Everyone starts at 1st level

[Remathilis]

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]

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]

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

 

[the Jester]

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]

Play a Palladium game.
Any of them

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

 

[Thanee]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.