General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Well, this is basically saying that it does not work.
No, I'm saying that it basically does work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanee
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanee
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.
I don't know what you're talking about here, but it sounds nothing like my campaign.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
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 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?
...
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.
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.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
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.
__________________ Red Hand of Doom: IC I, IC II, OOC, RG
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korgoth
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
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
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!
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 12
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
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.
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
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
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.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Having the skill means you know how to do it, just like knowing a language means you know it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
