The adventuring company (multiple characters and XP)

[Mercurius]

I'm about seven or eight sessions into a campaign in which we're at a bit of a transition point: the party just finished their first adventure during which two of the four died and have to make new characters; one just turned 4th level and the other is close to it. The two survivors are back in the "campaign hub" city and just about to start a new adventure which will likely be part of a series of connected adventures, sprinkled with "sandbox encounters", that gradually build into a larger plot structure, or at least a building underlying plot.

I'm thinking of offering the players the opportunity to make a couple extra characters so that they each have 2-3 to play with, depending upon the adventure. The idea being similar to the X-Men: You have an adventuring company with a bunch of members who go off on different adventures, often matched to their individual abilities. This would allow the players to switch roles (I'd probably ask that they make characters of different roles). The main potential problem that comes to mind is XP: if one player insists on only playing one character, which is fine, versus another player who likes to evenly distribute playing time among three characters. Assuming equal XP, later in the campaign the first player will have a single 20th level character, while the second player will have three 13th level characters.

The only way around this that comes to mind is giving a smaller, say half, XP award for all inactive characters--with the assumption that they are doing something behind the scenes. In the same example above where the 20th level character has 143,000 XP, the multiple characters would be 16th level (143,000 + half, 71,500 = 214,500 / 3 = 71,500 XP each)...not nearly as big of a discrepancy.

Another idea, more of the "positive" approach, would be to give an XP bonus for playing a different character...if you switch characters between adventures, that character gets +30% XP, or something like that. I haven't looked into the numbers of that, though.

Any other ideas? Does anyone run or play in this sort of game with a "stable" of PCs to choose from? Positives? Negatives?

 

[durinstorm]

I just level up the whole group at once. My group has about 8 players, but a random selection of 4 or 5 will show up each week. So we just play with whoever shows, and all characters level at the same time. Same thing applies if a players want to bring a new character into the game.

Also, each time the group levels, they can select a magic item of level equal to the new level, so that people that can't show up don't fall too far behind. (if that's too many for you, make it ever even level or something, or n-1 level item). I don't hand out much in the way of coinage so this is random coins / gems they find converted into something they can use. People have instead spent the money on components or rituals or other things.

I award people that show up with better magical items (level+3 or +4 or with some extra abilities) and other random rewards based on the adventures. These are fairly minor (+2 hp, unlocking a feat chain, +1 to defenses vs specific types of attacks, etc), but my players love them, and when an award like this comes up it reminds them of the old adventure. They haven't made someone not bring a new character they want to try yet, but I could see that happening.

to sum up:

1. Level everyone at once
2. Give all characters lower level items consistently so they keep up, but less raw gold.
3. Give out fewer, but more special magical items in the sessions (or have quests for them)
4. Award other bonuses based on the adventures to the people that show.

It's worked well for my group. Keeps people happy and on about the same power level, making my job easier.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

The only thing I don't like about leveling up even if you're not in attendance is the chance of getting killed is not there for the player that doesn't show up. Our campign uses half exp for pc's not present so assuming each player misses one session every 6-10 sessions they all remain pretty close to even.

here's the most recent update to our exp totals:
Kellen 7182+438=7620
Pyrollian 7007+438=7445
Sigmund 6445+438=6883
Dougal 6687+438=7125
so you can see we stay pretty even but if you missed a lot of sessions you would fall behind (sort of deservedly). It probably becomes a problem if you drift more than 1 level behind and it's not clear how I would handle the OP's premise of different pc's. Maybe making no single pc usable more than 2 weeks in a row or forcing players to switch up every time they reach the hub. You could also set a limit on sessions per pc. Assuming each player had 3 characters you could make a rule max number of uses = sessions/3 +2

so by the 9th session no pc could be used more than 5 times. by the 15th session no pc could be used more than 7 times etc.

 

[Regicide]

Just keep 1 XP number. That is the XP everyone has. Done.

 

[Paul Strack]

I just level up the whole group at once. My group has about 8 players, but a random selection of 4 or 5 will show up each week. So we just play with whoever shows, and all characters level at the same time. Same thing applies if a players want to bring a new character into the game.

This.

4E works best when the whole party has the same level. Most DMs I know in my area use some variation on this rule.

Personally, I only use XP as a tool for judging encounter balance. I level up the whole group at a fixed rate, and don't track accumulated XP at all.

 

[MrBeens]

This.

4E works best when the whole party has the same level. Most DMs I know in my area use some variation on this rule.

Personally, I only use XP as a tool for judging encounter balance. I level up the whole group at a fixed rate, and don't track accumulated XP at all.

This is how we do it too, and it has been a revelation.
Less bookkeeping for both the players and the DM, no more silly "give out xp but they are 200 short of a level, but this is a really good place to level up" situations, people who can't show up for RL reasons don't get left behind, the game as a whole can be run on a more regualr basis as we don't have to be mindful of Bob who has just had a kid and has to miss 4 sessions and so many more

 

[Mistwell]

The only thing I don't like about leveling up even if you're not in attendance is the chance of getting killed is not there for the player that doesn't show up. Our campign uses half exp for pc's not present so assuming each player misses one session every 6-10 sessions they all remain pretty close to even.

here's the most recent update to our exp totals:
Kellen 7182+438=7620
Pyrollian 7007+438=7445
Sigmund 6445+438=6883
Dougal 6687+438=7125
so you can see we stay pretty even but if you missed a lot of sessions you would fall behind (sort of deservedly). It probably becomes a problem if you drift more than 1 level behind and it's not clear how I would handle the OP's premise of different pc's. Maybe making no single pc usable more than 2 weeks in a row or forcing players to switch up every time they reach the hub. You could also set a limit on sessions per pc. Assuming each player had 3 characters you could make a rule max number of uses = sessions/3 +2

so by the 9th session no pc could be used more than 5 times. by the 15th session no pc could be used more than 7 times etc.

XP is not a reward for showing up to game.

Gaming is the reward for showing up to game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Another option is to simply use as much of each character's timeline as possible. One group of PCs goes out on an adventure. After a few weeks that adventure is done, now the DM can just go back and say "change of scene" back at the group HQ the B team is hanging out when a messenger arrives. "Help, the King has been kidnapped." Or whatever, and off they go, to earn their experience.

You might still have to or want to tweak things a bit. If a PC gets really uninteresting it can be relegated to staff, or new parties can be formed from brand new characters. If those adventure for a while, then they might catch up to the others. It works out pretty well. Add in some interesting NPC mentors etc and it is a decent, if well worn, adventuring setup.

 

[Wik]

DARK SUN used a character tree approach, and I think it works perfectly fine here, too.

Basically, each PC can make up to four PCs. If you level a PC through play, you also get to level up another "inactive" character at the same time - provided the inactive character was not of a higher level than the active one.

If you only played one PC, then your other PCs wouldn't level as much as the others, because you'd be "spending" more XP (ie, through actual play) to get those lower level-ups. In other words, it'd be easier to level up your 3rd level fighter to get your level 2 mage up a level, rather than levelling up your 5th level rogue.

It's a fun system, and one I think would work well with 4e. There were a few rules quibbles with it (the PCs all had to be of the same moral alignment - good, neutral, or evil - and they obviously couldn't share gear), but all in all, it worked.

I think the big problem with it in 4e would be treasure acquisition - do PCs that automatically level get associated loot? I would think "no", but you may have to reward more gear to compensate for this. Or you could let the PCs be underequipped - it doesn't really hurt the game that much.

 

[MrBeens]

I think the big problem with it in 4e would be treasure acquisition - do PCs that automatically level get associated loot? I would think "no", but you may have to reward more gear to compensate for this. Or you could let the PCs be underequipped - it doesn't really hurt the game that much.

Actually the game mechanics rely on the natural progression of the "big 3" - weapon armour and neck magic items.
If you fall behind on these your characters will find it too hard to hit and they will get hit too often.