| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 11:12:53
Are there any DM's or players on the forum who have experience in running groups (table-top or PbeM) where the adventuring party consists of characters of different levels. e.g. two fighters of level 7, a wizard and a rogue of level 4, and a priest of level 3.
Any feedback, suggestions or comments are welcome, I'm about to introduce such a concept... and would like to know what pitfalls I might find on my way...
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| zemd |
Posted - 23 Mar 2003 : 21:48:38
And i don't see an other way to do it. Because a wizard wouldn't have any xp awarded if we stick with the who-kill-who. And if it's an illusionist!!! |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Mar 2003 : 19:57:37
That's like how the PC games work. Besides -- a character can gain experience and knowledge from watching someone else, you know! |
| zemd |
Posted - 22 Mar 2003 : 14:32:57
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
quote:
Originally posted by zemd
But in that case the threat isn't for their life, but for others life!
You'll award experience not because they survived, but because they saved someone
You misunderstand me, Zemd. My original point was about the low level players not receiving experience for combat. Having a high level player watching the combat "to make sure none of them gets killed" means there is no real threat to those low level players and hence there can be no experience award to those low level players. Surely, the situation described can only result in an award to the high level player who is doing the watching and protecting (and I assume that even that award would be greatly reduced because of the difference in levels).
When i award experience for a fight i give everyone the same amount of XP if everybody participated to the battle (i don't count who killed who,...) depending on their level: for example, 1 PC lvl 5 and 1 PC lvl 1. They are involvel in a fight with an NPC CR 2. I'll see the XP awarded for a CR for a PC lvl 5, i'll divide them by 2. And the same for the lvl 1.
I hope it was clear.
And there're lots of ways to award xp. Role playing a low level while the rest of the party is high level is challenging. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 22 Mar 2003 : 01:24:19
If you view a party as an egalitarian collective all of whom must cooperate to succeed (that's the Gary Gygax way, and I think I've forgotten how to spell "succeed"), then mixed level groups are not so hot.
If you think a party should be more "realistic", then mixed level groups are OK, since in life not everyone is of equal talent and ability, and you may find yourself doing something with someone who is much better at it than you.
We have never had much problem with parties of differing levels of abilities and skills. The DM has to make sure the game allows everyone to contribute in some way. If all the group does is fight dragons, the pink-cheeked boy fresh off the farm is not going to be able to do very much except sharpen swords and fetch spell components. Not exactly a grand ol' time.
One thing that helps is making sure all the other players don't know exactly how experienced everyone else is:
"Hi, I'm Torg. I'm a 7th level fighter."
"Nice to meet you, Torg. I'm Harnekarra, a 4th level sorcerer-3rd level barbarian."
"Um, hi, um, I'm, um, Tad, a 1st level rogue. Please don't squish me." |
| kahonen |
Posted - 22 Mar 2003 : 00:23:13
quote:
Originally posted by zemd
But in that case the threat isn't for their life, but for others life!
You'll award experience not because they survived, but because they saved someone
You misunderstand me, Zemd. My original point was about the low level players not receiving experience for combat. Having a high level player watching the combat "to make sure none of them gets killed" means there is no real threat to those low level players and hence there can be no experience award to those low level players. Surely, the situation described can only result in an award to the high level player who is doing the watching and protecting (and I assume that even that award would be greatly reduced because of the difference in levels). |
| zemd |
Posted - 21 Mar 2003 : 22:43:52
But in that case the threat isn't for their life, but for others life!
You'll award experience not because they survived, but because they saved someone |
| kahonen |
Posted - 21 Mar 2003 : 22:05:37
quote:
Originally posted by Artalis
Balance shalance
Who cares, the thing that makes the game worth playing is THE STORY!!!
With all due respect, Artalis, I beg to differ. What makes the game worth playing is the enjoyment that people (both DM and players) get from it.
If my players aren't prepared to take care of lower level characters or believe that their introduction will be to the detriment of game balance, playability or their enjoyment then as a DM I feel I have to consider their input. After all, it's not my game - it's our game.
You sum up the problems associated with an unbalanced group perfectly at the end of your third paragraph where you say a high level player hangs back to watch a combat "and to make sure no one gets killed". I suggest you re-read the DM's Guide where Experience Point awards are discussed. I think you'll find part that says EXPs shouldn't be awarded for a combat unless there is a threat present. |
| zemd |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 16:54:10
I enterpreted you phrase in the wrong way sorry 
But reading it again my interpretation is comprehensible, no? |
| Echon |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 12:58:06
quote:
Originally posted by zemd
Not every player players wants their alter egoes to be powerful. Sometimes it can be funny to play the lower ranked character in the group. It's a different way of playing, that's all.
The fact that I do not want to deal with mixed groups do not mean that I favor powergaming. You seem to have enterpreted it that way.
-Echon |
| zemd |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 11:04:13
And the lower level characters should try to show they're not so low level. After all in real life, we often want to prove to ourselves and to others that we are worth (and more) the trust and protection they give. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 09:13:02
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
How have you arrived in this situation, Mumadar?
By design more or less. I will have two higher level characters, whom I possibly will allow to recruit some lower level ones - in a role playing way
quote:
Originally posted by kahonen
Some areas where you may have difficulty:
1. The high level PCs don't realise how low level the newcomers are. You could then have a situation where the high level characters are looking to one of the low level players for help and they aren't able to give it.
2. Dissatisfied high level players who aren't getting the experience they need to progress because the game is overly balanced at keeping the low level players safe.
3. Dissatisfied low level players who aren't getting the experience to progress because the combats are too easy for the high level players (better skill, better weapons, better armour) so the low level ones end up with nothing to do.
4. High level players could adopt a "what's in it for me" attitude. If they are going to protect and help the low level players is it right that they should take a bigger share of the spoils? This could mean that low level players aren't getting enough of the spoils to allow them better weapons and armour.
My advice would be to avoid this if you possibly can. If you don't avoid it - good luck.
Thanks for the input (also to the other scribes), yet the players of the two higher level characters are experienced role-players. Since the game is going to be more role-playing (politics, intrigue, etc) the combat aspects don't really matter that much. As to the game balance, it will be up to the two higher level characters to provide some security for their recruits. They will be held responsible for untoward behavior vs. their recruits. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 02:55:37
Sounds like fun. Too bad I can't join you. |
| Artalis |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 02:51:25
Balance shalance
Who cares, the thing that makes the game worth playing is THE STORY!!!
Nighteyes has been hanging out with a group of pc's who range in levels from 5 to 8. He could handle everything they run into easily by himself, yet he hangs back to see how they handle things how their skills develop and to make sure no one gets killed.
The important thing is that his presence adds to the story, as do the rest of the characters and their backgrounds. I treat D&D exactly as real life, the only difference is lots 'o magic and no real technology. Some of us are more capeable than our peers yet that doesn't keep us from associating with them does it?
Sometimes they still run into kobolds, one time they were attacked in the middle of then night by a force of Drow in league with a Black Dragon, and soon the Sisters of the Poison Hand will come for them. That will be a challenge and they will be lucky to win that one. If they are overmatched then they better run or they'll get killed (or worse captured!)
It should be noted that the above is OPINION! I tend to underemphasize the importance of combat, I also tend to reward ROLE-Playing as opposed to Roll-Playing (yes I know it's trite but it's true) I actually encourage mixing things up and creating weird situations. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 20 Mar 2003 : 00:01:50
I think the term is powergaming, isn't it? Playing a character just so you can be powerful? I think that it could be useful. The low-level character might have to be coddled in some cases, but it would also have something "special" to just that character. Of course, that's up to the DM, as I don't know what the plot would be. |
| zemd |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 22:46:30
I already DMed in an unbalanced characters session and it was pretty funny.
Echon: I do not see how you can compare the fellowship of the ring with a gaming group. In (A)D&D there are people controling the characters who care about how well their alter egos perform. Making some more powerful than others seems to me like splitting up the group to some extend.
Not every player players wants their alter egoes to be powerful. Sometimes it can be funny to play the lower ranked character in the group. It's a different way of playing, that's all |
| kahonen |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 20:38:36
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Are there any DM's or players on the forum who have experience in running groups (table-top or PbeM) where the adventuring party consists of characters of different levels. e.g. two fighters of level 7, a wizard and a rogue of level 4, and a priest of level 3.
Any feedback, suggestions or comments are welcome, I'm about to introduce such a concept... and would like to know what pitfalls I might find on my way...
How have you arrived in this situation, Mumadar?
I've tried it in the past and it's very difficult to handle unless you're careful. In my experience it can be one of the best ways to lose players. You tend to end up with 1 of 3 results:
1. Dead low level characters
2. Bored high level characters
3. Contrived and artificial situations where the party is attacked by a gang of (say) ogres and goblins and by some quirk of fate and good fortune the ogres only fight the high level characters and the goblins the low level ones.
The best advice I can give is to ask your players for their opinions outside of the game.
Some areas where you may have difficulty:
1. The high level PCs don't realise how low level the newcomers are. You could then have a situation where the high level characters are looking to one of the low level players for help and they aren't able to give it.
2. Dissatisfied high level players who aren't getting the experience they need to progress because the game is overly balanced at keeping the low level players safe.
3. Dissatisfied low level players who aren't getting the experience to progress because the combats are too easy for the high level players (better skill, better weapons, better armour) so the low level ones end up with nothing to do.
4. High level players could adopt a "what's in it for me" attitude. If they are going to protect and help the low level players is it right that they should take a bigger share of the spoils? This could mean that low level players aren't getting enough of the spoils to allow them better weapons and armour.
My advice would be to avoid this if you possibly can. If you don't avoid it - good luck. |
| Echon |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 20:08:44
quote:
Originally posted by zemd
I don't agree with you Echon. I think it's good to see the differences between high level and low level. In the LOTR, there are a lot of fight but the Hobbits are really poor fighters, but they fight...
I do not see how you can compare the fellowship of the ring with a gaming group. In (A)D&D there are people controling the characters who care about how well their alter egos perform. Making some more powerful than others seems to me like splitting up the group to some extend.
-Echon |
| zemd |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 19:58:12
I don't agree with you Echon. I think it's good to see the differences between high level and low level. In the LOTR, there are a lot of fight but the Hobbits are really poor fighters, but they fight... |
| Echon |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 12:21:22
Although I have not tried this myself (and would not want to), I think it is safe to say that the some of the difficulties occur in situations that depend on level of which the most obvious is combat. If there is one character who is bashing all the bad guys, the rest of the players will probably sit back thinking "I am not going to make any difference, so why bother participating?".
I would advice you to include situations in which any player can contribute equally with the rest of the party, e.g. roleplaying (which probably will not be a problem in your PBeM campaings), solving puzzles and gathering information, etc.
-Echon |
| zemd |
Posted - 19 Mar 2003 : 11:26:53
I'm playin in a campaign where my pc is level 5 and the rest of the group is level 2 or 3. I know it's only 3 levels of difference, but at the beginning it's a big gap (and more because i'm a wizard!)
The problems you'll encounter are for things based on level (traps:if you have 2 rogues one will surely die while the other will easily succeed, encounters, ...)
But if there are very diffenrente classes/races, i think there should be no problem.
Anyway, not every member of the group have the same levels, even in real life. So the low level member will face greater dangers but they'll gain level faster, death is the price to pay... |
