Ok, this is a contant area of debate among gamers. I'll start with my own personal problem.
With leveling every 3 adventures for everyone, a group of players will NEVER be at the same level. I have a core group of about 7 players that meet weekly to play. On any given week, about 2-3 are unable to attend. While at least 2 are there come hell or high water. These 2 are gaining level that are going to put them out of play range for the rest of the group. They love their characters and enjoy playing them, thus would prefer not to have to play a new character.
We are already at lvl 5-6 getting into the situation where they need a challenge, but any challenge for them, results in the rest of the party being killed.
For another point, we recently (last week) picked up another player. That means this new player will ALWAYS be at least 4 levels behind. This NEW player is having a hard time maintaing a positive attitude about the game.
I know EVERYONE, myself included, loves to level and get that new ability, feat, hit points, spell, ect. In that respect, I love the 3 mod and level system. After, seeing it in action though, I would prefer a system like old with the opportunity for lower characters to "catch up" to their companions.
I don't believe in complaining without offering a solution, and after discussing with some fellow gamers, I suggest this.
Of course this is probably overly simplistic, but how about something where you must run your level number of adventures to gain a level. (i.e. a level 4 character plays 4 mods, levels up; a level 15 character plays 15 mods, levels up. ect.)
The main concensus I've read and talked about is that people want to level fast at low levels and slow down at higher levels. I believe this will do just that, along with give new party members or lower party members an opportunity to adventure together.
Just my suggestion. Thank you for your thoughts.
A brand-new player can try to play some modules with another group (or at a convention) in order to catch up. I think it's more of a problem if your character dies and you've played all of the scenarios already, since you can't play the same scenario twice.
Additionally, the group can make new characters (something a hardcore, plays-every-scenario group has to do every 18 months anyway) and get that player's PC up to the same level as everyone else. I appreciate the problems associated with the simple XP system, but changing it now (if we wanted to) would force us to (a) re-write a huge chunk of the rules system, (b) force everyone to potentially have to rebuild their characters again, and (c) make all of the previous scenarios built on the simple XP system invalid. That's not a leap I'm willing to make.
|
I'm hardly a master DM - but here is my approach.
I have the a similiar problem in that I have 2-3 people who are always there and 2-4 people who alternate in.
With a new player, I typically let them roll a character at the average level of the rest of the PCs. This meant that Saturday, I had a player with a new 9th level druid. It would have been pointless to start the End of Eternity with a 1st level character.
It can be harder to balance the people fall behind due to spotty attendance, particularly if they don't show up for a while - I will usually allow them to advance their characters to the average group level (rounding down).
I don't advance their equipment or gold - so those who attend have 'better' characters. Equipment is important - - so I'll often run more than 4 players without significantly rebalancing most encounters and this seems ot balance it out. Our group is perhaps less talented than most - as a player in Rise of the Runelords our group had a bunch of deaths playing with six.
The bigger problem I have is when I have less than 4... I've been updating Haleen's character sheet for Legacy of Fire and I will play her if I need a fourth. I'm had someone show up twice who admits they can't commit - and I've given him Haleen to play on those instances.
I'd be interested to hear other approaches.
|
|
With a new player, I typically let them roll a character at the average level of the rest of the PCs. This meant that Saturday, I had a player with a new 9th level druid. It would have been pointless to start the End of Eternity with a 1st level character.
That's how I do it in a home game as well. It's not an option for Society play, though.
|
With a new player, I typically let them roll a character at the average level of the rest of the PCs. This meant that Saturday, I had a player with a new 9th level druid.
It can be harder to balance the people fall behind due to spotty attendance, particularly if they don't show up for a while - I will usually allow them to advance their characters to the average group level (rounding down).
This forum is for Pathfinder Society play.
Do you do that in Pathfinder Society play? Do you just not report that player as having run the scenario (kind of like they used a pregen)?
I'm sure creative DMs can think of several unorthodox methods (that I won't say here) to make things work and still keep things fairly legal.
|
Additionally, the group can make new characters (something a hardcore, plays-every-scenario group has to do every 18 months anyway) and get that player's PC up to the same level as everyone else. I appreciate the problems associated with the simple XP system, but changing it now (if we wanted to) would force us to (a) re-write a huge chunk of the rules system, (b) force everyone to potentially have to rebuild their characters again, and (c) make all of the previous scenarios built on the simple XP system invalid. That's not a leap I'm willing to make.
Josh,
Will there ever be a time you would consider a player who has played a scenerio with one PC to re-run the scenerio with a differant PC?
I wouldn't ask for full credit. If anything something simlair for DM's who eat modules sounds about right. 1 XP, 1/2 PA award, 1/2 gold.
THis would allow more "room for manuvear" in home games. I would exepct this for season 1. So please don't think this is a MUST HAPPEN the SKY is falling ;-)
Just a thought I am sure you have heard 50+ times.
Like the poster above the home game I play in have the diehard players (like me) and some who are part time. (See event 587)
We are starting to see a level issue ourselves but it isn't bad yet but I can see how this can hamper things.
Your thoughts?
To the OP's scenario, of having a 'hardcore' group of players whose more consistent game-play will inevitably lead to them having a signifigant level advantage:
Once you scope out which players will be in this 'hard core' group, I'd think a good idea might be to discuss the issue with them, and suggest they roll up a 2nd character to alternate playing with:
Perhaps they would focus MORE on this new character at first to quickly bring it up to the average character level, but after that focus more equally upon both characters. If one of their characters lags behind/ ahead SOMEWHAT, it's not a problem, as PFS organized play is designed around AVERAGE party level, not assuming every character is the exact same.