D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[the Jester]

It is much more logistically difficult to juggle and have an overall positive outcome for everyone involved. And once even a small core group of the PCs survives to a decent level, they out of necessity need to be all-but retired; including even a single PC of significantly lower level immediately skews the session.

I agree that it requires some logistical creativity, and maybe it's just that I've been running my game like this for decades, but it's not that bad. I mean, I don't need to keep track of story elements and trying to make sure the party isn't straying too far from a story or anything, so I guess it's just a matter of where your preparation/energy/focus goes and what suits your style.

I do think you overestimate how much of an effect having mixed level parties has, and I think you also underestimate the importance of attrition when it comes to dealing with lower-threat monsters. But then again, I use a slower recovery variant for regaining HD, and that probably influences my perception of the flow of it all.

 

[MostlyDm]

But then again, I use a slower recovery variant for regaining HD

Which one do you prefer?

 

[the Jester]

Which one do you prefer?

I use "regain no hit points, but regain half your Hit Dice, rounded down, minimum of 1, upon completing a long rest".

 

[MostlyDm]

I use "regain no hit points, but regain half your Hit Dice, rounded down, minimum of 1, upon completing a long rest".

Yeah, I prefer that one, too.

Sometimes I think even it's too fast, but I haven't played an extended campaign with "short rest 8 hours long rest 7 days" yet. The one brief attempt didn't last for unrelated reasons.

 

[Lanefan]

... every player keeps a log-sheet where they mark down the date, the xp given, and the hp rolled at level.

I assumed this was standard operating procedure in any game, to the point of not even considering some players wouldn't record the xp given to their characters.

Lanefan

 

[MechaPilot]

I always opt to include new player characters at the same level. I do this for one simple reason: I have been DM'ing through several editions now, and it has been my experience with prior editions, particularly second edition, that bringing in new characters at a lower level creates too much potential for them to die accidentally or for the encounters to not sufficiently challenge the higher level characters. It's just easier, and I think fairer, for everyone involved if the new characters start out at the same level.

 

[Iry]

I assumed this was standard operating procedure in any game, to the point of not even considering some players wouldn't record the xp given to their characters.

It should be. I wish that it was. But in real life it feels like there is always one person at your average group that doesn't. But that could be said about a lot of things. I've got a good group, and I've met quite a few good groups out there. But for every good group I come across, I think I come across two other groups that have big issues.

My significant other sometimes even 'saves' players from other games.

 

[Mirtek]

Taken to its ridiculous extreme this would, in some levelling systems mentioned in this thread, be possible.

Wrong as hell, but possible.

can't See any reason why this would be wrong. If that's what you like, then that's one 100% right way to "play" the game.

Ah, but (again at the edge of ridiculous) who says I missed out on the gaming? I could have shown up every week, sat around and laughed with my friends, watched their characters die in all sorts of horrible ways (earning my character xp and levels in the process and maybe even treasure as well, thank you very much) and been thoroughly entertained all the while. And afterwards I can boast about how my character got from 1-15 in this lethal game without ever dying.

and again everybody wins. You got your riskless high level PC and the entertainment and the others got to play D&D while having their not playing friend still showing up, to together eat, talk, joke and spend the evening. Much preferable to him simply not showing up on D&D night and missing his company for many evenings

 

[Arial Black]

That said, I do agree that, broadly speaking, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but I apply it differently. I'd say that every npc started at 1st level (or below, depending on the specific system) and that, for meaningful ones, you should have a good idea of their history. Npcs also have to abide by the rule of demographics (at least in my game). That is, there are pretty much always fewer npcs of level x+1 than there are of level x.

Finally, I'll disagree that pcs are npcs until they are pcs. Well, in most cases- if you take over an existing npc after you lose your character, sure, I'll agree, but otherwise, nah. But here's the rub: if they are first level- and if almost all npcs in the setting are first level- then it makes perfect narrative sense.

This post created a strange disconnect for me.

Would any DM really restrict NON-player characters to only 1st level? That even your 15th level PCs can only face 1st level opponents on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair to give anybody unearned levels? Unless they'd somehow survived a previous encounter with these PCs, and even then they would only get the XPs from their PC fight, because we can't give them free XPs from stuff they didn't do 'on camera'.

I've never even heard of this possibility; I just made it up now. And yet, this is the reasoning behind forcing replacement PCs to be 1st level no matter the level of the party.

If you accept the possibility that people in the game world exist even when the PCs aren't looking directly at them(!) and continue to live their lives and earn XPs even when 'off camera', then this also applies to the new guys, who weren't PCs when the party was being played for 15 levels. Now that the party need a replacement, those 'off camera' XPs don't just evaporate! The world doesn't consist solely of 1st level people, or people who are 1st level only while the party looks for a replacement and then revert to their usual levels when the party aren't recruiting.

It is an unnecessary absurdity to only have 1st level people available to recruit in a world full of people with varying degrees of experience, and it would be totally surreal to have a game world that only had 1st level people in it apart from the PCs.

 

[Nytmare]

It is an unnecessary absurdity to only have 1st level people available to recruit in a world full of people with varying degrees of experience, and it would be totally surreal to have a game world that only had 1st level people in it apart from the PCs.

Speaking only for myself, in the E6 game I ran the world DID only consist of 1st level people, and PCs were something special that were able to go above and beyond what normal people were capable of doing. The way we envisioned it was akin to how the ancient Greeks or Romans were normal, everyday people, but their legends were full of heroes who were decidedly not.A

Again, it is no different than having a rule saying that new characters can't play as a race that can fly. That's not saying that there are NO races in the world that can fly, or that it's stupid to think that a mercenary group wouldn't insist on only hiring someone who could. It's making a rule about what a new character can be and nothing more.