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.
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*
__________________ Ginnel
"Someone on the internet is wrong!"
Shabe on sharing loot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabe
Of course you may be talking about all of the above in character where all the characters in the party count every single coin and keep track of it individually and all know the exact price of items, all can divide big numbers in their heads and all carry around a handy set of dice with them for when the roll off occurs, then of course you are fine, else well done you've taken some of the r out or rpg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginnel
If you want to create something different do it.
All elves are fat and prone to flatulence and their nickname is Gary.
Bang I've just changed my world do the same with yours.
I'm just wondering why everyone thinks characters need to be punished for dying?
Because victory is meaningless if defeat is insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginnel
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
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
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.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
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.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
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.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korgoth
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korgoth
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.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
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.
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
__________________
“In our world, immortality is not for the living. The legend lives on!”
In Memoriam Dave Arneson († April 7th, 2009) & Gary Gygax († March 4th, 2008).
Wondering what the Dungeon Tiles are like? Take a look here (up to DU5 Sinister Woods).
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.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
"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.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
"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.
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.
Last edited by Technik4; 16th June 2009 at 07:30 PM..
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
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.)
"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...
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.
Last edited by Ariosto; 16th June 2009 at 09:03 PM..
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.
__________________ Looking for gaming in Springfield, IL? Check out my Meetup Group.
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.
) 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.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
