the party in debt. The artifact will have far more ramifications and are notoriously fickle things at any rate, that comes down to DM fiat.



> D&D is a game, and all players should be treated equally.




Sometimes when you are really good at a game, it's fun to play with a handicap.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2009)

Technik4 said:


> Here's some tables of starting points for 1st level characters that are joining higher level parties:



 In the Guardians of Order version of Game of Thrones RPG, social standing (nobility & wealth) were implemented as a level adjustment. Being King, for example, put you at LA +5 (IIRC).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Prisoner6 (Jun 18, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My wargaming experience is limited to Risk and a few games of Axis and Allies (does chess count??).




I'm not even sure Risk and Axis and Allies count as war games, so much as games about war.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 18, 2009)

As one of the higher level characters, my first thought would be regret at sharing the looted treasure and experience with a lower level fodder who did not pull their own weight in battle.



Technik4 said:


> Heh, I find this to be a telling comment. You are sharing experience with a fellow gamer and player at the table. Your regret at sharing experience despite what kind of character you play hints at your own playstyle. At the very least you could look at it as an investment in the future.




Every game is different, and upthread I stated (correctly) that another player was of a minority view. And now I saw this as someone who is likely of a minority view. We played an extremely challenging game with a certain DM who would not hesitate to kill a party member who made poor choices, or was just unable to keep up. A weakling character would not have survived, and I'm glad new characters were brough in equal to the weakest member of the group. That style may not be for most, but I enjoyed it at the time. I probably would not want to play it now, but I learned alot about how to make a character survive, even in my recent fourth edition game.

.

My second thought would be that since the lower level fodder was wealthy, that I was looking forward to splitting its stuff when it died.



Technik4 said:


> I specifically designed some of those options to not relinquish an undue amount of treasure to the existing group. A noble start with a large credit won't bequeath the party with his gold, he has family it will go to. If anything, it may leave the party in debt. The artifact will have far more ramifications and are notoriously fickle things at any rate, that comes down to DM fiat.




I remember one game where we were around 12th level, and were in desperate need of a bit more gold. The players tricked the DM into allowing us to hire some mercenaries who had their own equipment, so we could steal from a noble. But instead of continuing the operation, we killed the mercenaries for their stuff and sold it for the money we were short. From that point on, all mercenaries hired in with no money or magic items.

I remember my evil cleric being in debt a few hundred K gold. After accepting the money from a noble with promises of interest, I told him to [can't be said here].

.

D&D is a game, and all players should be treated equally. 



Technik4 said:


> Sometimes when you are really good at a game, it's fun to play with a handicap.




To be honest, we had a room full of very good and very competitive players.


----------



## Technik4 (Jun 18, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> Every game is different, and upthread I stated (correctly) that another player was of a minority view. And now I saw this as someone who is likely of a minority view. We played an extremely challenging game with a certain DM who would not hesitate to kill a party member who made poor choices, or was just unable to keep up. A weakling character would not have survived, and I'm glad new characters were brough in equal to the weakest member of the group. That style may not be for most, but I enjoyed it at the time. I probably would not want to play it now, but I learned alot about how to make a character survive, even in my recent fourth edition game.




In a game where everyone begins play at 1st level, new players start at 1st level, and characters that die must be raised or you begin a new one at 1st level, death is a very real element of the game and I'd wager you'd need a specific group of people (including a skilled DM) to play that game. While it's true mechanically you can contribute very little to a 12th level party at 1st level, there are still many ways a character can impact a story (even a combat) that are not level-based.




> I remember one game where we were around 12th level, and were in desperate need of a bit more gold. The players tricked the DM into allowing us to hire some mercenaries who had their own equipment, so we could steal from a noble. But instead of continuing the operation, we killed the mercenaries for their stuff and sold it for the money we were short. From that point on, all mercenaries hired in with no money or magic items.




Metagaming is fun for some, not so much fun for others. You clearly play with a mercenary group of PCs.



> I remember my evil cleric being in debt a few hundred K gold. After accepting the money from a noble with promises of interest, I told him to [can't be said here].




Would you consider campaigns with evil clerics as PCs to be the minority?



> To be honest, we had a room full of very good and very competitive players.




The second part sounds very true. D&D can be played many ways, collaboratively or competitively. For the player that enjoys the challenge of playing a video game at the highest difficulty level, a fighting game with less starting health than his opponent, a card game with worse cards, or a D&D game at a lower level there is still much opportunity to excel. You just have to play smarter and have some luck (and in D&D the willing cooperation of the party). As I said above, I would hardly try and institute such a system in the average D&D game, but that isn't really what this thread is about. This thread is asking "If you did want to do this, can it be done (and how)?" not "Would you do this, why or why not?".


----------



## Asha'man (Jun 18, 2009)

I personally think the best way to do this, from a mechanical fairness PoV, is to run 4e with all the +1/2 level bonuses dropped. High-level PCs will have more, and stronger, powers, and more HP, but they won't have much higher defenses or attacks than their lower-level compatriots. High-level monsters will similarly have more dangerous attacks, and be much tougher, than lower level ones, but they won't be untouchable by weaker PCs, who will just have to play cautiously.

If the mechanical fairness isn't of central importance (and it probably isn't), anecdotally 1e and 2e are decent for this as well, because of generally lower numbers and greater importance of player skill over character power. But I've never played 2e, and only a little 1e, so I don't know.

I have, however, played some very mixed-level 3e games, and actually, they worked very well. Admittedly that was more a case of a wildly exotic rag-tag bunch of entities as PCs than one weak guy trying to hang with a high-level party, but it was very fun. The key was that the party was large, challenges were complex, often requiring the PCs to split up or do many things at once. This also includes combats, swarms of lower-level monsters with a few burly "centerpieces" was the norm, so everyone had something to fight on an even footing.  Also, situations were often set up to let the lower-level characters strut their stuff. (For example, one adventure took place on the Positive Energy plane, allowing the Barbarian PC to tank with almost unlimited HP so long as he didn't lose it all in one fight. In another, the 3rd-level gnome druid had to guide the barbarian (who didn't have survival) and an 18th level sorcerer(who could teleport, but didn't know the destination, and didn't have Etherealness or similar easy-travel spells) through a cavern complex)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 18, 2009)

Prisoner6 said:


> I'm not even sure Risk and Axis and Allies count as war games...



Risk certainly doesn't. Axis probably does. Anyway, I said that jokingly to indicate how limited my wargame experience was.

(I know that Avalon Hill used to publish them, hex maps were all the rage, and Advanced Squad Leader was really, really complicated).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 18, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I don't always succeed...



True. 



> But what I said was that in the style of play I favor, exploration and intellectual challenge are the point of the game (challenge the player vs. challenge the character, etc.).



That's all well and good. For the record, I favor that approach to the game too. 



> There is no permutation of logic I'm aware of where that implies that other styles "lack" intellectual challenge; my point was conerning the "point" or focus of play.



Recall you also wrote "(a focus on exploration and intellectual challenge) are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed".

Unless the phrase "so removed from" has a new meaning I'm unaware of, this says contemporary D&D play no longer focuses on exploration and intellectual challenge. This goes _slightly_ beyond a statement of what you, yourself, like. Or did you intend the last part of that sentence to mean something else? 



> See, in [(p -> q)] and if you've got (p), (q) is implied. Also, (~q) implies (~p). But (~p) doesn't imply anything in that equation.



Using logical notation is the last refuge of those trying to backpedal. Unless, of course, you're using logical notation in an ironic manner, say like the late David Foster Wallace might have, as a means of poking fun at yourself. It which case it is pretty funny. 



> Anyway, that's how you parse the word "implication".



I parse like Infocom, yo (and apparently I rap like a white man). 



> So don't get insulted...



No worries. I wasn't insulted.


----------



## MichaelK (Jun 18, 2009)

If you have the free time, perhaps you could have the player create a first level character and come over on a non-game night. Together you could play through the past 'highlights' of the PC's career. You wouldn't do the entire adventures, but maybe one or two encounters per character level until you've brought them up to the same level (or one lower) as the rest of the group.

Perhaps you could figure out what one of the group's cohorts would have been like at a lower level and the PC can have adventured with him for a while before the cohort joined the group. that would give him a connection to the group and someone who could responsibly vouch for them to the other PCs.

It'd help flesh out the character's history, they could see how their abilities all work and grow the character organically from level one.

Wouldn't that achieve pretty much what you're after?

(hmmm... I think I might use this technique myself.)


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 19, 2009)

Technik4 said:


> Metagaming is fun for some, not so much fun for others.




That could be said for most game characteristics, including games without levels.



Technik4 said:


> You clearly play with a mercenary group of PCs.




That was one aspect of our game. Our first few years we played all heroes. Then we learned how much fun evil was, and that dominated our game for a few years. Then we graduated to characters that focused on world building.



Technik4 said:


> Would you consider campaigns with evil clerics as PCs to be the minority?




In all games, definitely a minority. Even so in our games, I seemed to be the only one who could get an evil cleric to survive multiple game sessions. But I was not good with Fighters or Rogues.



Technik4 said:


> The second part sounds very true. D&D can be played many ways, collaboratively or competitively.




By this comment, you are clearly implying that the first part was not true.

And that I find to be an insult.

We were both collaborative and competitive.



Technik4 said:


> For the player that enjoys the challenge of playing a video game at the highest difficulty level, a fighting game with less starting health than his opponent, a card game with worse cards, or a D&D game at a lower level there is still much opportunity to excel. You just have to play smarter and have some luck (and in D&D the willing cooperation of the party). As I said above, I would hardly try and institute such a system in the average D&D game, but that isn't really what this thread is about. This thread is asking "If you did want to do this, can it be done (and how)?" not "Would you do this, why or why not?".




To each their own, but I wouldn't bother with most of those scenarios.

And your repetition of "you just have to play smarter" implies that the level of play from others is not so high. I have been blessed to be able to game with some very competent and interesting people.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 19, 2009)

I think the key is that if "the party" meeting at the same Bat-time every Bat-week is around level X, then a PC too far below that is likely to piss off at least one of the participants in one way or another.

TALK ABOUT IT, and if that problem does not rear its head then you're sweet.

If you're determined to play the demographic odds, then I would second Gygax's advice to have separate low-level and high-level adventures. It may be (as another ENworlder recently put it) "an enigma wrapped in a thesaurus" -- but one reason the original DMG remains a classic is that it really is Old Possum's Book of Practical Dungeon Cats, with more wisdom between the covers than one is likely to learn the hard way in any decade of Dungeon Mastering.


----------



## Ginnel (Jun 23, 2009)

*raises his hand*
what is this about playing smarter? I don't understand, you either play an intelligent character or not, you play a tactical genius or you don't.

In a role playing game you only thing to play is that characters role, if I'm playing atypical Beserker I get impatient and want to wade through my enemies without too much concern for my own well being or party, when it comes to figuring out clues and puzzle he is more likely to bring his weapon to bare after being frustrated by literally minutes of waffling about this than suddenly come up with a solution.


To me there is no such thing as playing smarter unless you aren't playing a roleplaying game, take away that role and you're just playing a game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2009)

The concept of role-playing in early RPGs (especially D&D) was focused on putting oneself "in the shoes" of one's character rather than on such exercises as pretending to be more ignorant or foolish than one was in real life. The latter sort of play can be facilitated by using dice rolls to have character ratings determine matters from whether a puzzle is solved to whether sound tactics are employed -- but so taking the player's skill out of the loop was contrary to the game concept. It would have been analogous to "playing Chess" by running a computer program to decide one's moves.

Approaches of course have varied from the start, but there's a practical selection pressure against playing characters so unintelligently that they are removed from play by such consequences as death! Likewise, the removal from play of actual mysteries, puzzles, parleying, strategy and tactics and so on may (for some players) significantly reduce the scope of interest in the game.

Perhaps it is easier to understand if one has experienced the problems that can arise when players take "chaotic" or "evil" alignment as warrant for extremely disruptive behavior. It _is_ a game, and that gives some considerations importance that might not be relevant to staging a play (a notably different kind of "role-playing" that is sometimes conflated with the traditional RPG kind).


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 24, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> When my company looses an employee (like an adventuring group), we try to replace that person with someone of approximately equal experience. We will not replace a 12th level engineer with someone fresh out of college.
> 
> That's how the world works.




Yes, like in World War II, after D-Day, when they sent replacements to the 82nd Airborne to replace the guys who got killed, they always choose people who had good experience in airborne invasions, so they'd be just as good as the veterans who survived . . . 

And when Steve Jobs dies, Apple will just hire another guy who co-founded the first company to make PC's for the masses . . . 

I dunno, saying being an Xth level adventurer makes you imminently replaceable from the never ending supply of similarly experienced yet mysteriously unemployed adventurers implies adventurers just aren't that special.


----------



## takasi (Jun 24, 2009)

Like others have said, in D&D this is basically giving players a 'time out'.  They suck because they died, for whatever reason, so now they have to sit through encounters where they can't do squat and need to cross their fingers that their sorry asses don't die again.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 25, 2009)

When my company looses an employee (like an adventuring group), we try to replace that person with someone of approximately equal experience. We will not replace a 12th level engineer with someone fresh out of college.

That's how the world works.



haakon1 said:


> Yes, like in World War II, after D-Day, when they sent replacements to the 82nd Airborne to replace the guys who got killed, they always choose people who had good experience in airborne invasions, so they'd be just as good as the veterans who survived . . .
> 
> And when Steve Jobs dies, Apple will just hire another guy who co-founded the first company to make PC's for the masses . . .
> 
> I dunno, saying being an Xth level adventurer makes you imminently replaceable from the never ending supply of similarly experienced yet mysteriously unemployed adventurers implies adventurers just aren't that special.




I found the content of your post to be a deliberate exercise in comparing apples to oranges.

For the sake of generalizations, there are three types of replacements that can be made.

1) Cyclical replacements happen when you have a constant improvement of people, and by design you need a mix of new and experienced people. This works best in a macro situation, like our population in its entirety, the military as in your example, and a campaign world as a whole. It is not made for task driven small groups like adventuring parties.

2) Equivalent replacements happen when you have a need for continuity of effort, such as a project team at work, or an adventuring group.

3) Upgrade replacement happen when your task gets more difficult. This can be in the form of adding new members, or replacing ineffective members with upgrades. This really only happens in RPGs a new person joins, or a more powerful NPC is needed.

In the work world, the newby first level engineer is not compensated as well as the paragon executive. And it would absolutely suck to give both the same task.

And it would be just as bad or worse to put a much lower level character in with higher levels (assuming a combat-based game). The lower level character would be ineffective, and in a fight the rest of the party would see it as either dead wood or fodder.

It would be so simple to keep everyone at approximately the same level. Why not do it? Unless a player wants to play a lower level.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> I found the content of your post to be a deliberate exercise in comparing apples to oranges.




Comparing combat replacements into veteran units seems pretty darn apples to apples to me.

Ideally, of course, in the real world, you would only pick veterans who are equally skilled to replace the guys who retire.  

But that's not always possible -- in war, it's rarely possible.  Instead, you have to have replacements who are green.  To be more effective, they have to survive and learn -- they have to earn their stripes.  All pretty basic stuff, if you've read accounts of war, whether factual or fictional, and whether it's WWII or Vietnam or probably any other war.

So the question, from a role-playing perspective, is how prevalent are veteran replacements.  In my view, they should be vanishingly rare, because PC's are rare and special.   That's why in my campaign, you have three choices for a replacement/midstream add-on character:
1) Start at 1st level and earn your stripes, just like every other PC.
2) Take over an existing NPC.  Most likely, it's going to a somewhat weaker character, since PC's are pretty powerful, most of the time.
3) Start a 1st level character with ECL's from a "monster race".  You need to earn your stripes, but your power level is closer.   Of course, there are big role playing challenges to this choice.

But I think you're approaching the question from a complete different point of view.  I think you're not asking what makes sense in the game world and how the world should work.  I think what you're asking is what will make the player of the character who died least unhappy about that, and will have the best "game balance".  You're the one who said, afterall, that having attack modifier than the other PC's would upset you -- not at all a role playing concern, but purely a gamist approach.




Hereticus said:


> For the sake of generalizations, there are three types of replacements that can be made.
> 
> 1) Cyclical replacements happen when you have a constant improvement of people, and by design you need a mix of new and experienced people. This works best in a macro situation, like our population in its entirety, the military as in your example, and a campaign world as a whole. It is not made for task driven small groups like adventuring parties.
> 
> ...




In HR terms, what we're talking about is a build v. buy strategy for talent acquisition.

You need a build strategy -- hire junior people and train them internally -- when you're in a new field or a highly specialized/rare field where the talent doesn't exist or won't change employers.  To give some clear examples of situations where you need to go with "build": Hiring PC software engineers in the 1970s; companies had to hire electrical engineers or hobbyists and grow them, because that's what talent existed, since the field was brand new -- there was no existing talent pool.  Amateur kids like Bill Gates were as good as it got -- some few of them turned out to, like my vision of PC's, have great potential, but there's was nobody sitting there ready to go as a seasoned PC software engineer.  Or "hiring" Olympic swimmers for your country's Olympic team -- many dozens exist globally, but few can be "induced" to change countries/teams.

What I'm saying is it makes more sense to me that adventuring parties would primarily need a build strategy.  In my view of the D&D world, there aren't a lot of other parties developing the talent you'd need, and there are virtually no characters who want to change parties (in a super dangerous profession, it's not good for your life expectency to work with people you don't know and trust very well indeed -- that's why it's hard to infiltrate terrorist groups and mafias -- they won't just pick up any yahoo who applies, because they want only loyal people on their six).

By contrast, I think the buy strategy (let's pick up another 9th level wizard) makes one of the following assumptions about the game world:
1) We abstract it and don't care where they came from.  It's just a game.
or 
2) There are multiple parties running around the area, such that it's easy to lure people to change parties and people of the right level and class are available on demand.  It's about as hard as finding a 9th level wizard for your party as it is finding a good sushi chef for your restaurant in New York City -- maybe not a dime a dozen, but a talent you can easily advertise for and likely find in a few weeks.  (Doesn't fit my campaign, but possible).
or
3) There are multiple unemployed adventurers without parties.  Again, doesn't fit my campaign, but it could make sense -- either sole survivors of near TPK's (implying even more parties are around) or just a generalized high level environment (the next guy you meet is a 9th level wizard and "he looks trustworthy").

Oh, and BTW, if you do go with a "buy" strategy, you often need to give inducements to get top employees to switch.  It's often a bit more expensive than "you look trustworthy, join us" to get a Major League closer off the free agent list, or a CEO, to join your party instead of one of the many others that exist and train up your talent for you.  So, if you have a "replacement comes with levels" view of your game, the party should have to pay the new PC's a signing bonus or offer a better share of the treasure to get them in the party.  Otherwise, why wouldn't they stick with folks who raised 'em?


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 25, 2009)

What you are missing is the difference between macro and micro.

In our general population and in large groups like the military, new people are always entering as older and sometimes not so old leave. That also holds true in an RPG world.

A small (gaming) group need not follow that rule, and in most cases it does not. In the real world, and in D&D.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> Ideally, of course, *in the real world,* you would only pick veterans who are equally skilled to replace the guys who retire.




And that's why I play a game where wizards get better at learning magic by killing goblins.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 27, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> What you are missing is the difference between macro and micro.
> 
> In our general population and in large groups like the military, new people are always entering as older and sometimes not so old leave. That also holds true in an RPG world.
> 
> A small (gaming) group need not follow that rule, and in most cases it does not. In the real world, and in D&D.




I think we just have different views of the macro.

IMC, it's unrealistic to say your party can get a new 9th level mage (or whatever other developed character is desired) anytime they like, because it assumes there's a plentiful supply of them, providing easy access to any party who wants one.  IMC, that character would be very rare and hard to find (PC software engineers in the 1970s) or unlikely to change employer (Olympic swimmers), or both (experienced NASA astronauts).

The other part for me is that I want everyone to "earn their stripes" with each character, because it's more fun for everyone if everyone has to earn it.

To you, there's a sufficient supply, so it's OK.  Or perhaps you're thinking PC's are exceptional, so allowing in an experienced one is fine.  Fair enough, I suppose.

The other viable option I see for your side is to say: "eh, it just works better from a gamist POV to bring in characters with nearly the same level, so I don't sweat where they came from".  I think that's where most DM's sit on this issue, thinking it's more important than "earn your stripes" thing.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 27, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> And that's why I play a game where wizards get better at learning magic by killing goblins.




Maybe you don't think the real world should have anything to do with this particular topic, but I disagree if you mean it should never enter one's head in thinking about DMing.

Of course D&D is not a simulation of anything in particular, but I think it should make sense, be believable, and make serious efforts to have internal consistency/suspension of disbelief.

Therefore, testing concepts against the real world to see if they "feel right" in the game makes sense to me -- and to my partner in this debate, Hereticus.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Baur: Whether or not the rules specify it, a torch shouldn't stay lit under water.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 27, 2009)

Wow, this is an awesome thread that I've spawned. I don't think I've ever had such a long thread start with me before (excepting story hours, of course). 

I appreciate the many differing perspectives that people have been offering, but for those who keep saying, "These are the reasons why it can't work," remember, I'm working on a system with "everyone starts at 1st level" as one of its *design goals.* That means it _will_ work, because I'll bend the rest of the system to make it work. 

So far, here are a few key points of the system in progress as it currently stands. Note that the mixed level aspect has _not_ been playtested yet. 

1. Flatter math- a 10th level fighter's total melee attack bonus will probably be 2-4 points above his bonus at first level. 

2. Slower (and less overall) hit point gain.

3. Character development making you generally better at more stuff, instead of really good at one thing, as you advance in levels. Pcs still get better bonuses on various things over time, but the numbers stay much flatter than in earlier editions (especially 3e). 

4. Sandbox play; practically speaking, this means that low-level pcs can seek out the dragon in the desert if they choose, and it's an adult brown dragon whatever level they are when they choose to challenge it. A further consequence of this is that it's okay for a high-level monster to have, for example, a relatively weak AC; if a hag's skin is as tough as plate armor, its AC should be comparable (around 15 in this system). I guess I'd style this as 1e-style monsters. 

Anyway, thanks for all the discussion, I'm watching avidly. I'll let everyone know how it goes once we playtest the mixed-level aspect of the game (gotta test the magic system first with all pcs at comparable level).


----------



## balard (Jun 27, 2009)

I agree with one of the first posters, in 4th Ed, is easier to just add the incremental bonus to everyone than take then away. If the other PCs are level 10, the newbie starts with level 10 HPs, add +5 to attacks, defenses, etc... You can give the level equivalent magic items or not. I'd rather not, so he has to fight for the items and the powers, and it's a good excuse to inherit the old items from the party.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jun 27, 2009)

To the people arguing realism for a 1st level character joining the party:
Green soldiers were joining the fight because there were no more veterans. Are there no people over level 1 outside your party?
If being in your party is the only way to reach level 2, then I guess it's "realistic" that people start at level 1. But if being in your party is the only way to reach level 2....

If there're numerous level 2, level 3, level 4 people out there; too many to even notice all of them, why not let someone start off at level 4? (or 1/2 the party level (whichever is lower, if you want to be harsh))
It makes the first session slightly less of an exercise in futility. And it's much more realistic.

1/2 level actually makes a lot of sense. If your party is level 20, even if there're only 300 level 10 adventurers in the whole world, they'll ALL want to learn from you. If you're level 10, recruiting someone level 5 is easy. And it lets the player come up with their own story, rather than needing an excuse for the party to let them join.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 27, 2009)

FWIW, in our last session of Empire of the Petal Throne we had a new player join the group. He started his character at level 1. He was also the only person to roll dice all session... using his prodigious strength to assist the party (they were presenting the shell of a giant monster to a local city governor as a gift; the men bearing the shell, including the new guy, were faced with the situation of having to hold the 'gift' above their heads while bowing at the governor's approach... this got a bit top-heavy).

Most of the session involved investigating how to lift one PC's curse (he had previously sired a child with an evil goddess, and then when the thing approached him he slew it because of its horrible appearance... so now he's cursed). The new guy is a mystic of sorts, and so contributed a vigil of prayer and fasting to this effort.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> the shell of a giant monster



The three-headed ankylosaur?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 27, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> Maybe you don't think the real world should have anything to do with this particular topic, but I disagree if you mean it should never enter one's head in thinking about DMing.
> 
> Of course D&D is not a simulation of anything in particular, but I think it should make sense, be believable, and make serious efforts to have internal consistency/suspension of disbelief.
> 
> ...




I'm also the kinda guy who never lets physics get in the way of a good time. 

Perhaps some groups have the right mix of veteran players and a non-combat gamestyle. My group likes to kill things on occasion, and its small enough that adding a 1st level anything to a group 5th level+ would be a exercise in futility. So I'd rather break the simulation wall and jump square into gamism and give the player a PC who is moderately effective at his job (at the given level of challenge I'm providing) than have a group of players nurse an infant in the Caves of Chaos until he's earned his man-pants and they can go back to the Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain...


----------



## Herobizkit (Jun 27, 2009)

IIRC, 2ed had some kind of a guideline advising that a replacement PC should be one level lower than either the party average or the lowest level PC (can't recall which).

That said, I am in complete agreement with Thanee.  If you're going to start over as a 1st-level character only to rocket to the party's average level in a few sessions, why not just save you AND your DM the trouble and make an appropriately-leveled PC?

Now, to address the OP. 

I've always wanted to play a "survivor" type game with d20, but due to scaling HP, combat doesn't seem scary enough.

What I propose is a static amount of HP, equal to CON or any multiple (but likely no more than 3) and that's it - no more HP increases per level.  The character's abilities et al improve, but HP remains static.

E6, as mentioned earlier, has the right idea.  As you improve in level, your range of abilities increase but your combat ability remains unchanged.  

Finally, there was an mini-game in an issue of Dungeon magazine that was a "digital world" - PC's were video game characters.  There was a chart therein that allowed PC's to advance how much damage they did with their attack by putting skill points in their combat ability.  In this way, no matter what form their weapon of choice took, it did the same amount of damage.  GURPS sort of does this as well by assigning each weapon a static bonus to a character's STR stat, allowing for stronger characters to do more damage per swing/thrust of the weapon.  Combining the two concepts might allow lower-level PCs to do decent damage even at level 1.

Having monsters with a static to-hit number but include the ability to dodge (like in Palladium - any number over 4 is a hit and the defender must roll higher to avoid the hit) and damage resistance might allow level 1 characters to be on par with higher level characters as well.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 27, 2009)

Herobizkit said:


> Now, to address the OP.




Thank you!! 



Herobizkit said:


> What I propose is a static amount of HP, equal to CON or any multiple (but likely no more than 3) and that's it - no more HP increases per level.  The character's abilities et al improve, but HP remains static.




I'm not quite making it that static, but certainly, the number of hit points that a character gets over time will be MUCH lower than in previous editions. A maxed out 10th level dwarven fighter might have 86 hit points IF he rolls maximum on the d10 EVERY TIME he gets to roll, has a maxed out con and maxes out Toughness, as well. The same character at first level would have 23 hp. So the gap, while present, is hardly the huge thing it is presently or in any previous edition of dnd. 

I'll report back once we've tested more.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 28, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> The three-headed ankylosaur?




Yeah. I like my group: they can turn an odd and potentially deadly random encounter (the monster was random; the bricklayers throwing fusilades of bricks at it to drive it back into the water was an elaboration) into an opportunity for social advancement.

I like their initiative. It makes my job easy.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 29, 2009)

the Jester said:


> .
> 4. Sandbox play; practically speaking, this means that low-level pcs can seek out the dragon in the desert if they choose, and it's an adult brown dragon whatever level they are when they choose to challenge it.




I'm not sure why this matters.  You could have the monsters be whatever level they are, and let the PC's choose what to pursue or not.  That way, it's up to the players what level of challenge they choose -- sometimes, they might want to go below their "max" capability to train up the more junior party members.  Othertimes, maybe not.

Part of the fun of playing in a non-level appropriate world is that there's real mystery about what you're facing, and danger.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 29, 2009)

Kingreaper said:


> To the people arguing realism for a 1st level character joining the party:
> Green soldiers were joining the fight because there were no more veterans.




"The people" would be me.  Just one people here, so likely a very small minority view you probably don't need to worry about.

Anyhow, it's true, of course, that there were many veterans in World War II.  The trouble is, the veterans already had assignments.  Going back to my example of reinforcing the 82nd Airborne after D-Day, the actual choice was to use newly trained green paratroopers; your alternative could have been done, using only veteran Airborne troopers, but you'd need to cannibalize the 101st, or use British/Canadian/Polish or Para-Marines from the Pacific campaign.  It could be done, but it wasn't an efficient choice, given the limited supply and the fact that the supply was already allocated.

My point is, you don't need to assume "absolute unavailability, anywhere in the world" to create the real world situation -- actual history -- that military replacements for combat losses are almost always green.

If you accept a parallel between D&D parties and military units in replacing combat loses, green replacements is the historically accurate "realistic" way to go.

If you don't accept the parallel, OK then.



Kingreaper said:


> If there're numerous level 2, level 3, level 4 people out there; too many to even notice all of them,




Nod, you've realized there's an assumption built into the "bring in experience PC's" mindset -- namely that PC's are a dime a dozen, not special.  Like truck drivers with CDL's who are looking for some hours, not Harry Potter and Aragorn or any other "special" hero.



Kingreaper said:


> why not let someone start off at level 4? (or 1/2 the party level (whichever is lower, if you want to be harsh))




A) I don't like the campaign feel, because it assumes PC's are unimportant and not special.  To use your words, "too many to even notice". 

B)  I don't like the narrative feel.  You're short-circuiting the hero's journey to jump to the superpowered bits.  Luke Skywalker is less interesting if he is introduced as a full Jedi destroyer of all who stand before.  And a lot of high level replacements begins to feel like the party is a temp agency, rather than a band of heroes.

C) Cheapens experience of the other players, and cheapens the value of PC life.  I like the idea that everyone has to pay their dues, and any experienced character is important and worth keeping around, rather than disposable whenever you get a new build idea.




Kingreaper said:


> It makes the first session slightly less of an exercise in futility. And it's much more realistic.
> 
> 1/2 level actually makes a lot of sense. If your party is level 20, even if there're only 300 level 10 adventurers in the whole world, they'll ALL want to learn from you. If you're level 10, recruiting someone level 5 is easy. And it lets the player come up with their own story, rather than needing an excuse for the party to let them join.




Yeah, that does make sense.  I'm not used to thinking about high levels.  The "supers" feel and the accounting drag of all the rules bores me and my friends, so we've never played higher than about 12th.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 29, 2009)

I'd have to give this type of game a resounding "meh". If I had to play that lowbie, I'd get annoyed very quickly unless I had some cool artifact that made me viable in combat. I don't like playing commoners in a heroes game. It's just not my thing. On top of that, if you have to retool the entire system to make level 10 guys only slightly better than level 1 guys...what the heck is the point!? Just play RAW and keep people within 1-2 levels of each other. Same effect with four hundred thousand times less work.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 30, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I'd have to give this type of game a resounding "meh". If I had to play that lowbie, I'd get annoyed very quickly unless I had some cool artifact that made me viable in combat. I don't like playing commoners in a heroes game. It's just not my thing. On top of that, if you have to retool the entire system to make level 10 guys only slightly better than level 1 guys...what the heck is the point!? Just play RAW and keep people within 1-2 levels of each other. Same effect with four hundred thousand times less work.




I agree with you. From my perspective D&D is a team game of players with characters with near equal power with different things they can do.

I don't believe I'd make it beyond the first week of that lowbie game. I'd get bored as one of the more powerful characters, and frustrated as the lightweight.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 30, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I'd have to give this type of game a resounding "meh". If I had to play that lowbie, I'd get annoyed very quickly unless I had some cool artifact that made me viable in combat.




What if you were viable in combat without a cool artifact?




Old Gumphrey said:


> I don't like playing commoners in a heroes game. It's just not my thing. On top of that, if you have to retool the entire system to make level 10 guys only slightly better than level 1 guys...what the heck is the point!? Just play RAW and keep people within 1-2 levels of each other. Same effect with four hundred thousand times less work.




Because it's not even close to the same effect. 

Besides that, this is just _one_ goal of several in the work I'm doing for this variant.


----------



## ashockney (Jun 30, 2009)

In 4e: 

1st level: AC: 12 - 22, HP: 15 - 35, Att: +1 - +8, Dam: 4 - 10
20th level: AC: 28 - 38, HP: 125 - 175, Att: +16 - +28, Dam: 25 - 35

These scale real nice at the same level, but don't play so well across each other.  At the same level, you hit about 50%, for 3 - 7 hits.  At 1st to 20th you hit only on a 20, and it would take 20+ hits.

In 1e:

1st level: AC: 10 - 18, HP: 1 - 14, Att: +0 - +5, Dam: 3 - 18
12th level: AC: 20 - 30, HP: 30 - 90, Att: +6 - +18, Dam: 3 - 36

In this instance, at the same level, you can hit on a 12 or higher, and you can take about one hit at 1st, and at 12th level you can take 3 average hits.  From 1st against 12th, it still requires a 20 to hit (on average), and the damage dealt would require six successful hits.  

In another game like Rolemaster, there is the same reality of defense bonus and high armor type negating almost all damage.  There is, however, a 4% chance that you can roll open-ended, get lucky, and "max out" against any level and any armor type with a critical hit.  It is significantly less likely, and there are far better resources to deal with it, but that chance still provides for interesting gameplay.

My recommended soluiton would be to tweak the first level characters to be able to hit around 10% to 30% of the time, but only do enough damage that it will take about triple the hits than normal.  A simple means to do this would be to provide some sweet magic items, powers, or abilities that would get them up to this bonus to hit.  So, in 4e for example, you'd have to get that bonus to hit, up into the +20 attack and damage range.  That's one hell of an artifact!


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 30, 2009)

the Jester said:


> What if you were viable in combat without a cool artifact?




I'd ask "what was the point of revamping the system?"



> Because it's not even close to the same effect.




So guys within 1-2 levels of each other being viable in combat is not the same effect as guys withing 1-10 levels of each other being viable in combat? I'm not sure I follow.


----------



## Hereticus (Jun 30, 2009)

ashockney said:


> In 4e:
> 
> 1st level: AC: 12 - 22, HP: 15 - 35, Att: +1 - +8, Dam: 4 - 10
> 20th level: AC: 28 - 38, HP: 125 - 175, Att: +16 - +28, Dam: 25 - 35




This is what my first level character looked like at first level:

AC: 12 - 22 [11]
HP: 15 - 35 [14]
Att: +1 - +8 [-1]
Dam: 4 - 10 [-1]


----------



## the Jester (Jun 30, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I'd ask "what was the point of revamping the system?"




To make it so that nobody needs a bitchin' artifact to be viable when adventuring with characters of significantly differing levels.




Old Gumphrey said:


> So guys within 1-2 levels of each other being viable in combat is not the same effect as guys withing 1-10 levels of each other being viable in combat? I'm not sure I follow.




The difference is, in your scenario, starting new or replacement characters at 1st level is likely to be a frustrating and sucky experience, if the party is above 1st level. In my scenario, the new character is a little shaky compared to the dead 10th level pc you had previously, but you know that he'll be able to contribute.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 2, 2009)

Based upon the original post's questions:

I guess I'd have to ask, which game?  I figure you mean D&D, but D&D hasn't been the same game throughout its' history.  I think most rules would need to be changed within the current version.  

However, I believe 4E did go back to a flatter "curve" reminescent of earlier pre-d20 versions of D&D.  The progression slope is lower than 3E.  This could work, but not for 30 levels.  It might work if all new PCs started at the starting level for a tier (the lowest level of the tier). ...and no PCs in the party spread across two tiers.  Essentially the whole party retires and ends the game after one tier and then begins the Paragon or Epic game.

How many hit points per level? At least 1 HP for starting level PCs.  At least 10 for 10th level.  Hit Die works as well for greater variation and enjoyment for the players. 20th level fighters?  Way out of bounds unless you half again the progression slope.  And giving half a hit point per level is a little sketchy IMO.  

Suggestions? I suggest every PC have a base chance for failure and a base chance for success regardless of their level for ALL class related challenges.  (Ignoring gear, assistance, negotiation, etc.) fighters have a 5% chance of success at 1st level against a 10th level monster and 50% against a 1st level monster.  The success chance becomes completely inverted upon reaching 10th level: 95% chance of success against  1st level monsters, 50% against 10th level monsters.

D&D does (or did) this full progression across one die, one die roll being the simplest.  Think THAC0 progression.  Do you need an 11 to defeat the enemy or a 20? A 2 or an 11?  Are they the easiest to defeat or the hardest? As always the difficulty of the game depends upon one's level bonuses earned so far. 

Of course going up against a 10th level challenge makes little sense even if it is possible at 1st.  The key factor for why players wouldn't normally take such foolishly low odds for success is failure would likely mean they would begin the game again with zero points and level 1 bonuses. As one goes up in level the amount of effort lost upon failing to beat a challenge goes up too.  So players will almost certainly become more cautious at higher levels.  A good thing, if the point is to stay alive and retain one's XP total.  However this desire to stay alive is mitigated by the player's desire to actually gain more XP and access to even higher bonuses, so I think it works out well in the end.

In terms of XP rewards, I'd award players for roleplaying well enough to overcome the challenges with a similarly progressive XP chart.  Those playing 1st level PCs receive very big ##'s for overcoming a 10th level monster, those playing 10th level PCs receive very small ##'s for overcoming a 1st level monster and those who overcame a level equivalent monster receive the level standard.  But as levels go up, so must the standard point reward for any given level.  Therefore we get a logarithmic XP reward progression for monsters / challenges.  And because of this a logarithmic progression is best for level requirements too.  This also helps those with lower level PCs catch up as, with XP charts which double each level, the highest level PC is only going to advance a single level in the same amount of time it takes for everyone else to attain that high PC's level when they began play. (I hope that makes sense)  Of course, this is all depends upon individual play results too.

Our group has been playing with every PC starting at 1st level for over 5 years now and the game has worked well throughout.  We've had young to old, very experienced to complete newbie players.  No one has really had a problem with it either as so much of the game is about personal success even in the midst of working together as a team.  

I find it's best to remember that players are not in competition with each other, but against the game.  Just because someone has more points or a higher level PC does not mean they are beating you.  I've seen 1st level 1 hp PCs do things my 5th level PC never could as their players outwit high level monsters (not to mention my PC on occasion - a "monster" to the other PCs technically anyways).


----------



## jursamaj (Jul 4, 2009)

This sort of issue is one of many reasons that I'm not interested in class/level based games anymore.  Especially ones that blather on about "balance".  I *like* Traveller or RuneQuest, where you can have characters spanning a few generations in a party.  Everybody doesn't have to be close to some combat challenge level.

Because let's face it, that's what levels are about: *combat* balance.  Keeping the whole party "viable" against a certain group of enemies.  But some of the funnest role-playing has nothing at all to do with combat.    (Often not even anything to do with anybody but PCs!)

Don't get me wrong.  The occasional fight can be fun too.  But fighting is only 1 set of PC skills.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 26, 2009)

So not long after the last previous post in this thread, I moved and was without regular Intarweb access for a while, and I let the project I was working on- which I have been referring to as "D&D Jazz Edition"- recede to the back of my mind for a while. 

Now that I'm living in the middle of nowhere and am what we jokingly call "funemployed", I have lots of time to think about it again.

I'll be posting a new thread on the topic of my D&D Jazz Edition and the thoughts that I've had about it, but I wanted to bump this one too, because the "everyone starts at 1st level" thing is a HUGE part of the design goal. Back in the day- which is to say, as late as early 3.0- that was a strict part of my policy when I dmed. My experiences with it in 3e proved that it was no longer viable; 1st level pcs starting off in a 4th level party just plain weren't fun any more. 

(I know _someone_ is gonna argue that they weren't fun before that; I strongly disagree, and played with that approach as well as dmed with it for many years. It worked fine in 1e and 2e, imho and ime.)

Sadly, since my move placed me about 3 hours from the group that had done some moderate amounts of playtesting of the system, I have not had the chance to do any further testing of it. We haven't gotten to the "Mixed level" tests yet, so I'm not sure if it works. 

However, the playtesting, and my subsequent thinking about it, did reveal that there were a few things that weren't working as intended with other parts of the system; primarily, character generation should take 10-20 minutes, and it didn't; it took much too long. This was because I had too many choices in the character generation process: feats, exploits, etc. 

I am going to largely do away with these things... and instead, allow all characters a limited menu of mix and match abilities that they can trigger at will with action points. One of the big differences between a low level and a high level pc will be how many action points they get.

So, for instance, a pc might be able to push an enemy 5' by spending an action point on a hit. A pc might be able to knock an enemy prone by spending 2 action points on a hit, with the enemy getting a save; or knock them prone, no save, for 4 action points. 

Part of what will make a high-level fighter cool will be the ability to layer more special effects on an attack because they have more APs, rather than more feats that allow them to do so. Yes, the fighter 10 will have more hps than a fighter 1; yes, he'll have a better chance to hit. But the REAL difference will lie in his ability to do more cool things in combat by having more action points. Also, action points will have mechanisms to let them refresh in combat; for instance, maybe a fighter will get an action point whenever he drops an enemy or scores a critical hit. 

More to come... prolly in a new thread.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 26, 2009)

Bit late to the conversation, but it's a fascinating subject for me so I'll throw my two cents in...

IMO, the key to making this concept work is to focus character advancement on breadth over depth - granting _more_ options instead of _more powerful_ ones. So instead of your attack and defense numbers going up, you get different types of attacks and defenses. You become a more versatile combatant but not a markedly more powerful one.

A _little_ depth-advancement is fine, but it should be quite limited IMO. I think breadth-based advancement is generally far preferable to depth-based for many reasons:


It allows the aforementioned "everybody starts at 1" approach.
Characters start out simple and gain complexity as they level, allowing the player to master new options one at a time (and since everybody starts at 1, you need never make a leveled-up character to fit into an established campaign).
The DM can build a campaign around a particular monster type as an opponent, without having to worry about the PCs "out-leveling" the monsters and without having to supply an increasingly implausible series of leveled-up versions.
It puts far less of a strain on suspension of disbelief. Depth-based level schemes usually result in characters who go from wet-behind-the-ears novice to world-shaking-empire-smashing-god-slaying lord of destruction in a matter of months.
Players who like to explore new "builds" and character types don't have to make new characters to do it - they can just take their old characters in new directions.


----------



## ashockney (Dec 27, 2009)

the Jester said:


> I am going to largely do away with these things... and instead, allow all characters a limited menu of mix and match abilities that they can trigger at will with action points. One of the big differences between a low level and a high level pc will be how many action points they get.
> 
> So, for instance, a pc might be able to push an enemy 5' by spending an action point on a hit. A pc might be able to knock an enemy prone by spending 2 action points on a hit, with the enemy getting a save; or knock them prone, no save, for 4 action points.
> 
> Part of what will make a high-level fighter cool will be the ability to layer more special effects on an attack because they have more APs, rather than more feats that allow them to do so.




Very cool idea the Jester!

I like the aspect of quicker char gen, and agree this would work.  It would be cool to be able to do "anything" that your character wanted with narration and AP spends.  I can imagine that there would be certain "thresholds" of cool abilities that would be available by spending more AP's intially to try it, but then once you've successfully completed the maneuver, you could do it more easily.  This would create "pathways" for characters of "likely" tactics without limiting their imagination.

Please be sure to check out the thread on re-writing "original/1e" D&D.  It certainly seems like this is the feel you're really reaching for, and if you're going to go there, I think you'd need to roll it all back.


----------



## Coldwyn (Dec 27, 2009)

At least in 4E, a good compromise would be to give the new guy BAB, Saves and HP accourding to teh rest of the groups level, but have him work up from Lvl1 Powers and w/o Paragon Path with regular experience.
This would represent some noob with a lot of potential but without any actual experience to it.
This characters At Wills would be en par with the rest, but he´ll be lacking the better Encounetr and Daily powers for a while.


----------



## Aramax (Dec 27, 2009)

How about giving the 1st levels wildly inapropriate magic items(Legacy ,inheritance,divine)tied to the game


----------

