Topic: Starting Level

[Marc R]

I've had some luck with spreads of levels, but it takes a good group of players and delicate GMing. . . .Like the classic fellowship style party is in no way a group of equal level, but as an author you can make sure the fellows fight the orcs while Gandalf takes on the Balrog, in a game it's harder to make the threat levels mix to properly simulate the same kind of "Everyone has a challenge to their level" approach, since all too often players will behave other than according to your expectations/plans.

[intothatdarkness]

The party ranges from level 13 to 21.

When a character dies, do you make them start their new one at 1st level? Because, while it isn't as big of a difference as in D&D, the difference in power level between a 13th level character and a 21st level one is pretty-big. I can't imagine that Players the lower level characters don't feel outmatched and somewhat useless.

When I faced this problem in my campaign (which ran for close to 5 years), I brought in new characters at something close to party average level, meaning that they were normally "boosted" to between fifth and ninth level (depending on where the party average was).

[GrumpyOldFart]

I've been able to get away with it, but only in a scenario where a certain amount of 'railroading' was written into the scenario logic. That is, the party was a military unit patrolling the borders. Given that setup, it was actually fairly easy to see to it that the job of the experienced people was to make sure their juniors survived and learned.

Nor was it that difficult for their juniors to catch up quickly, either. It's amazing what a power multiplier solid teamwork can be. If the CO couldn't take the "herd" of wyverns with a bunch of low level guys, and still bring his team back, he ends up having to justify his failure to his superiors.... and yet he and his 2nd in command wouldn't be able to take those wyverns by themselves, there are simply too many of them. So those senior guys have to figure out a way that their recruits can be useful enough to make the difference and still survive the battle.

So yes, it worked... there. But note that none of them have the option to leave, none of them have the option to refuse to do the job, none of them have the option to seriously dispute the orders of their superiors. In a scenario where the 20th level guy has the option to consider the 5th level guy "not his problem", or the 5th level guy has the option to argue with the 20th level guy about how patronizing he's being, it won't work.

When bringing in a replacement for a dead guy, in most parties I'll start them off lower than the party average.... but only rarely at 1st, and then there's got to be a 'window' for it in the story. If the guy who just died thinks the 10 year old kid who tried to pick the fighter's pocket is just way too much fun to be an NPC, no problem. The fighter catches him, gives him a talking to and lets him go... and the kid's dad breaks his arm for getting caught. The fighter finds out and goes and kills his dad. Fine and good, but now the kid has nowhere to go. Congratulations, you've just acquired a new 1st level party member.

[Zat]

The party ranges from level 13 to 21.

When a character dies, do you make them start their new one at 1st level? Because, while it isn't as big of a difference as in D&D, the difference in power level between a 13th level character and a 21st level one is pretty-big. I can't imagine that Players the lower level characters don't feel outmatched and somewhat useless.

No. The general rule is 1 level below the lowest member of the group. If a player choses to retire his character the staring level is 2 levels below his previous level (not that this happens very often).
We also have a strange rule in which if someone is absent, and if 50% or more of the group are killed, then they too are killed. Rough, I know, but hell RL shoudl be controlled to allow game time, right? 

[Zat]

Oh, and the way that our group 'does experience points' is a little different too. XP is split equally between everyone present. This serves to allow 'weaker' members the opportunity to gain levels a little quicker as well as allowing less XP intensive professions to gain levels at a fair rate.

[Marc R]

Back in my AD&D days, the way the XP doubled every level meant even divvy ment you were never more than 1 level behind anyone. (i.e. by the time the 9th level makes 10th, the 1st level makes 9th)

RM XP progression is less geometric, so you will lag behind even with an even split inflating the lower level character's intake, but you won't lag by much, so the wide split in levels won't last long if you stay alive.

[kevinmccollum]

Oddly, if we have a fatality, it usually means a party wipe. Only an idiot leaves the party in a dungeon/adventure. I imagine that if they are in a city and tick off the wrong group, they could wind up dead but as a whole, we stick together and one death is hard to imagine (as we use fate points) without the rest of us dying.

[providence13]

We like to start at 3rd lvl, although there is nothing wrong with 1st. 3rd lvl is closer to 1st lvl for the (1st ed D&D) style of campaign we use.

We also use 100 DP/lvl so it's not stat dependent. Taking an idea from SpaM:P, you can choose as many TP as you like, multiple times (but TP still can't raise a skill beyond 10 Ranks), Lifestyle/Vocational don't really matter. You do add all of the time required to learn each TP, so middle aged humans at 3rd lvl isn't uncommon.

With this campaign, I have stopped giving experience and just tell them when to level. This has completely stopped "kill steals" and balanced out the fast lvl advancement for Mages with high Attunement. Once they got used to the idea, the players like it. Since I took away the individual level advancement goal (everyone levels together), the players started working together a bit more.

In other campaigns I've played in, it wasn't unusual to start at 1st no matter what lvl the other party members were. It didn't take long for a 1st to nearly catch up to a 7th lvl character after attuning to a few items and getting a couple of kills under their belt. That was a competitive game.

[kevinmccollum]

It didn't take long for a 1st to nearly catch up to a 7th lvl character after attuning to a few items and getting a couple of kills under their belt

May I ask how attuning to a few items helps with level advancement?

[providence13]

Well sir, you've likely inferred the answer. 

In that campaign if you could use an item, then you could cast spells.. perform actions... whatever, that would allow another way to earn xp. Without magic items, the advancement was limited by only what your character could do/perform. Having more magic, you could overcome more obstacles/creatures, perform more actions and gain more xp. 

That GM may have given an award for magic item use... but I never liked that system and don't do it myself.

[Usdrothek]

We started at 5th and have played once a week for 5-6 hours at a time for 10 months and not gone up a level.

[providence13]

We started at 5th and have played once a week for 5-6 hours at a time for 10 months and not gone up a level.

You know, that sounds awesome!
I bet the players love it.
That may be slow for some, but if you're all having fun, keep up the good work.
(5th lvl to 6th lvl = 20,000 xp / 40 game sessions = 500 xp/session.)
My players probably do this amount of xp from self-inflicted crits and fumbles /month.

[kevinmccollum]

We started at 5th and have played once a week for 5-6 hours at a time for 10 months and not gone up a level.

How? No combat? XP given out for things besides combat? Do you consider it a fun game? (I imagine so if you have played for ten months)

The game I'm playing in now, going for maybe six months, every other week for 6 hours a session and we have gone from 1 to 7th level. A good amount of combat with fate points and an actual healer (healer class)

[RandalThor]

No. The general rule is 1 level below the lowest member of the group. If a player choses to retire his character the staring level is 2 levels below his previous level (not that this happens very often).
We also have a strange rule in which if someone is absent, and if 50% or more of the group are killed, then they too are killed. Rough, I know, but hell RL shoudl be controlled to allow game time, right? 

It still doesn't look like there should be a 7 level difference there. What do you mean by a "strange rule" for absent people? I got a different way of doing xp, like:

With this campaign, I have stopped giving experience and just tell them when to level. This has completely stopped "kill steals" and balanced out the fast lvl advancement for Mages with high Attunement. Once they got used to the idea, the players like it. Since I took away the individual level advancement goal (everyone levels together), the players started working together a bit more.

I use a method similar to this: After so many play sessions the characters level. It helped keep down absentee players, which was a problem for a certain group. It did work well.

We like to start at 3rd lvl, although there is nothing wrong with 1st. 3rd lvl is closer to 1st lvl for the (1st ed D&D) style of campaign we use.

Agreed. Something I have been saying for a while now, and doesn't stop at 1st level: basically it takes at least a x2 multiplier to equate an RM character to a D&D one, I think more like x2.5.

You do add all of the time required to learn each TP, so middle aged humans at 3rd lvl isn't uncommon.

Which I can totally see for a more high-tech, civilized setting where the average citizen has the luxury* of being a kid for nearly 2 decades. Not so much for the barbarous settings of most fantasy game worlds. (*I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing, just something that is.)

We started at 5th and have played once a week for 5-6 hours at a time for 10 months and not gone up a level.

I got one thing to say about that: No thank you. That is not for me.

[pastaav]

I let replacement characters enter game at half experience of the most experienced character. Over time the player with a character loss will end a few levels behind the lead, but it find the competence levels in balance. A 9 level difference sounds like it is hard to handle.

[Zat]

I let replacement characters enter game at half experience of the most experienced character. Over time the player with a character loss will end a few levels behind the lead, but it find the competence levels in balance. A 9 level difference sounds like it is hard to handle.

Hmm..it does look a little harsh when you look at the raw figures. here's how it happened:

The (mode and median) average group level is 18.
The highest level character has been played from the very begining of the campaign, i.e., the player has never lost a character during this campaign.
The highest level character has a +10% bonus to all XP via 'exceptionl stat pick' from the memory stat.
The highest level character is played by someone who has missed perhaps 3 or 4 sessions throughout the entire campaign.
The highest level character has participated in her 'personal quest' - Something I do that combines the character's background with personal goals and allows a +10% XP bonus whilst on such adventures.
The highest level character has 'used a magical item' that bestowed a one time +10.000 XP bonus
The lowest (level 13) level character is the second character the player has had during this campaing (which left him 1 level below the lowest party member).
The lowest level character is played by a retail security guard, he plays around 3 weeks in 6, therefore gaining 50% party XP when he is absent.
The lowest level character has not participated in his 'personal quest'
The lowest level character has not 'used a magical item' that bestows a one time +10.000 XP bonus, as it has the additional effect of healing all wounds (plus Lifegiving), once per character (Holy Grail) and has therefor decided to wait until he needs it.

So, as you can see, there are reasons for the gap and the players are so experienced that although the level gap may seem huge, they do not only copr, but also fully understand.

[markc]

 IMHO, kids and teens have quite a few ranks .... but just not where the players often put them.
MDC

[RandalThor]

The (mode and median) average group level is 18.
The highest level character has been played from the very begining of the campaign, i.e., the player has never lost a character during this campaign.
The highest level character has a +10% bonus to all XP via 'exceptionl stat pick' from the memory stat.
The highest level character is played by someone who has missed perhaps 3 or 4 sessions throughout the entire campaign.
The highest level character has participated in her 'personal quest' - Something I do that combines the character's background with personal goals and allows a +10% XP bonus whilst on such adventures.
The highest level character has 'used a magical item' that bestowed a one time +10.000 XP bonus
The lowest (level 13) level character is the second character the player has had during this campaing (which left him 1 level below the lowest party member).
The lowest level character is played by a retail security guard, he plays around 3 weeks in 6, therefore gaining 50% party XP when he is absent.
The lowest level character has not participated in his 'personal quest'
The lowest level character has not 'used a magical item' that bestows a one time +10.000 XP bonus, as it has the additional effect of healing all wounds (plus Lifegiving), once per character (Holy Grail) and has therefor decided to wait until he needs it.

So, as you can see, there are reasons for the gap and the players are so experienced that although the level gap may seem huge, they do not only copr, but also fully understand.

From all of that, the biggest things I take away that would explain the level difference is the missed games. (I wouldn't give him any xp for the missing days, and would likely not even have him in the game if he was going to be gone so much. (Half the time!) Maybe that is mean, but this is a continuous sort of hobby/activity, it is not poker that can be picked up fresh each time.) The rest is "in-game" stuff that should be roughly equal between all Players/Characters - provided they are present and playing, that is... Not that you give every character the exact same stuff, just equivalent stuff. (So, while the warrior got the cool armor & weapons, the mage got a cool staff and robe, and the rogue got some cool sneaking/thieving equipment.)

[RandalThor]

IMHO, kids and teens have quite a few ranks .... but just not where the players often put them.
MDC

Right, and you are talking about modern, spoiled* kids. (And, yes, I classify myself in that category. Heck, I am a spoiled adult, and I am by no means wealthy. Poverty line, I see thee and cast a curse upon thee!)




*When compared to the average peasant child in the middle-ages - and that is without dragons, orcs, bullywugs, drow, magic (the RPG direct killing kind  ), ankhegs, all the summon-able beings from several different planes of existence, giants, tengu, bugbears, ettins, dire-everythings, gods walking the planet, etc... (Pathfinder just put out their 3rd Monster book, each one very thick and full of nasties, and D&D 3E had 5 of them, plus the Fiend Folio, so 6! Now imagine living in a world with all of those, heck, just 1 book of monsters. Sorry, Timmy, but you really don't have time for childhood.)

[markc]

  In RMSS/FRP/SM:P I think running, sprinting, climbing, (Hiking in my game), languages, some lore's at low rank, some art, a rank or two in some craft, maybe some ranks in horseback riding. The # of ranks can add up quickly.
MDC