PCs with different character levels - what are your experiences?

[Jürgen Hubert]

I am currently contemplating running some online adventures for Urbis. These would be fairly self-contained one-shots but would have a large pool of possible player characters, from which parties would form spontanously for any given adventure (thus representing the fact that it is hard to schedule games for people from different time zones or continents).

However, this would also mean that the PCs of those players who can participate more often would also end up having a higher character level than others. Since all the PCs in my campaign so far have had the same amount XPs, I was wondering how well this can work out in practice. So I wanted to ask those of you who have experience with PCs with different levels:

- How well does this work out in practice? How to you prevent the more experienced PCs from overshadowing the less experienced ones?
- What is the largest difference in character levels that you would feel comfortable with?

 

[shilsen]

I haven't played in campaigns with level differences between PCs and I make sure they don't happen in games I DM. Have you considered just letting all PCs, including those that aren't present for a particular game, advance at the same speed?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Because eventually, I plan to have multiple GMs (if I find enough volunteers, that is). And since the adventures are supposed to be self-contained, I could have multiple adventures going on at the same time geared for characters with different levels. Sort of like like an MMORPG, only chat-based and with actual GMs.

But it is the level difference of characters within a single adventure that concerns me...

 

[Felon]

The general way my group would address level discrepency is to have multiple characters to play. If your level spectrum runs from 3rd to 10th, the folks at one end of the spectrum can make up characters closer to the other, and vice versa.

Having said that, we did have one DM who insisted new characters should always come in at 1st level and work their way up there. His bone of contention was that it was unfair to the players who attended regularly to have new characters come in close to their level. What he couldn't through his head was that this discouraged people from showing up since their characters had little to contribute. Nobody's going to throw away a Saturday night just so they can hide in a corner hoping they don't draw any aggression from monsters that can kil them with a flick of their claws. The most extreme was a party of eight character ranging 1st to 11th, sent to battle a CR 13 dragon. The 1st levelers basically sat back at the entracne to the cave and shouted "is it dead yet"?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Having said that, we did have one DM who insisted new characters should always come in at 1st level and work their way up there. His bone of contention was that it was unfair to the players who attended regularly to have new characters come in close to their level. What he couldn't through his head was that this discouraged people from showing up since their characters had little to contribute. Nobody's going to throw away a Saturday night just so they can hide in a corner hoping they don't draw any aggression from monsters that can kil them with a flick of their claws. The most extreme was a party of eight character ranging 1st to 11th, sent to battle a CR 13 dragon. The 1st levelers basically sat back at the entracne to the cave and shouted "is it dead yet"?

That is something I wish to avoid. The members of any given party should be within a certain range of levels in which they can adventure together and still have fun.

But the question is: What level difference can D&D adventures maintain and still be fun for the players?

 

[shilsen]

Because eventually, I plan to have multiple GMs (if I find enough volunteers, that is). And since the adventures are supposed to be self-contained, I could have multiple adventures going on at the same time geared for characters with different levels. Sort of like like an MMORPG, only chat-based and with actual GMs.

But it is the level difference of characters within a single adventure that concerns me...

In that case, I'd say that as long as the DM is a little more careful to tailor the adventures to the given parties than usual, a level difference of 2 is the max that you should have. Also, if the PCs are sufficiently varied in class and focus, then the level difference will be less obvious in-game.

For example, while a 7th lvl wizard is different enough to not be too obviously lower/higher level than a 5th or 9th lvl barbarian. But the 7th lvl wizard in the same party as a 5th or 9th lvl wizard will be very obviously superior/inferior.

 

[Felon]

That is something I wish to avoid. The members of any given party should be within a certain range of levels in which they can adventure together and still have fun.

But the question is: What level difference can D&D adventures maintain and still be fun for the players?

It would vary from class to class, but I'd say about four levels, tops.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In a game with a set party of multiple levels, my experiences have been uniformly bad. bad, bad, bad.

In Living EN world which has a 'shifting party' dynamic such as you are suggesting, the experience has been much better, especially since you can be on the lower power end in one party then next time hook up with some young'ins and be the higher power one. I still don't like starting at 1st level in general, but the shifting party dynamic is much better than a set one for multiple power levels.

edit: realized I didn't answer the spread question - it depends n the lowest level. 2 or at most 3 levels if the lowest is 1st, but 4 or 5 if the lowest level is above say 4th. The advice about non-overlapping specialties is sound, as well as considering what resources the higher level members can give to help the low leveler help them. For instance, a 3rd level party with no cleric could logically take on a 1st level cleric and buy him a wand of cure light. Whereas the invest needed by a 4rd level warrior heavy party to make a 1st level fighter useful might be a little silly.

 

[Shade]

But the question is: What level difference can D&D adventures maintain and still be fun for the players?

In my group's experience, about one level difference. Anytime someone has falled to two levels behind, their fun level dropped off enough that they scrapped the character.

 

[SWBaxter]

But the question is: What level difference can D&D adventures maintain and still be fun for the players?

I've run games with about a 3 level range, and it's doable so long as you have a variety of threats. In general, a mixed level party is going to do better against groups of weaker opponents rather than a single strong individual. That gives everybody something to do. It helps if the lower level characters are the only one in their niche - a 7th level rogue can help a 10th level group quite a bit if he's the only trap/sneak attack guy, but he's likely to be bored if there's a 10th level rogue in the same group.