Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 4727111" data-attributes="member: 2209">Not explicitly and I didn't think so. You said "Far better to start Joe at 1st level in a seperate game area, and let Joe learn the system (i.e., earn merit) than to simply allow him to get his sequential 10th level PCs killed (and possibly his companions as well)." I thought you were suggesting a difference between him playing at 10th and 1st, that he would die sequentially at 10th but not at 1st.Not necessarily <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Picking up the pregen dwarven fighter from the 1e Against the Giants (high level) is not much different than the pregen dwarven fighter from the slave lords modules (mid level) to the pregen dwarf in the back of B1 (low level) IIRC. The assets are mostly the same for each.Creating a 3e wizard at 10th level is substantially more complex than one at 1st level with a lot more complex mechanics for a new player to get a handle on for both character creation and at the table resource management and game play, but there are some options as well to simplify things such as taking a wand for use as a general use repeatable combat tactic.I'd also argue that D&D has enough wiggle room that not everything must be competently optimized lest disastrous catastrophe strike the player and the party, though there is room for that to happen as well.This is an option I had not considered as separate from my first one where Joe makes a 1st level character and plays games separate from the high level one. It similarly does not strike me as a particularly good option. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />When you are playing the new low level game you are not playing the ongoing high level one. Therefore the group now splits its time between the low level game with everybody, and the high level game with everybody except Joe. The goal is to include Joe, not to exclude him. I also would rather play one character a lot than split my time as a player among multiple characters.True there is a difference between allowing things to happen and consciously engineering disparities. However system imbalance has impacts on game play and party dynamics.You need not absolutely prevent mechanical disparity between characters to prevent the problems of gross mechanical disparity.In Rifts if you limit class selection carefully you can get roughly balanced options. Our group never had a pack rat glitter boy disparity in the party.I encourage my groups (as both player and DM) to divide loot equally. If I see a player in my games picking significantly suboptimal choices I point it out to them and give similarly themed less suboptimal suggestions. If they make a suboptimal choice for flavor reasons or to deliberately play a suboptimal character I can react differently (suggesting IMO better alternatives or how I approach the charachter as a role-playing player or scene creating DM).I consciously want a balance of power between party members instead of a disparity. In combat I want them each to be engaged and feel they are relevant. I don't want one PC to always dominate the spotlight. I don't want PCs to feel the others are engaging in combat while they must huddle under a table to avoid an instant death the others are not similarly risking. I don't want PCs feeling that when they do their thing another character can always do it better so they should leave it to the other character. Mechanics power balance affects these issues.I'd agree that preventing disparity of power can be done by giving people options that are roughly the same power. I'm not seeing how actively punishing good play prevents disparity of power though unless you are suggesting a DM nerfs everyone down to a baseline uselessness. This latter, it should be obvious I'd think, is not necessary to provide roughly balanced power among PCs.What do you mean by actively punishing good play to prevent power disparity?</blockquote>

Verification