| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 01:24:41
|
What do you think is best for a new player joining a game that's been going on for a while.
To bring them in at 1st level, to bring them in at 1 level lower than the lowest pc's level, to bring them in at the same level as the lowest level pc, or a different way?
I'm always for staring anyone joining my game at 1st level.
For example, I just had a new player join my game last week. I started him at first level. The highest level character at that time was 9th level, the lowest was 5th. After the first game the new player earned just under 2,000 xp which put him well into 2nd level.
He's playing an half wild elf Ranger who uses a light crossbow. I did give him a few extras though, to help him out a little. A +1 light crossbow, a master work long sword and master work studded leather.
|
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
Edited by - woodwwad on 21 Jan 2010 01:27:40
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 03:45:34
|
Since my games involve alot of combat I like to keep most of the PCs near the same level, somewhere between a level above or below the average norm. It helps with making encounters not turn into TPKs (total party kills). But for me, introducing a new player into the game with a higher than level 1 character really isn't that hard to begin with.
With your scenario, I don't seem to understand how you work out your battles (if you are running combat) to interest 9th level PCs and a 1st level PC there at the same time. But thats just me. |
 |
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 04:46:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Since my games involve alot of combat I like to keep most of the PCs near the same level, somewhere between a level above or below the average norm. It helps with making encounters not turn into TPKs (total party kills). But for me, introducing a new player into the game with a higher than level 1 character really isn't that hard to begin with.
With your scenario, I don't seem to understand how you work out your battles (if you are running combat) to interest 9th level PCs and a 1st level PC there at the same time. But thats just me.
I'm not a big combat style DM. I use a lot of rp and character development in games. That being said, last friday, we had two combats. A Bulette who had an extra point of str, two extra hit dice and an nat ac of +1 (I like to modify many of my monsters a bit), they found it eating one of their horses and the second was against 2 hill giants, who tried to bully them into giving a cart full of treasure to them. This was over the course of an 8 hour game.
My philosophy on levels has always been you have to earn them. A character doesn't mean anything to me if levels are just handed to them. So all pcs in my game start at first level, you get thrown in the water with the sharks and better hope you swim well if you come in the game late.
To the point of TPK, I have 6 players in my game, so one being a lower level isn't a big deal. The guy playing the character just stood back and fired his light crossbow, manuvering his way around the combat field. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Wenin
Senior Scribe
585 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 07:15:38
|
I strongly feel that new players should come in at least the same level as the lowest level member of your party, at a minimum. This lowest level member of the group should be among those that regularly play.
I've come in at lower levels than the rest of the party and here are my feelings.
1. It isn't very welcoming. When you welcome a guest to your home, do you offer him the worst chair in the house?
2. It can be intimidating. Low level character running around high level characters. Yeah, your voice will be heard, and you'll have an equal effect on the game.
Sure in a perfect game new characters will get just as much attention as old characters. New characters won't be snubbed/sidelined/pushed about by old characters. New characters will have just as much effect on the outcome of the game as old characters.
So if you believe you have that kind of game, then what does it matter that they start at a lower level?
I understand the view that all characters should start at first level, but I have to ask.... why? The character isn't a real person, they don't have to learn anything. The player is most likely an experienced player, so starting at first level won't "teach" them really much of anything.
I feel that it is the story that is the utmost important thing about gaming. How many books have you read where the main character in the story started out as an experienced person? James Bond anyone? In how many series of books, are new characters introduced, and are on par with the heroes of the series you've been following since the series began?
Starting characters at lower levels, isn't heroic. It is also an unusual story element.
I must completely disagree with Woodwwad.
Characters aren't born at first level..... they had a story that brought them to the table. For new characters entering a game at higher levels than 1st, well you're just running into them further along their own personal story.
Characters should have backgrounds. |
Session Reports posted at RPG Geek.
Stem the Tide Takes place in Mistledale.
Dark Curtains - Takes place in the Savage North, starting in Nesmé. I wrapped my campaign into the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, but it takes place in 1372 DR. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 13:20:29
|
I agree completely with Wenin: new characters should be about the same level as the rest of the group (or, since I play 2e, should have about the same amount of experience). Wenin did a good job summarizing my arguments, but there are a couple of others. First, a first level character among higher level characters (especially in 3e!) is dragonbait. Everyone on the battlefield can kill them by accident. I'm all for realism, and occasionally throwing opponents at your players they can't hope to defeat in a straight-up fight, but that's just cruel.
Second, it's not fun. This is a game, remember? It's supposed to be fun. Being hopelessly behind, being hopelessly fragile, isn't any fun. If your only option in combat is to run and hide, you're not going to have much to do, or much to develop. Think your character is a brash warrior? Ok, fine, brash your way up to that gorgon that everyone else is killing with ease. Oops. Now roll another character. Some ability to develop a personality.
Third, stuff like this leads to wildly un-realistic levelling. I know, the concept of the level isn't the most realistic, but the idea is to capture a characters growth and change over time. Assuming your first level character manages to survive, and is given an equal share of the XP (which is stupid in itself, since there's no way they were doing their fair share of the fighting), they'll jump levels every game session. Which, from what was said, is exactly what happened.
This makes no sense. There's no way you come out of two fights a vastly more experienced fighter, not to the degree that you would gain a whole level. As a fencer, I can speak on this one with authority. Doesn't happen. At the rate that character is going, they could easily emerge from a two-day dungeon crawl in the level 5-6 range (or more, depending on what kind of dungeon), something that should normally take a character months if not years of work.
In conclusion, I think that in all ways it is stupid, unfair, and unfun to start a new PC at first level when the rest of the group is signifcantly higher level. If everyone else is second level, fine. If not, then there's no excuse. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2010 : 17:26:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I agree completely with Wenin: new characters should be about the same level as the rest of the group (or, since I play 2e, should have about the same amount of experience). Wenin did a good job summarizing my arguments, but there are a couple of others. First, a first level character among higher level characters (especially in 3e!) is dragonbait. Everyone on the battlefield can kill them by accident. I'm all for realism, and occasionally throwing opponents at your players they can't hope to defeat in a straight-up fight, but that's just cruel.
Second, it's not fun. This is a game, remember? It's supposed to be fun. Being hopelessly behind, being hopelessly fragile, isn't any fun. If your only option in combat is to run and hide, you're not going to have much to do, or much to develop. Think your character is a brash warrior? Ok, fine, brash your way up to that gorgon that everyone else is killing with ease. Oops. Now roll another character. Some ability to develop a personality.
Third, stuff like this leads to wildly un-realistic levelling. I know, the concept of the level isn't the most realistic, but the idea is to capture a characters growth and change over time. Assuming your first level character manages to survive, and is given an equal share of the XP (which is stupid in itself, since there's no way they were doing their fair share of the fighting), they'll jump levels every game session. Which, from what was said, is exactly what happened.
This makes no sense. There's no way you come out of two fights a vastly more experienced fighter, not to the degree that you would gain a whole level. As a fencer, I can speak on this one with authority. Doesn't happen. At the rate that character is going, they could easily emerge from a two-day dungeon crawl in the level 5-6 range (or more, depending on what kind of dungeon), something that should normally take a character months if not years of work.
In conclusion, I think that in all ways it is stupid, unfair, and unfun to start a new PC at first level when the rest of the group is signifcantly higher level. If everyone else is second level, fine. If not, then there's no excuse.
Please try to be a little less abrasive when responding to my discussion topics. My intent is to get people talking with my topics, not be called stupid. I took the tone of your post to be close to flaming, so let's dial it back.
To the points, I believe you must earn your experience. I've used that guide for many, many years of gaming. It's worked well for me, if you hand someone a character they didn't earn they aren't going to respect it or your game as much, that's also been my experience talking with people and watching play for over 20 years. Also, I don't use the D&D rules for xp, I have a system and nearly all your xp comes from rp and new experiences, very little comes from killing monsters. The WOTC xp system is the worst mechanic in the game, I do not use it. I also pass a good amount of time in the game. For example the new character spent about 2 months from where we started him in the game until the end of the game where he gained 2nd level. I do totally agree though that leveling too quickly is a big problem and stretches the realism of the game which is of the highest importance to me. The player of this character was also a new players to D&D and said over and over again how much fun he had. I make sure my character are each different enough so that everyone has at least some spot light, and that's what's important, not how much damage they can do to the monsters but if they have plots of their own.
I see no reason to keep pcs close in xp, for example in the style some of you have explained you use, if I understand it correctly. Say I was one of your players and I came to every game, also rped great, advanced plots, interested and added to your game world and another player comes every other game. We should both have the same amount of xp???  That makes no sense to me. The big difference seems to be this between our world views. To me, xp is a reward for being there and doing a good job. I think the rest of you do not see it as a reward, simply a mechanic, if that is the case, I understand your world view. I do not, however, agree with it and if I were to play your games I would not enjoy that aspect of it as I'd feel I'd been shorted by simply giving others what I'd earned. I do agree it is a game and games should be fun but getting something you do not deserve isn't fun to me and having someone else being given what I've earned isn't fun to me either, another world view difference.
Wenin, I totally agree characters should have backgrounds, birthdates, developed family members and reasons for every rank, feat and stat on their sheets. But I don't think their background should be as adventurers, that's what the game is for.
From what I'm reading I take it that some of your run hack 'n' slash style games, I can see levels being close as more important in those games. I run an rp intensive game, so there is a lot less fighting; although, there is some. It is common that a game session I run will have no fighting at all in it, the current friday night game I'm run the sessions are between 7 and 16 and a half hours long so that's a pretty long game. Really all a character needs in my game to make the player feel important is a characteristic, skill or piece of information that can allow them a chance to shine which of course I make sure everyone has. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 02:16:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
To the points, I believe you must earn your experience. I've used that guide for many, many years of gaming. It's worked well for me, if you hand someone a character they didn't earn they aren't going to respect it or your game as much, that's also been my experience talking with people and watching play for over 20 years.
I can accept this to a point, but when your running a pre-made adventure such as Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave and it starts out at 4th level what does one do? Make the characters at 1st, have adventures quests that get them to reach level 4 and then start Cormyr? Or what if your highest level PC dies? Do you start them with something new at level 1? To me, that would be so damn frustrating to put so much time effort just to have to redo it all over again. See, to me that's the beauty of D&D, your not required to start from scratch.
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
Also, I don't use the D&D rules for xp, I have a system and nearly all your xp comes from rp and new experiences, very little comes from killing monsters. The WOTC xp system is the worst mechanic in the game, I do not use it.
I'd have to totally disagree with you there. The system is pretty much based on challenge ratings, whether your dealing with monsters, traps, etc..and I've never had a problem with that system. Sure, we don't RP as much and there is no chart/table for passing out that sort of XP but we make due.
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I see no reason to keep pcs close in xp, for example in the style some of you have explained you use, if I understand it correctly. Say I was one of your players and I came to every game, also rped great, advanced plots, interested and added to your game world and another player comes every other game. We should both have the same amount of xp??? That makes no sense to me.
When I run a campaign, it usually involves encounters that are equal to and often surpass the level of the PCs to start with. So if you were to start up a character in my campaign at level 1 where the rest of the PCs are around level 8 you would probably die in the first battle. I'm all for role-playing and out of combat scenarios and experience but when you do throw your PCs into battle I just don't see them having any effect what so ever. If they do, then the encounter is probably not even a challenge to the other, higher level PCs. This is just my experience with a DM who had me make a level 1 character when the others were level 8-10 and I did nothing but RP. And since my character was a melee guy, I would be below 0 hit points within 2 rounds. Not fun at all.
|
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 04:04:45
|
I'm not big on modules, I have a lot of ideas and I like writing my campaigns. I've run a bunch before, but it's been a long time, at least 10 years since the last one I ran. Most of the modules I've run were Ravenloft and all of them were 2nd edition. That being said, I do have Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave, one of my players brought it for me as a birthday present---he thought it was a setting book. I have not run it, I likely will not ever run it but if I were too, I'd start the pcs at first level and then work them up to 4th level, then run the module. If it is designed for 4 players, as a lot of the 3/3.5 seem to be, I would start it with my pcs at 2nd or 3rd level since I prefer 6 players.
Yes, if a character, in your example the highest level character, where to die that player would make up a 1st level pc with 0 xp. This would then move that player from the top level position to the bottom level position as if that player were a new player. So a new player, such as the one that started my game last week would move up from the lowest to the 2nd lowest on the list, thus there is a degree of balance there.
I don't think you'd actually disagree with the way I do experience if you were playing in my game. I think you'd be happy I do it the way I do. I've carefully put a lot of time into creating an experience table. I see XP as a reward, so I want to reward you for playing well, role playing, being creative and encouraging the players to make the game better. If you put the experience around fighting monsters then your players who want xp will go to kill monsters, if you put more xp rewards out for meeting intersting npcs, role playing well, coming up with good ideas, then it helps encourage your pcs to do that. I also have each player vote in secret for the player they thought did the best job of rping that night and that player gets xp for each person that voted for them. I do give xp for killing monsters but is is much, much less than the DMG indicates. I can of course not give the pcs as much xp for killing monsters since I give them a lot rping xp, and if I was to give them that much xp for killing monsters then they would get a lot of xp. So I'm not arguing against the amount of xp but against what you get xp for, if you are following me, I know that was a bit convoluted but I think you can follow. I have several catigories for xp and I go through it with each player, so each player gets a different amount of xp at the end of the night which is another difference.
"See, to me that's the beauty of D&D, your not required to start from scratch," you certainly are not required to, to me that has nothing to do with the beauty of the game though. I'll hold off on mentioning my feelings for what makes the game beautiful as we are already talking about a bunch of ideas here.
I don't really see a problem with a player's character getting KOed of course you don't have to charge in. You could be away from the front line and use missle weapons. That's what the new player in my game last week did. He was a missle weapon user, crossbow. So he stayed away from melee and fired shots at the monsters. If you did nothing but rp, then I guess there was a lot of noncombat sense in that game, so what's the big deal if you didn't do that well in combat? Of course you could do well, the new player in my game rolled a nat 20. I use a crit hit table and he ended up doing a lot of damage with that attack. I also do not have player rerell for 20s, I dislike that rule. I understand it is not the best way to join a game well into the game, but your character not being able to do as well as you'd like in combat isn't the problem there to me. The problem is you've missed so much of the story. But if you find a group that is well into a game and allows you to join then you can get a feel for the group, see if they are people you'd like to game with and be ready for the next game that comes your way and be glad you were able to find people that you'd like to game with.
I understand different people have different ideas about what they want from a game. Having players start at 1st level has worked well in my games and with my style. I'm a little suprised that the 3 people that responded here seemed highly against it and one even offended by the idea. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 05:34:06
|
| I would not want to start off at level 1 when others were at least level 5. Yeah, sure, I could stand in the back and snipe all day long... But not having the option to contribute any more for a long period of time would leave me feeling like I had a useless character. Even if my character shined in role-playing situations, I'd still feel that way. I feel that combat is an important part of the game, and being of marginal usefulness in combat would draw much vacuum after a while. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 22 Jan 2010 05:35:53 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 14:13:37
|
I can appreciate woodwwad's line of thought, since the rules do account for different levels and the new player would gain higher XP than the rest of the group, which should result in them catching up to the other characters within a few sessions.
But I have to agree with Wooly & Co. that it's just easier to have them come in at the same level. Why should one player have to Roleplay their way to equality with the others? The rules are extremely easy to build a character at any level, so by forcing them to start out a level 1 means they are going to feel useless while the rest of the party gains XP for them.
As a matter of fact, quite a few of the games I've been a part of have started out with characters starting at level 5, since it added a bit more backstory and allowed the players to get more of a "feel" for their character before the game even started. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 16:34:50
|
one thing to mind is that theres other 'parties' out playing so to speak ... its unlikely that all characters did nothing but to sit on their thumbs ontill they needed to come join your party ... its usually a good roleplaying input to have your character done something before ("it reminds me of the time i tried sneaking into that pesky noble's house to see if the rumors about him trafficing with Demons is true, bastard noticed me but i managed to flee before he figured out who i was")
Or do you seriously think that nothing your character have done before ammounts to any kind of experience or skill before they're getting into the limelight in this speficic group? |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 18:53:50
|
I tend to start new players at 1 level below the lowest level in the group.
That being said, I try to encourage my players to start up atleast 1 other character and try to play that character from time to time. This way, should something happen to their main character, they have a second character that is hopefully close in level with the rest of the group, and has already been introduced to them, so there is no need to work the new character into the story. |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 23:13:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sian
one thing to mind is that theres other 'parties' out playing so to speak ... its unlikely that all characters did nothing but to sit on their thumbs ontill they needed to come join your party ... its usually a good roleplaying input to have your character done something before ("it reminds me of the time i tried sneaking into that pesky noble's house to see if the rumors about him trafficing with Demons is true, bastard noticed me but i managed to flee before he figured out who i was")
Or do you seriously think that nothing your character have done before ammounts to any kind of experience or skill before they're getting into the limelight in this speficic group?
That's actually a really good idea. It gives a lot of potential background material, and more opportunities for DM evil fun. For example, how does the rest of the group deal with it when rivals target all of them because they're with the new guy? Or what if the new guy has a price on his head (right or wrong doesn't matter!) and no one knows until the PCs arrive in town and he gets arrested/attacked?  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
wintermute27
Learned Scribe
USA
179 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 02:49:02
|
| The standard for most groups I've played with is to join at the same level as the lowest level member in the group. The only time I recall bypassing this rule is when a player in a 3.5 game had a run in with a Deck of Many Things and lost 10,000 XP, but only had about 7,000 XP at the time, so we just had him reset his character to level one (the card drained his memories). The player was gracious about it and played off the amnesia well. About a month later we had a new person join the group and it was decided that his character be at a level with the majority of the group. |
My Current Campaign: The Adventures of the Stonelanders |
|
|
|
Wenin
Senior Scribe
585 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 04:55:03
|
I don't believe anyone is saying that your approach shouldn't/wouldn't work at all. It does, in its own ways, as I used to use and have been in groups that have also used the approach. I believe we're just pointing out the downsides to the approach, which are important aspects to those of us against the approach.
As I've said, I do not feel that it assists in story telling, and may even detract energies from it as the GM must deal with the lower level player within the group. It is also important to me that everyone at the table can contribute equally, none left to playing 3rd fiddle. One of the primary reasons people play RPGs is to feel heroic, which is difficult if you're tip toeing around combat or lack luster in the skills department.
I understand that you feel a need to "blood" the characters in, but I haven't really heard a benefit to this approach that makes sense to me. You state that one doesn't respect your game, nor their character if they are handed the levels, but you describe that they are essentially handed the levels anyway. Just at a slower rate.
I now how it is with players starting characters at higher levels, the GM desperately wants the player to invest some time into the character by producing a background.... to explain what they've been doing all that time since being level 1.... let alone level 0. But hey, players can be lazy, for it they weren't, they'd be GMs. =) J/K
Backgrounds can be created as the game progresses, through one on one discussions with the player about the character. That is how you get them to respect their character, for they will earn those levels through the time and effort you get them to put into the character.
|
Session Reports posted at RPG Geek.
Stem the Tide Takes place in Mistledale.
Dark Curtains - Takes place in the Savage North, starting in Nesmé. I wrapped my campaign into the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, but it takes place in 1372 DR. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 19:49:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
What do you think is best for a new player joining a game that's been going on for a while.
To bring them in at 1st level, to bring them in at 1 level lower than the lowest pc's level, to bring them in at the same level as the lowest level pc, or a different way?
I'm not sure there is a hard rule here, apart from it depends on your game.
To my mind, there is a good reason for starting a player at 1st level and that is their character grows with each game. There is a thrill with levelling up.
That said, a 1st level fighter can't last as long as a 9th level fighter. But it's really down to the specific game in question. If the 9th level fighter is taking on the melee role and the 1st level fighter is using missile weapons then it could work out OK.
As you say later on in your thread, you like a lot of roleplay, and in such a situation, levels are probably less of an issue.
Ultimately, it's down to your players. If they're OK with it all and they're having fun then you're doing the right thing.
Edit: Of course, a knight and his squire are on two different levels. (I'm reading A Song of Fire and Ice at the moment, which promoted this edit) |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
Edited by - Kiaransalyn on 23 Jan 2010 19:59:52 |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 02:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wenin
I don't believe anyone is saying that your approach shouldn't/wouldn't work at all.
Well it does work well, so that's not an issue.
To your point about I'm just giving them levels anyway, that would be just wrong. The new player has to earn his experience just like the old characters do. I do not use a lot of fighting in my games and only give a tiny amount of xp for it, you get your xp through adding to the game, through roleplaying, not hack 'n' slash. I ran my game last night, we played from 5pm to 3:30am, there was one fight, the rest of the night was all rp. So it is not a case of the higher character are power leveling the low level character, the new pc has to stand on his own and get his xp that way.
I agree with your point about lazy players, I do not allow lazy players to play in my game. Finding D&D players is easy, finding good ones is hard, I tend to look for people that are smart and creative with good imaginations instead of retreads that have gamed for years but to put it nicely don't understand an rp game is more than just showing up and rolling dice with a poorly designed min/maxed pc. I do a lot of work and expect my players to put a lot into their characters. They each bring a note book with them to the game (that fills up quick, in my last game one of the players had 3 full notebooks after 2 years, I use a lot of intertwined plots and he really worked at putting things together, I give xp for note use too, and figuring info out about the many plots), each of their spells is fully detailed (they write out v,s, & m and act each spell out), they have to create full personalities for their pcs, create voices, and so many different things I request from my players. This being the case, my players do a lot of work and when you put a lot of work into a character you care a lot more about that character. Again, I do not use the DM xp system as that only works well for hack 'n' slash style games. I use xp as a reward for quality playing, this means if two players are playing my game, each player is there every game but one of them does a much better job than the other, that player gets more xp. So the players in my game really have to earn their xp, that's the way I feel about it and the way they feel after getting it, that's they've earned it as a reward and it pushes them to do a better job. So it is demotivating to the players that have put the time and effort in if you just give another player what they have earned through creative play and in depth character development. I can tell you that without a doubt my players wouldn't be happy if I brought another player in with another charcter that didn't earn the xp at the same level they were. You might say it isn't fair but they would feel it is not fair to just give someone what they've earned. I do not view role-playing as simply a fun game, I view it, if done well as an art form. I think very few games ever get close to being art, but some do and that's what I aim for. It is not the simple common style but with great players and lots of work it is possible to really make the game more than just a game, it can be an art form.
Anyway, I've gotten away from the point here, the point is the style I use has worked very well for many years. I looked at the original post I put up, I think I could have worded it in a better way. I was not asking for feedback on my style as far as how I start players. I was simply stating what I do and asking what you do, just a general topic to start some talking. I was a bit suprised at what it turned into. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 09:00:00
|
If combat isn't a big part of your game then the level of your character really doesn't matter. Sure, additional skill point would be good but it really isn't necessary. Espically with 3.x, character level really only counts when your in combat so I don't see a problem with the way you do things. It's your style and if you and your group have lots of fun, then that's what really matters.
I run a very heavy combat style game. For example, I'm running a 4E campaign in that time line and the PCs are attempting to retake Neverwinter from a coalition of enemy forces that comprises of Orcs, Fey, and Fire Salamanders. The PCs are almost done dealing with Lizardfolk from the Maer of Dead Men who have been convinced by a black dragon (Auroxas, the Cursed) to take their share of the Neverwinter area and expell the goodly-races from their lofty city. It's supposed to be a gritty war campaign similar to retaking Osgilliath in Lord of the Rings. That doesn't mean that there isn't intrigue or good RPing opportunities, but they do take a backseat to combat. And if a PC were to come into our campaign at level 1, I can almost expect them to die unless they are REALLY good at dodging or keeping out of the bad guy's reach. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 18:33:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
PCs are attempting to retake Neverwinter from a coalition of enemy forces that comprises of Orcs, Fey, and Fire Salamanders.
I'm interested what type of fey do you have working with these orcs? |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 23:21:13
|
| wild shot ... unseelie feys :P |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 02:15:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I'm interested what type of fey do you have working with these orcs?
quote:
Originally posted by Sian
wild shot ... unseelie feys :P
Partially right. The antagonist for the campaign is a Verdant Prince hellbent on ridding the Neverwinter Wood and the surrounding area of the "human scourge". He's gathered a few elven settlements (with the aid of the Eldreth Veluuthra) along with the less-civilized fey creatures in the area such as Satyrs and Centuars. Include plant-life creature such as vine horrors and natural predators and that's one hodge-podge collection of Natural/fey destruction.
But the Verdant Price (no name for him as of now, any suggestions?) knows he can't take out the Human city just yet so he's thrown in with a few neighboring orc tribes as fodder against the humans. He's offered them the city instead but he'll attempt to double-cross them once the humans are done with because they are orc scum. The fact that the black dragon Auroxas has enterd the picture doens't phase him because the Lizardfolk tribes will probably stick to the Maer of Dead Men once the humans are gone.
The Verdant Prince is from the Feywild and has support of the Unseelie Court, but they're not playing a huge role in the campaign except for supplies and soldiers who want to join in the fighting. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 04:37:27
|
I used Verdant Princes in my current forgotten realms game, really like them. Centuars aren't fey in 3.5, are you running a different edition or just desided to use them as that. I used Centuars as fey in my last game, havn't used them at all in this game and was thinking which way I'd go if I desided to use them.
here is a tool you might find useful for names
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-name.php
I've had to get big on fey names, as I have a large evil fey group in my game that has about 150 members, all of which I've given names in sylvan, along with a common translation since one of my pcs speaks sylvan. I have pics of all these characters too. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 09:25:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I used Verdant Princes in my current forgotten realms game, really like them. Centuars aren't fey in 3.5, are you running a different edition or just desided to use them as that. I used Centuars as fey in my last game, havn't used them at all in this game and was thinking which way I'd go if I desided to use them.
here is a tool you might find useful for names
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-name.php
I've had to get big on fey names, as I have a large evil fey group in my game that has about 150 members, all of which I've given names in sylvan, along with a common translation since one of my pcs speaks sylvan. I have pics of all these characters too.
Centaurs are fey creatures in 4E and their description as nature's warriors for hire (espically to high ranking fey) is a big part of who they are.
Awesome link. I'll definitly try it out and see what I can some up with. Thanks. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 16:05:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I used Verdant Princes in my current forgotten realms game, really like them. Centuars aren't fey in 3.5, are you running a different edition or just desided to use them as that. I used Centuars as fey in my last game, havn't used them at all in this game and was thinking which way I'd go if I desided to use them.
here is a tool you might find useful for names
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-name.php
I've had to get big on fey names, as I have a large evil fey group in my game that has about 150 members, all of which I've given names in sylvan, along with a common translation since one of my pcs speaks sylvan. I have pics of all these characters too.
Centaurs are fey creatures in 4E and their description as nature's warriors for hire (espically to high ranking fey) is a big part of who they are.
Awesome link. I'll definitly try it out and see what I can some up with. Thanks.
You are certainly welcome, I have tons of fantasy picture site links too, if you want those. I've found that site great, especially if you have to name a lot of npcs, you don't want to names to start sound too similar. This really helps with that. Also, thanks for letting me know Centaurs are fey in 4e. That's the type I've been using for them for at least 6 years; although, I havn't used one in FR, I think I am going to keep using them as fey as well. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2010 : 15:48:06
|
I usually start the FNG at the same level as everyone else with average XP. I like to keep everyone on more or less the same power level, assuming that absent players' characters are either off stage doing something XP worthy or tagging along with the rest of the party in an NPC or group handled capacity. This is more of a necessity than it might otherwise be because my games tend to involve lots of action; a more or less even split between combats and skill challenges, XP wise, so being two or more levels behind would constitute a fairly dramatic nerfing.
Also, I don't want to dock people XP for missing games or joining/showing up late; not being fully up to speed with what's going on in my ridiculously over complicated plots is punishment enough! |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2010 : 16:49:50
|
| i'm personally all for docking people with a xp fee if they don't communicate to the rest of the group (or at least the DM) that they'll be late / won't come |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2010 : 13:48:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sian
i'm personally all for docking people with a xp fee if they don't communicate to the rest of the group (or at least the DM) that they'll be late / won't come
Fair point indeed. I'd personally rather sort out chronically tardy people by means other than their character sheet though. I'm more interested in the reason for being late/absent; if they can't be bothered then they can find another game, if they're held up at work/caught in traffic/have baby puke flying all over the place then I can sympathise. |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2010 : 19:54:17
|
| not docking them directly, but rather indirectly by not giving them roleplaying experience ... of cause no rules is without its execptions so there is room for allowences. |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
For new players to your game?
