I've seen several threads on other sites lately about how one PC is stronger than another, and it is ruining the game for the other players. It got me thinking how we used to run mixed level parties. Sometimes a character would die, and they would start back at level 1, even if the others were level 5. So, my questions to all of you are:
- Have you ever run a mixed level campaign? If so, how did the players like it?
Yes, but not since 2e. The players liked the campaign, but I suspect that was because I designed it in such a way that everyone could contribute. It was, frankly, enough work that 3e onwards I preferred to keep the levels equal.
Yes, when I ran some Adventure's League. While the players liked it, It was VERY clear that the higher level characters (ESPECIALLY in the lower tier 1-4 stuff) either had a much easier time or were doing more of the heavy lifting. Especially the spell casters (there is a massive difference in a lvl 4 caster and a level 1 caster).
- Have you ever run a mixed level short adventure? Did the players like it?
Not 100% sure what this means?
- Have you ever run a same level campaign, but the power balance so consistent with a three or four level difference? If so, how did the players respond?
Is it when some characters have significantly better stuff than others?
If that's it, I don't think so.
- Lastly, if you have run any of these things - how did you, as DM, like it? Why?
Not a big fan of significantly different power levels as DM as it meant I had that much more work to do to ensure everyone had somewhere to contribute and ways to have fun. I had noticed from PLAYING in campaigns with huge level differences that those at the lower end tended to have a lot less fun and didn't stay long.