Making the poor suckers earn it...

[godawful]

Personally, I'd hate it. I don't play games to live a normal, miserable life.

Now, it's possible to run a fun game with low level NPC classes, certainly.

But it doesn't sound like you're doing that. It sounds like the "adventures" will be "spend 6 hours fishing to get enough food for your family" or "chop down some wood to not freeze to death come the winter" or "scrape together a few coppers to get new shoes to replace the ones with no heel, sole, or toe."

I already play a game like that. It's called "Work." I don't want to do that AGAIN for fun.

hehe good point. i don't want it be work though, i want it to be fun. i'm kinda thinking to myself... "well, how does a character earn his starting money and meet his/her mentor to teach him the skills necessary to become their future class?"

maybe i'm a nut, but it just seems like it may be fun to make them start low. i mean geez, they are already 10th-11th level on their main characters, so why not try something new? in this campaign, i promised myself i would only try stuff i have never tried before, not only to keep it interesting for them, but for me too.

another reason i think it may be fun is more roleplay opportunity. someone who isn't level one in a core class will have to do more talking than fighting to get anything accomplished... or get out of trouble.

 

[Altalazar]

First off, I like the general concept. I've done that myself - had higher level PCs found a city - well, a nation, really, though it was small to start with. I designed and had built several cities, a harbor, a giant castle. And then I started playing with lower level cohorts or associates. For instance, there was a mage's guild, and I played apprentices (Starting at Level 1, of course) from that, and so on. To varying degrees, they could call upon the resources of the town / guild, but mostly, they were on their own. It was great fun - I got to continue the legacy of my higher level characters while playing much lower level adventures. I also occasionally would deal with issues of nation building - there was a barbarian invasion at one point (which was first met with battle, and then solved with diplomacy and resulted in a great deal of trade).

But while I like the concept, I'm somewhat wary of the "screw over the players" comment - I rather don't like that sort of adversarial mindset between players and DM. Maybe that works for your game, but in mine, it is about everyone having fun. Maybe they like the challenge, I don't know, but I'd just want to make the challenge all those pitfalls of nationbuilding rather than just a vendetta to make player's lives miserable. There are all sorts of rich possibilities there. It'd be shame if it all collapsed in player disgust.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

ok, big deal right? well, how about if i make them start all new characters as commoners? where does the fighter get all that cash at level 1 for startup gear? where does the wizzie find a mentor? how does a rogue learn his trade?

What did your players say to this idea? Did you bounced it by them before hand? The whole making them start all new characters just to keep things fresh doesn't necessarily sound fun, but I don't know your group. Are they bored? Do they want to keep playing their 10th or 11th level PCs?

I was in a group that did something like this: as a group, we put our higher level PCs into retirement to run the city while our low level PCs handled the adventures and mission. One big downside was we kept asking, "Could Bob the 11th level character tackle this whole mission in about 5 minutes?" which sort of made our missions a bit hard to get out of the shadow of our old characters.

 

[godawful]

First off, I like the general concept. I've done that myself - had higher level PCs found a city - well, a nation, really, though it was small to start with. I designed and had built several cities, a harbor, a giant castle. And then I started playing with lower level cohorts or associates. For instance, there was a mage's guild, and I played apprentices (Starting at Level 1, of course) from that, and so on. To varying degrees, they could call upon the resources of the town / guild, but mostly, they were on their own. It was great fun - I got to continue the legacy of my higher level characters while playing much lower level adventures. I also occasionally would deal with issues of nation building - there was a barbarian invasion at one point (which was first met with battle, and then solved with diplomacy and resulted in a great deal of trade).

But while I like the concept, I'm somewhat wary of the "screw over the players" comment - I rather don't like that sort of adversarial mindset between players and DM. Maybe that works for your game, but in mine, it is about everyone having fun. Maybe they like the challenge, I don't know, but I'd just want to make the challenge all those pitfalls of nationbuilding rather than just a vendetta to make player's lives miserable. There are all sorts of rich possibilities there. It'd be shame if it all collapsed in player disgust.

hey that first paragraph is pretty much what i'm after here. they will still have their high level guys to deal with invasions and the occasional tomb or dungeon that is uncovered during axcavation or mining, but just for funsies, i still like making low level adventures, so to break the monotony i was wondering about starting them as commoners (or adepts or whatever) you know, scouts will be needed, alliances will need to be formed, so i want to be able to have the opportunity to run two different level sessions at different times.

as far as being adversarial... bah i am just having fun and they are too, i was saying it sarcastically. hmmm i wonder how hard i really am, i guess i will start a new thread to see how many times your players have died...!

 

[sniffles]

I know I wouldn't much care for playing those characters - I'm with domino on this. I roleplay to be heroic and better than ordinary. But you could start these new PCs out as NPCs, and have the high-level PCs be their mentors. Then by the time the high-level characters are retired from play, the NPC students/followers could have achieved 1st level.

 

[KRT]

I've done this before and it works as long as you can transfer the character into something at some point and the skill points and feats all work out as if they started at first level in their prefered class. To do this they take commoner as their starting class with the commensurate suck points (i mean skill points). As they adventure they pick up preferences by doing class related stuff. The guys trying to figure things out, read, etc. will get spell preference, and then of course their is combat preference. When they finally achieve a level they will still take commoner unless they have someone willing to train them. They need to have an NPC available and willing. The NPC is only willing if they have enough preference points. The rationale here being that these guys are too old for apprentice style training so they have to have some experience so to speak before the NPC will be willing to risk wasting his time. Once they get a real class they get the skill points that are attributted to that class at first level minus the amount they used for first level commoner. Each level they gain hereafter they add to their new class plus they can exchange one NPC class for a PC class. If they wish to choose a new PC class they still need a trainer in order to exchange the additional NPC class.

For example Bert the Millers boy starts out as a commoner and proceeds to 3rd level before he has enough preference points to satisfy the local Priest to train him as a cleric. He also has some warrior preference points (not enough though) and didn't want to wait another level. So he is now a 1st level fighter 2nd level commoner (as he found the trainer part way through 3rd). At 4th level, he has enough fighter preference points and take a fighter level plus he can trade in a commoner level for either a cleric or fighter level as he has an available trainer for both. He chooses cleric and is now a 2nd cleric/1st fighter/1st commoner. At his next level he will be able to trade his last commoner level for something more useful.

 

[Altalazar]

hey that first paragraph is pretty much what i'm after here. they will still have their high level guys to deal with invasions and the occasional tomb or dungeon that is uncovered during axcavation or mining, but just for funsies, i still like making low level adventures, so to break the monotony i was wondering about starting them as commoners (or adepts or whatever) you know, scouts will be needed, alliances will need to be formed, so i want to be able to have the opportunity to run two different level sessions at different times.

as far as being adversarial... bah i am just having fun and they are too, i was saying it sarcastically. hmmm i wonder how hard i really am, i guess i will start a new thread to see how many times your players have died...!

You don't need to make them commoners, necessarily, though perhaps that would be fun to do. Just having them start out at first level could suffice for what you are looking for. And there are many possible sources - they could be townfolk, they could be apprentices of the higher level mages, they could be members of the town guard or national "army" of the higher level characters. They could be acolytes from one of the temples in your player's city. I've had characters start from almost all of those in my own campaign (where my PCs founded a nation). I actually ended up with three of my PCs involved in the nation - a fighter who was "king" a mage who founded a mage's guild there and was the true power (brains, at least) behind the throne, and then a Cleric who founded her own temple in the main city of that nation. It gave a lot of continuity even when playing lots of different characters. After a while, i had medium and even high level cohorts, such that a few got almost as high in level as the original founders. So when we'd do pickup games, I had a rich list of PCs to choose from to play that were all interelated in some form or another from levels 1 to 17 (and this was first edition, so that was really quite a spread).

 

[Harmon]

I think I would try it if I knew the GM was good enough to pull it off. If the campaign was just a rub your nose in it- "look how bad these guys have it, and these little commoners are dirt," I think I would hate it.

All depends on the GM and his (or her) skills in running a good game. Plus the idea for the campaign has to be there.

Few years back our GM wanted to run a side campaign as a one shot, I was feeling pretty beaten by the villian and didn't see how the commoners could do anything or have any impact on the campaign in general and said no. I wish I had at least given him the chance, he showed faith in my ability but I was lacking in his. Sorry, man another one of those things I regret.

 

[LostSoul]

I think it would be cool. Basically you're starting a new campaign in a setting the players have, at least partially, designed for themselves. I'd start them off at 1st level whatever, just like normal.

You have the old PCs give some NPCs a mission, and then the players create the 1st level guys and go and complete that mission. Then they can report back, and the high-level PCs can act based on that information.

It's really interesting, because you'd be playing the campaign at two different levels at the same time. The low-level guys will have to turn to the high-level guys for ressurection magic, or whatever they need done. When the low-levelers get sent on a mission, the players will know exactly why "they don't just do it themselves".

It would be cool if you could base all the low-level missions on the high-level guy's play. Something small needs to be taken care of, but the high-levelers won't get any XP or any real loot; might as well send the flunkies to take care of that. And the high-levelers have somthing else to deal with. (Even if it is just making magic items.) Then you play a session with the low-level guys.

I guess I'm thinking about something like this:

Some NPC from town tells the PCs about something small - bandits raiding, orcs going nuts, rats in the sewers - and about something big at the same time (your high-level plot hook). (Or the high-level plot hook comes in whatever form it usually does.) The PCs then tell the low-level PCs to take care of the bandits/orcs/goblins, and they go and deal with the lich who is gathering the army of undead.

It would be like, in Sagiro's game, playing Abernathy's Company and Abernathy himself.