Uneven XP/Levels in RPGs

Have you ever played in an uneven party Veeky Forums? Is it ever a good idea?

It astonishes me that so many systems seem to include or assume individual XP, in my experience as a roleplayer and as a GM it's just never been a good idea.

As a player, it just gets frustrating, whether you're ahead or behind of the curve for the group, because either you can't really be challenged without fucking with the group, or you're struggling to keep up. It can work if the GM keeps everyone within a relatively narrow range, but then that's a lot of extra work from the GM for no real benefit for the group.

Meanwhile, as a GM, it's just a total fucking hassle. I get the idea of 'Reward for roleplaying' XP and stuff, but after a point it stops acting as a useful incentive and starts being an albatross where you just need to try and coax anything out of the people falling behind to stop the balance getting completely fucked, or just abandon the idea and give them a load of pity XP.

What about you Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

git gud

In AD&D the parties were not meant to be balanced. The rogue went up much faster than anyone else (because their abilities were based on level and had little to no combat application), the fighter was next (they needed those saves higher faster), then clerics druids and monks (whom could be incredibly potent combatants, and have some extraordinarily versatile abilities but little in the way of absolute gamechangers), and then you had wizards, who could alter reality and change things, and had the slowest progression at all.

This was one of the things that kept wizards from game domination - they were definitively weaker than everyone else in terms of attack and (more importantly) saving throws in comparison to everyone else. Yes, a wizard could fireball a dozen mooks in an instant, but a fighter with the same experience points could mow down the same mooks almost as quickly because of a rule that let them get one attack per creature with hit dice ten lower than his own - so a horde of orcs and goblins 40-50 strong was no match for a 12th level fighter - he could literally attack and kill all the ones he could reach in his movement (because you always got a move and however many attacks you were allowed, none of this full attack nonsense).

More importantly, said fighters saving throws were MUCH better than the casters, so he could actually get in the face of a dragon and expect to survive while the caster worked to manage a lightning bolt or fireball that a single attack would cause him to utterly fail at, and potentially reduce him to a third of his existing hitpoints as well.

Casters dominate because their supposed 'balanced scalaing' is a lie.

so would leveling up like this in a 5e game help?
ill be dming a game soon and thought of this but it might be kinda gay to have someone be lvl 3 and youre a level 2 mook

It all depends on how the game is designed. In most games with levels, everyone of the same level is meant to be of the same power. Some games fuck this up, and others, notably old school D&D-esque games, eschew the principle.

5e is fundamentally different because all the classes are homogenized in terms of power. It's also the version that focuses most on multiclassing to get the most power spikes. You can do either group levelling or individual levelling.

I disagree.

Player-wise, I have no problem with someone being ahead or behind me XP wise. If they are ahead, good for them. If they are behind, egg on their face.

From a GMs perspective though, I have completely stopped handing out group XP. Despite the RP rewards, which I narrow the requirements down to "don't meta and don't start making OoC decisions based solely on benefit", I had to face the aspect of skipping a massive XP reward for the party after a single player completely fucked an encounter that was going pretty well. Why should everyone lose their reward because of one assfuck that thought he's funny? Alternatively, why should he get any XP from a successful encounter if all he did was sit back and not even hide that he's on facebook?

I should point out that most games I play don't really operate on a concrete level system, so no DnD or Pathfinder. In my experience, if you start rewarding everyone solely on an individual level, you may even be motivating and helping them get better at the game.

Nah in 5e most classes are pretty balanced already. Now Pathfinder on the otherhand might be improved if you use the different XP progression for certain classes in higher tiers. Like give low tier classes fast, mid tiers medium and high tiers slow. I never tried it myself.

In my experience the opposite is true.

People who get more have more things they're able to do, so they're more engaged in the game anyway. Conversely, being left behind and having less options compared to other people just makes people care and try less. It doesn't make them want to catch up, it just makes them bored. Keeping a consistent group XP total actually lets them feel like they still have the option of contributing on the same level, and is a more effective tool for helping them open up and become invested than punishing them for a perceived lack.

.... Pathfinder has a slow/medium/fast xp guide... yeah, there are a lot if other issues with it, but, could this at least help if we were to use that?

Give non casters the fast, like rogues and fighters, partial casters like bards and rangers medium, and full casters slow?

It's interesting in theory, and has some merit because casters can actually boost their saves and CL effects fairly easily with magic, but it doesn't solve the problem of the 'instant win button' that spells have become.

>player plays character
>character dies
>player gets new character at the same level of skill

Why exactly should I reward failure?

See, I never had this happen to me. This might have something to do with the players catching on quickly on what's up and trying more. Also, the one instance where a player got left behind, one session he went far and beyond with his ideas and skillset, evolving his character naturally, completing personal goals, etc.

It also helps a lot if your group operates as a team instead of a bunch of guys each trying their own thing. Soon enough, they'll start having similar goals and keep leveling up together organically.

>>player gets new character at the same level of skill

well thats the thing, you are not "supposed" to, new characters start at level one, or they take over their henchman as their next character, thats why for instance in 3e, they are 4 levels lower (i think), its like a checkpoint system for levelling.

But at that point, what's the benefit of individual XP if the end result looks identical to group XP anyway?

Why should you 'punish' your players? Aren't you all friends having an enjoyable experience together?

The player lost their character. I think that's enough of a downside without labouring them with a lower level character.

It all depends on the party and the type of a game you're going for. In one you're just having a good time making a story, and someone being killed shouldn't result to them being further penalized. But in other games, ones wher player skill is more prominent, you may need to go with a lower-level guy for a while in order for the lesson to really sink in - in those games you typically catch up very quickly anyway, given how the leveling there works.

It's the extra degree of happiness I receive that my players are willing to add as much as they can to the game and have fun while playing consistent characters.

Also, it keeps them in check in case they want to sperg out. Not as fun when the GM tells you "but you're not leveling up."

It can make for a fun narrative, but you gotta find the right people for it. And it's the hard part.

its not punishment to have a low level character, its a reward to have a high level one for not getting them killed. Its the whole bounded accuracy thing 5e is trying to recapture that means a party of 3 level 1s some 2s a 3 and a level 5 can all adventure together still fighting the same threats.

you are all friends and having fun, d&d is fun, if someone has an autism fit that their character is weaker than someone elses, then thats not someone who will contribute positively to the game, so you shouldnt balance around scenarios that shouldnt happen in the first place.

>its not punishment to have a low level character, its a reward to have a high level one for not getting them killed.

You literally said the exact same thing, just in a different way. One person is better off, one person is worse off. That one person could be said to be rewarded doesn't stop the other person being punished.

RPGs are about having fun with your friends, sure. But in a cooperative game, that means everyone being able to contribute. If you aren't able to contribute, instead being forced to just stand around like a useless muppet and flail ineffectually for shitty damage for a few sessions until you're allowed to actually be relevant, that's just going to be a boring, shitty experience. Sure, the camaraderie and RP might be enjoyable, but if you're playing with game mechanics then the game itself should still be fun for everyone.

>Have you ever played in an uneven party Veeky Forums
Yes. But only in a few specific cases.

1. The unevenness was part of the game (ex: MaidRPG) and a strong mechanical balance either didn't matter or was actively detrimental to the style of game.
2. The unevenness was inherent because of the system (ex: Shadowrun, Runequest/Mythras). This really only makes sense in games where "levels" or "experience" as a mechanic doesn't exist or where characters are either vastly different already, heavily specialized, or start at their peak abilities already.

Generally speaking, if a system has a level-based progression system, the system should reflect that at a higher level they are more powerful. Putting in a low-power character with a high-power character basically relegates someone to sidekick status implicitly which is why it's generally not a good time, unless being a sidekick is the point.

Also, I'm only talking about game mechanics, not player involvement. If player A is more involved in the game than players B and C, then it's a different kind of unevenness that should be solved outside the game. Giving mechanical rewards for greater participation is fucking stupid.

I've never had a problem with it in any of the games I played where it was a thing.

>One person is better off, one person is worse off.
It's deeply concerning that you view bettering others as lessening yourself.
Amazingly concerning. More concerning than your hatred for consequences.

>that means everyone being able to contribute.
Lower levels characters can contribute just fine.

>useless muppet and flail ineffectually for shitty damage
I think I've spotted the problem in communicating with you. We're (mostly) OSRfags.
revolution21days.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-d-has-lots-of-rules-for-combat.html
In OSR, high levels characters flail around for shitty damage.

Paladins / Ranger were very slow too.

If the game is like FFG's Warhammer Fantasy / WoD / Shadowrun, makes sense starting anew / losing 60% of the (extra) resources (XP, cash...) your character had. Won't cripple him THAT much.

But you screw almost any DnD / PF player to the point of being unplayable.

A good compromise would be to make an underequipped, underlevel character and give him a prologue before inserting him in. Maybe have his own reason to hate the main villains and/or join the PCs will add to the group's RP. Maybe the item he'll find in that prologue will bring him on par while not having the luxury to customize every piece of gear.

Depends on how much free time the guy and you have between sessions.

> It's deeply concerning that you view bettering others as lessening yourself.
Amazingly concerning. More concerning than your hatred for consequences.

Not that guy, but if I play a crippled character that cannot contribute in a meaningful way, I don't wanna play.

E.G.:
> 4th Ed
> I die and want to make the party's new face
> I roll a level 1 bard, max out charisma with a bit of Intel
> The lvl 13 paladin has a better modifier than I do.
> I am now a very fragile healbot who can aid another on social stuff and almost automatically fail skill challenges
> yay

Making someone reroll as a level 1 in 4e would be absurd unless the party itself was only level 3 or 4 at most. 4e just isn't designed that way. On the other hand, having someone reroll 1 level behind would still reinforce the penalty for dying without making someone useless.

But that just ends up with a rich gets richer/poor gets poorer situation, since the low level people are always more likely to die and either end up lower or just never catch up.

And, what does that add to the game? How does making some people less mechanically potent than others add anything to the experience?

Well even in early editions spells had instant wins. Sleep could take down a mob of low level enemies and Charm could both remove an enemy and grant a temporary ally.

This was balanced by spells being much more limited. A caster could solve one or two encounters before running low on spells while a fighter could keep on going. This was pared with much faster combat and task resolution meant more encounters so running out of spells was a serious possibility.
And if I remember right in OD&D spells recharged per-session,, so running out of spells actually meant something.

Uneven XP is something that works in old school D&D with old school gamers, where player skill trumps stats, level, feats, and so on.

In modern games, it becomes harder and harder to contribute because numbers scale higher, you get more and more feats and special powers and crap, and so on, and level differences matter a LOT.

An ancient dragon in BFRPG might have like 44 hp. A single dagger-shank could make or break a fight like that. Or maybe you sneak past it while its distracted, snag a magic item from its hoard, and turn it against the beast. Or maybe you're just trying to throw a flask of oil on it so someone else can light it up. Maybe you're just supposed to hide in the bushes and plink at it with arrows along with 5 hirelings. You do pretty close to the same damage no matter what level you are after all.

3.x bloats numbers so those little attacks only hit 1/20 times for 1% of the dragons HP Bar and the only characters who can contribute are the ones who can do fancy shmancy ultra combo moves and high DC spells because saving throws scale too now.

Also modern gamers don't think the single dagger shank, the single bag of gold snuck out, or oil grenades is 'fun.' For them, the only 'fun' is getting to be a big badass who does at least 25% of the HP damage- they don't have 'losing can be fun too' mentality or a 'better to run away than die' or 'life is unfair, and that's fair' thought processes, in great part because 3.x stopped supporting the development of those thoughts.

We usually put a cap on maximal exp difference between characters, so that you won't get too far behind. Also, dying sets your new character to the lowest exp in group.

In OD&D, AD&D, Basic, 2e, et al. a level 1 character can consistently and meaningfully contribute in a party full of level 10s.
In 5e, a character more than four levels down begins to circle "baggage" territory.

4e is not OSR, and 4e is not 5e. 4e is the best "D&D" game WotC has made, but 4e is not an RPG at all.
No idea where the cut-off for 4e is, but I agree that asymmetric levels won't work. They aren't supposed to.


It's like 3d6 drop in order:
Works great in OD&D. Works OK in AD&D. Works great in Basic.
You should probably do 4d6 drop lowest for 2e.
Not sure about 4e or 5e. but it's moronic to roll for attributes in 3.pf; system just isn't designed with bad attributes in mind.

4e is as much an RPG as any other edition of D&D, there is no meaningful definition which excludes it while also covering the other editions. You might not like it and it might be a different style of RPG to what you prefer, but it's still an RPG.

If you have to penalize your players for DYING, your group isn't mature enough to play a group RPG. It's a game about cooperation, if you're afraid someone will do dumb shit and suicide just to reroll instead of asking for it, you're playing with children. If you're afraid someone will just come next week with a carbon copy of his dead character, you're a passive-agressive faggot that doesn't solve the actual problem and instead punish people that had bad luck and died to a crit.

Not only that, you also create a negative loop where someone dies, so their next character is weaker and more prone to death, and so more likely to reroll an even weaker character and so on and so on. You really didn't think this through.

>player plays character
>character dies
>The rest of the group physically ejects player from the building and locks him out
I know I don't reward failure.

>character dies
> A failure
It's not a failure, it's a triumph!

>dying is necessarily failure
>criticals don't exist, especially the x3 and x4 ones
>acting without proper knowledge because the GM *thinks* he made his convoluted setup "clear enough" when most of the time the players are going in half-blind into whatever the plot requires
>having to guess if everything has fort-save-or-die poison added to it because someone thought this would fit well into a premade adventure

You sure don't play many RPGs.

So long as advancement is granular, and not a simple "level" based concept, that's fine. So long as it's not too drastic.

It's a bit unfair in D&D & Co, but in stuff like L5R, the 40K RPGs, and WoD?
That's expected.