Do you have rubberbanding mechanics in your games?
When a low level player is joining in on a high level campaign, how do you even the playing field?
I have a west-marches game where two players are levels ahead of the rest, and I am racking my brain for ways to have the lower-level characters survive through the ever increasing difficulties of the encounters.
Do you have some ideas?
I myself was thinking of an XCom-style bond system, where stronger characters could pick weaker ones to form an apprenticeship relationship. The weaker player would get some benefits by being near the stronger one, and the stronger one would get screwed if the weaker one KOs.
Throw in low HP/high damage minions. They can't be ignored due to the damage but they can be burned down by lower powered players. Big bois to keep the higher powered players busy and minions for the lessers.
There could be different sort of bonds, suited for different sort of characters. A knight might pick a squire, a wizard might pick an apprentice, etc. etc.
Accordingly, the bonusses would change too. A commander can pick a grunt, and as a bonus action, give an action to the grunt, similar to hobgoblin commanders.
A paladin's squire might get blessed as long as he's within 30ft of his inspiring master.
Since it's a west marches campaign, PCs generally lack connections to other characters, so it would also make it easier for new players if they'd be picked by Frankenstein to be his loyal Igor
That's a good idea. With action economy being what it is, strong players would be happy to have the weaker ones around to keep the goblins at bay.
Anybody else having a problem with power gaps?
No, because rolling stats and random treasure is dumb
I just DON'T DO THAT. Nor do I see any reason to. XP/levels/whatever is not a reward, it's a measure of what kind of challenges I can give to the party with the expectation that they can handle it.
What the hell are you talking about? OP doesn't mention rewards and he is specifically calling out how to make challenges for the party so no one is sitting on their hands.
I start everyone at the same level as the rest of the party.
I keep experience gains the same for everyone because fuck trying to keep things balanced when everyone's levels are all over the place.
Yeah, but players who have handled more encounters will be stronger than those who show up every other month
I don't mean in random treasure or stats. I run stat array and am quite stingy with treasure.
I have 2 regulars who are now at lvl 6, while most of the irregulars are lvl 3 or 4. I want my regulars to be able to challenge big enemies without having to leave my irregulars behind.
>Yeah, but players who have handled more encounters will be stronger than those who show up every other month
Why?
I have a player pool of 14 or so. One third will show up when they can, and the rest can only play occasionally. Having all 14 of them level at top pace does feel a bit unfair towards the ones doing the actual work.
Well, they would have gained the most experience. Beating higher levels nets you more exp, so low levels can catch up the pace after joining a high level dungeon or two, as they need less xp to level.
I just want to make sure they can survive the high level dungeons. I like the idea of using mooks like suggested. The stronger characters facing a dragon while the smaller ones take out it's kobolds.
>I have a player pool of 14 or so. One third will show up when they can, and the rest can only play occasionally. Having all 14 of them level at top pace does feel a bit unfair towards the ones doing the actual work.
The reward for playing the game is PLAYING THE GAME. If your players need other incentives to show up, there's something seriously wrong with either your game, or the players in question.
Again, why? What's the benefit for doing it this way?
Old editions of D&D had a mechanic where each next level was reached at twice the amount of XP as the previous (the progression broke at levels around 12-15 but those were never actually played at Arneson's and Gygax's tables). It resulted in all party members being separated by no more than 1 level and also rewards appropriate for higher level characters shooting lower level characters up the ladder very fast
>tracking experience
what is this? 1992?
Well, most of my players don't have the time in their schedule to play regularly, or are too casual to commit to a full campaign. Besides, I enjoy the revolving side-cast. It gets people together.
Since for a lot of the irregulars this is their first time playing DnD, having them level without play would stack up the mechanics they have to learn, rather than gradually getting acces to them. Besides, I don't think they mind the level gap themselves.
I ran a full campaign when I studied abroad, but I can't find the players to commit to a full campaign in my area. Last I tried, 3 out of 5 left due to it "feeling too much like a commitment“. Playing a west marches style game is a good way to play with a revolving cast of casuals and a central cast of hardcore players.
This still works in 5e.
Well, my players enjoy it, and it rewards low lvl characters joining high lvl dungeons
sauce?
I have high powered magnet mechanics. When a new player joins the game, he is pulled up to the same level as the party.
>When a low level player is joining in on a high level campaign, how do you even the playing field?
You do not have a low-level character join a high level game. You either have a HIGH level character join a high level game, or don't let anyone new into your club once it's gotten that far.
"You can come watch our heroes but you have to be a shitty peasant because you haven't played with us for the last 8 years" is just sociopathic hazing.
Well, so far it's two lvl6 characters, and the rest are lvl 4 charactes. They start at lvl 3, and the first session always nets them enough xp to level to 4. I think some should breach lvl 5 soon enough.
I host a lot of new players, and lvl 3 is a good level to start at. You only know a hand full of spells and mostly your simplest abilities.
Depending on how the math on damage and health is low level characters can still be relevant, in OSR for example a sword hit from a low level character is still a size able chunk off of a monsters health
Yeah, low level characters can still play their part. I'm mainly wondering if there is a way to have them slug through high level dungeons without getting their asses handed to them.
Just give them levels/XP you spacker, fucking hell
Yeah, they get XP. They climb levels pretty fast if they finish hard dungeons, but they only get that at the end of each sessions.
I'm thinking of giving them a little help along the way.
No, I mean just give new characters levels so they're on par with the rest of the party and you don't have to worry about them getting their shit stomped.
That could work, but I worry that starting as a lvl 6 character would be a bit intimidating for casual starters.
I could do stuff like granting half xp of every mission to passive characters, but I don't think my irregulars can be bothered with keeping their character up to date.
I know that having a thing against casuals is part of the whole gatekeeper attitude some players have, but I want to keep the entry theshold low. Having a simple character is part of that.
Perhaps I could give them temp hitpoints (d6 per level behind) or some other flat buff to make them more durable without hightening the threshold
Index cards for special abilities, do you use them?
And frankly, I know someone whose first encounter with D&D was at a convention as a kobold. She went through it just fine.
If your players give a shit, they'll do it. If they don't why are they even there?
I've just come to the conclusion that uneven power levels in PC groups is always a bad thing, and do everything in my power to eliminate it from my games.
i don't
i don't even give a fuck
most systems do it on their own, letting a low level character level up exponentially faster if he tags along ("gets carried by") higher level characters
until then I do not absolutely give any amount of fuck towards the lowest level player, he'll become useful however he can; use items, bombs, artillery, scrolls, wands and other such shit if he can't get stuck into melee. If he has anything against this, he can promptly fuck off (though if it's the system's fault, wherein he can not do anything meaningful due to needing to roll 19+ on a d20 to win against basic higher level foes, the player is completely in the right here and you should've just started them off at party level or party level -1 at worst).
Personal shit opinion of mine is that even newbies can join in the fun at low level and be useful; I dislike having powermonster player characters winning everything. also I only run my shitty homebrew that has very low vertical growth
helps that I don't play 3.5e or otherwise vertical growth system; though if the new lower level player is good he'll manage to survive even in 3.5
Would've also helped saying what system you like; say a new low level character in WFRP, Shadowrun or Mouse Guard isn't gonna be as much of a dead weight like a level 1 Fighter will in a level 15 party in 3.5.
>he'll become useful however he can; use items, bombs, artillery, scrolls, wands and other such shit if he can't get stuck into melee.
Items sound good. The right sort of bomb could make weak players a lot more useful, and be too weak for the strong to hoard them all.
My players have a barracks for a base, and they love collecting poisons and other materials from slain foes. I could have an alchemist move in there and mix them goodies to provide a bunch of weapons, potions, and bombs for the next session.
>Would've also helped saying what system you like;
I play 5e DnD.
It isn't as vertical as 3.5; so I think you're gonna have an okay time.
And also, with the Advantage deal, IIRC, the low level player can grant an advantage to his friend's roll without rolling anything.
>PCStrong wants to hit Ogre. PCWeak spends a standard action to grant an ADV to PCStrong by waving a spear around the Ogre, distracting him. PCStrong gains ADV without PCWeak rolling a d20 at all.
That's how I think it is but man I might be horribly wrong.
That sounds like a proper solution. PCStrong can choose a PCWeak, and PCWeak can use a bonus action to assist PCStrong if they're within 30ft from each other. If either goes knock-out, the other party goes rampage-mode.
That sounds like a bit more teamwork and a buffed action economy towards the Player Characters (as in, why don't you and I, strong PCs, aid each other with our bonus actions and go to slaughtertown). Also, anything the players can use the monsters should be able to use too (and if something raises book-keeping to insane amounts, drop that mechanic).
Pay a standard action, roll a 1d20 (players like rolling dice, and they like it a lot; telling them they just say "yeah bro you're helping" makes them feel passive) (extremely low roll means the assist fails, as in the Ogre isn't interested in the distraction, and a really big roll grants an extra attack or adds bleed or something).
Did you check the RAW on allies granting advantages to a roll? Be extremely careful with house rules.
Or, to bypass this, be generous with the flanking bonus between a lower level character and the higher level one.
So rather than granting a help action, they have a roll that might give advantage. This sounds like a good idea. It'd also push players to find out which skills they can use (e.g. I use performance to grab the ogre's attention; I use perception to help aiming the archer's shot)
I'd make it a bonus action though. This way they can still participate, and it'll get less interesting as they get access to more bonus actions.
There is a raw rule that you can use your action to give an ally within 5ft advantage on his next roll. It is a full action, or a 60ft bonus action if you're a mastermind rogue.
>XP/levels/whatever is not a reward
What? Yes it is. Don't be stupid, by virtue of it feeling rewarding to level up. Find me a player who doesn't like leveling up and gaining new skills, powers, or abilities.
It's idiots like you that squander an entire incentive structure in a game (xp distribution) because you are either supremely ignorant to something as blisteringly obvious as "players like xp," or more likely, because you are just too lazy to decide what you want to incentivize in your game.
>how do you even the playing field?
>I have a west-marches game where two players are levels ahead of the rest, and I am racking my brain for ways to have the lower-level characters survive through the ever increasing difficulties of the encounters.
You're not supposed to. The whole point of west-marches games are that different characters go on different quests, and not everyone will necessarily be able to do everything, or be at equal skill, experience, or level.
It's also assumed that characters die in these sorts of games, so one of two things happens. You throw hard challenges* at them, and either they come up with some creative solutions to overcome/avoid/circumvent/etc. and live to tell a heroic tale, or they die and things happened as 'expected'.
Of course, the stronger characters will want to go out of their way to protect their weaker comrades, or else they'll get a reputation for everyone dying around them.
*Since West Marches is character driven in some sense, instead of plot driven, the players and characters learn about and choose their own quests, and their own challenges. So as long as you give them information to make informed decisions it's ok for things to be tough.
Have the lower level characters do non combat activities that award whatever passes for the advancement mechanic or otherwise have them involved in supportive-asymmetric roles during combat.
Characters have to have sessions off at certain milestones, so the player has to play a low level character for a bit.
The player keeps playing and keeps progressing but progress is split between their guys, thus reducing the gap and it mixes things up in terms of party levels.
>You're not supposed to.
this
Why the fuck would I ever not permit a new player to make his character be on an equivalent level to the party
What possible ounce of enjoyment is found in such a shitshow
nah. progression in stats and skills is reasonably slow, getting better equipment and perks is more important
The entire point of a West Marches game is that it's pretty strictly tiered into different leveled zones. There's nothing stopping the higher level players just exploring some of the lower level zones with the lower level players for a session or two to get them up to speed. It's not as though having a stronger team doesn't benefit everyone.
Or likewise you just use the RNG method. The low level characters will have a low survival rate but those that do survive will level up very fast as a result.
it's called playing a roleplaying game rather than the DM reading 'muh epic story' to the invincible group of players who can never die but as a result can never have any sense of actual agency or accomplishment because they're constantly being railroaded and wrapped in cotton wool.
I think he's asking why not just level the people who weren't there? Story wise they were doing something right? Unless when someone isnt at the table they are assumed to be locked in an empty room. Let them be the same level as the high level players. I don't know any players who would be opposed to an ally gaining 4 levels to balance the team.
Adventurers gain knowledge, xp, and treasure (and by extension levels) as they practice their craft and go on adventures, risking life and limb.
Adventurers (whose player didn't show up) who spend weeks safely hanging out in a tavern drinking and relaxing, don't.
It's a west marches game. Players get together, and whoever is there decides where to go. They're given a lot of free reign to go and die, and it's been pretty close for the past few sessions.
Since it's not a normal campaign. You have a pool of players, and they choose when to go and where. This means a large share of players will not be present most of the time.
This sounds like a good plan. My players know that some KOs might result in their characters being impressed into a drow slave market, or kept as a dragon's prize pet, if they fail an adventure. Perhaps encouraging high level characters to have a session off (maybe for some training or crafting or research) could balance the scales a bit.
The low level players are there to bear the torches of the real adventurers, to cook their meals, to hand them potions, and to relieve their tension between fights.
Depends on the size of that power gap and on the system. Also depends on the intention of putting a lower level character into a higher level party.
If I'm introducing a new player into one of my games, I just have them make a character at the same experience level as the group. I never saw a good reason to start someone off fresh at level one while everyone else is higher because you're just creating more work for yourself as the DM to work them in like that. Or you have to just let them flounder until they become more powerful but that's not fun for the player.
The only argument I heard for starting a new player at level one that I could see a point in, was the idea that players aquire skills and abilities organically to meet the story's demands as they aquire exp, and a person creating a fresh character with all that buying power will come to the table with a far more comprehensive character than the other players since they didn't make purchases based on a series of events. My response is to say just don't play with people who you think would do that because if they do just take the opportunity to come to the table with a mechanical powerhouse with no personality or depth, they're probably a shitter
Don't play with shitters.
He is playing a west marches game though, so while I agree with the sentiment in a regular game, it doesn't really fit with the west marches spirit
Glad somebody understands how WestMarches works.
Youre punishing the character because the player isn't there. Nothing is stopping you from saying that character went on a solo adventure and gained exp that way.
If someone is out of town for a few weeks comes back and is 4 levels below the rest of the group theyre not gonna wanna play and it kinda messes up the fun for every one
All players are at the same exp.
First of all, I don't even bother with level-based games, as those are shit regardless of how their mechanics are further organised.
Second of all, I apply average point counter. Each time I award the on-going group with points, I count average from that and note it. It's useful for NPC progression and when new people join, where they always get half of the average as extra during char-gen. This is enough to make them still fucking good, but still leaves them behind for not playing with everyone else from the start.
>First of all, I don't even bother with level-based games, as those are shit regardless of how their mechanics are further organised.
thank fuck, I clicked on this thread praying someone would have already spoken the Truth.
To be fair, the players don't mind. A lot of them are new players, and they don't mind being the tag-along hobbit joining the more experienced adventurers.
What's more, they level a lot faster than if they'd take on challenges of their own level. Really, the player angle of this is not a problem. The players quite enjoy tagging along with the big guys to beat down minor demons in epic showdowns, rather than cleaning up goblin raids.
This is why I come to Veeky Forums.
Wait, people don't keep the players all the same level?
It's not common in West Marches style games.
>I have a west-marches game where two players are levels ahead of the rest, and I am racking my brain for ways to have the lower-level characters survive through the ever increasing difficulties of the encounters.
This is what you get for level scaling your setting, retard.
Stop level scaling and when the players get bored because nothing is a challenge and they aren't leveling up because no experience because no challenge slap them on the head and tell them they could have just retired their character and rolled up a new one. Or accept their lot that they are about as strong as possible in the setting and they are relegated to the mentor role.
At first I thought this was trolling, but asking why this way is wise.
To be fair, the gap is not that big yet. I set my difficulty pretty high, and my players reckon that almost every encounter is quite a challenge.
Seeing the XP thresholds for different levels, I think other players will catch up pretty fast, as the increasing difficulties rack them more and more XP.
The thing is that they'll soon encounter lightning strikes or fireballs capable of taking out the smaller ones before they even got a chance to catch up. I think providing the players with consumables (bombs, health potions, etc.) at the beginning of each session might help. This way, I can keep on pumping the challenge level, and as better loot will result in better consumables, the new players will have better odds too.
My system of choice (Cypher System) handles this problem really well, but I am unsure how to handle this in all systems. Any system with gross power imbalance will have trouble.
A 5e game should have no need for adjustments for level 4 to 6 characters due to bounded accuracy.
>The thing is that they'll soon encounter lightning strikes or fireballs capable of taking out the smaller ones before they even got a chance to catch up.
If you are playing a Western Marches style campaign then why don't your lower level players just...not go to the higher level areas? Why don't the lower level players just form their own party and explore the safer areas. If the higher level players want to play but not ruin things by being OP just let them roll new characters too.
user, assuming 5e dnd, no rubber banding is required even if it did make sense for for Westmarches.
So far, I have had to take the initiative in planning and providing leads. I once had a party of 10 though, and then decided that splitting big parties is better. I have a back-up DM who'd like to run a party of characters if I have 8 or more players present.
So far, my players are content playing every other friday.
You make a good point. It works so far. There are some problems that could occur, but I do not need to change the game to avoid those.
Not OP but it's by Tom Bagshaw
hot
When players aren't available for an extended time, their character is off doing general adventuring. They get XP and to tell an interesting story, and a handful of gold, but they don't get real treasure, NPC contacts, or special rewards.
I play in a game where we have a 17, two 16s and a fresh 15, in 5e. While the extra tools are fun, the former 14 now 15 doesn't feel like he isn't contributing meaningfully and has proved fully capable. He goes down slightly more often, but not significantly so, and his output isn't massively different, less so than variance already provides.
Point buy is balanced.
Rolling stats is F U N