Thread 96846075

Let's say you're running a campaign and one of the PCs dies and the player wants to make another one, or that a new player wants to join.

Do you have those PCs start at level 1 or do you catch them up to the rest of the party? Why?

picrelated since this si meant for OSR players.

>>96846075 (OP)
1) tell him to make a new 1st level character, the party that is of a higher level have to protect and help him and will level up faster due to being with a high level party. This i did for more than a decade and everything went well, always.

2)do not allow them to make same level or just a level lower. It eats away at the value of playing and protecting and supporting each other. Do not.

>>96846075 (OP)
>that fag in the background pretending he's helping
I hate the concept of bards so much it's unreal. Music by the fire? Sure. Music actually helping in combat? Too far, even when I'm fine with dragons, magic, or a Honda Civic.
Also I believe this is fpbp.
>>96846179

>>96846202
bards are meant to be npcs (just performers), the bard classes were a failure from day 1. At 5e he has spells up to level 9, since the class failed they made him a full mage/something in all but name.

>>96846202
lol

>>96846179
Makes sense, but how do you justify it in-game? Why would a somewhat solid party accept and protect a random adventurer that may very well be a burden in their quests?

From a meta perspective, What if most of the party ends up being low level characters with two or even one advanced PC who has to babysit all of them or lower to their power scale?

>>96846075 (OP)
I start them at the same level, because I'm not running a system where level loss is a major and planned-for part of the gameplay loop.

>>96846075 (OP)
If I join a level 10 party that is fighting dragons and beholders, and I'm supposed to be a level 1 character, I'm leaving the table an hour into the first session and taking my snacks with me.

>>96846179
nta but does the new character actually get to do anything until he's up to snuff

>>96846075 (OP)
When that happened or they retired the character and rerolled or a new person came, they started the new PC 2 to 6 levels behind often with a semi-solo adventure (them plus a supporting PC).
It was an ordeal but when they reached the others they felt as if they were always part of the group.
This was a 3.5 epic so say if someone joined at level 6 would roll a 4th level PC but if they joined at 26 they would roll a 20th.

>>96846075 (OP)
It seems to me that, in the sort of game where you would want to start a character at a lower level, the players would also have the opportunity to, first, have hirelings, and second, promote some hirelings to pet npcs that could be made into PCs should the need arise. If you're not playing a game with a stable, it seems unnecessarily punitive to start a new character at level one.

>>96846075 (OP)
If your character dies you're out of the campaign. Play better in the next one.

>>96846075 (OP)
Ideally start off at level 1 and work your way back up. You'll gain experience much faster and after a few sessions you'll have mostly caught up. Milestones might not be a bad idea either, such as having a new character start a few levels below the party since sometimes it might feel odd for a very experienced party to take a complete newbie under their wing.

>>96846904
I don't need to justify it. They accept him because we're friends playing a game together.

>>96848208
Alright smartass, but you forgot to read this:

> From a meta perspective, What if most of the party ends up being low level characters with two or even one advanced PC who has to babysit all of them or lower to their power scale?

Doesn't that player end up feeling useless or a burden on the rest, lowering them to his level, slowing down their progress?

I think your second idea is smarter; just let them create a charater that's just below their level.

>>96848422
First, I don't have any other posts in the thread. Second, this wouldn't be a problem if you didn't design your game in such a way that being lower level is a death sentence.

>>96847159
Levels are less important in older D&D systems.
It's a lot more reliant on your equipment and your skill as a player than it is anything on your sheet.
< Here's OSE, which is just B/X D&D.

If you were to bring a Level 1 Fighter into a party with a Level 5 Fighter already in it -as well as other classes of disparate Levels because XP wasn't unified, they all leveled at different rates- then he'd only have
>between 4-44 less HP, adjusting for CON Modifier of -3 to +3/Level
>10% worse THAC0, 19 vs 17
>10% worse Saves, each one worse by 2 on a d20

That's it. I know 44 is a lot of HP but that's rolling max every level and having 18 CON which is VERY unlikely. It'd probably be more around 20ish HP difference.
There's no abilities they haven't unlocked yet. No archetypes or super powers.
It's only through the lens of modern D&Dogshit that a discrepancy in Levels seems like doom.

>>96846075 (OP)
Depends on the game.

Some games are able to work with players of different power levels, but a majority that have "levels" don't work at all unless the whole party is at the same level.

>>96846904
>>96847159
he is to be covered by the rest of the party and have to learn to work together and take care of each other. Hirelings work and they are lower or low level, so a pc of lower level works as well. He can do all sorts of things but will not be first in line in melee combat. Having a vulnerable member for a bit will help remind them of fragility and failure and death, in addition to the fact they had a comrade die.

a weaker character can be just someone trained (mage, warrior, thief or even mage "well he knows but does not dare to use or manifest the power yet and the shocks will awaken this or he dies"), but not fully bloodied or at all yet. So having him level up fast, assuming they keep him alive in the first sessions, would simply reflect that story wise. Make him a relative or someone they have to add out of some quest in the adventure.

if you only give them a slightly lower level character then death does not become such a big deal and some may choose it so they can change characters. It cheapens life and survival and success itself.

>>96846075 (OP)
Typically I just let them make a new PC at the same level or 1 level below. Me and my players are all adults so nobody is going to throw a hissy fit about it, we all understand it's simpler and easier for everyone this way

>>96847145
In OSR it works because of le epic bounded accuracy and you will also level up super fast if you survive a couple sessions hiding in the back shooting a crossbow.

>>96848930
If you were all adults then you'd have no issue starting a new player character at level 1, realizing that the mechanical point of the game is in character power growth over time and that only a childish player in the first place would feel unfairly treated just because they have like 20 less HP and 2 less THAC0 than the other guys.
Plus, if you still give out treasures appropriate for the rest of the party (and of course you should), a new PC will catch up in a quicker time than it took the original party to reach their levels.

>>96849016
>the mechanical point of the game

Is whatever we want it to be.
We've got jobs, families and shit to do, if we've all decided this makes it less of a pain in the ass, then that's how we're doing it. Sorry it bothers you, but I didn't really ask for any input

>>96849031
>we got no time
A new classic. Odd that my uncle and father had kids, wives, social lives, full time jobs, service time, and homes and vehicles to keep in shape. Why did they have time to play normal D&D and we don't nowadays? Where'd it go? Days go down to 18 hours from 24?
Anyways, if you're too busy to play and don't want responses why are you even in this conversation? Just promote your players to max level, fight the dragon, save the world and pat each other on the back for saving all that pain in the ass hassle of actually earning it as per the rules of whatever system you presumably paid for the pleasure of "playing".

>>96849062
Again, really sorry that this seems to upset you so much, hope you manage to get over it. Still didn't ask, though

>>96849062
>MOMMMMYYYYY THE MEANIES ON THE INTERNET ARE PLAYING THE GAME WROOOOONG
Shut the fuck up.

>>96849062
this nigga cant be serious

>>96846075 (OP)
In OSR? Half the experience of the lowest level party member.
In modern dnd? Party level-1

>>96849062
my person of colour who hired you at the fun police department? let people play they way they want

>>96849257
>Party level-1
>>96848930
>level or 1 level below.
death should matter and not just cost a level loss and a change of character.

Also having the team face the challenge of protecting weak party member for a while is lots of fun and improves teamwork.

>>96848537
Based post.

>>96849344
anon, have you ever played modern dnd?
it's so much fun not being able to do anything for what amounts to a few months up to half a year irl because you died and the rest of the party is level 7 or something.
There is no teamwork involved in sitting back having a bodyguard so you wont die and getting to do nothing because your numbers are simply too low for the rest of the party
losing even a level in modern dnd really matters unlike in osr

I also dont get the torture porn of OSR about playing the very low levels.
I remember when i first saw a post in osrg about the gygax homebrew of starting people at level 3 and i know this was for conventions and stuff but i adopted that immediately and i m never looking back.
The first level is for unskilled personel, the second is for skilled and adventurers start at level 3.
The idea of playing a funnel every time i want a game is so excruciating to me.
I dont care about your calls to teamwork or whatever. Games are supposed to be fun, and no, giving the characters and the party a leg up is not the sae as straight up declaring the dungeon looted and the dragon slain.
This misery porn is the reason most people dont wanna try actual osr games

>>96849394
>Games are supposed to be fun
yes, and since you do not have much time and its very fast food gaming in your case, you have the opinions you express.

>>96849440
i have all the time in the world. my busier friends dont and either way i would play this way.
It's not fast food to skip the bad part of a game to get to the good part

>>96849394
>torture porn of OSR about playing the very low levels.
i was not referring osr or basic D&D or 1e exclusively. I played mostly rules cyclopedia dnd, 2e and 3.5 with some touch and go from the other editions.

if you cannot die, or have the danger and suspense that comes with it as a presence, things can get boring very fast.

>gygax homebrew of starting people at level 3
you can start at whatever level you want, and being very strong or just capable can be as much fun as being very weak or just incapable in some degree because you have invent solutions and interact with the world in different ways that the standard. Its a game and not a religion with sacred dogma-emanating texts with gygax/arneson or whoever as some sort of moses.

Level 3 start is fine and so is 1 and so is playing as a novice or kid asa prequel if your dm is good and the players can get it, if not stick to fast food and vending machine solutions aka the convenient standard.

>>96849394
>not being able to do anything for what amounts to a few months up to half a year irl because you died and the rest of the party is level 7 or something.
you would level up form level to close to their level (you would get to -1 eventually and then a bit later reach the same level) extremely fast in almost all editions.

>>96849456
>It's not fast food to skip the bad part of a game to get to the good part
some like the hard crust of the pizza just like the softer parts

>>96849456
if its only a level 1 loss, then just resurrect the character that died and spare the trouble of making a new one and integrating him in the team.

>>96846075 (OP)
depends on the campaign. If it's more laid back focusing more on exploring, interacting with NPCs and generally just role play with fights being semi rare I wouldn't mind if the players are all at different levels. A character death and the new guy trying to fill their shoes is some prime role playing material.

if it's a more combat focused campaign or just a shorter campaign in general the new guy is going to be joining at the same level the last guy was at. Rather not have a player feel useless just because the dice fucked him another session he because wanted to have a moment of self sacrifice to save the party from a TPK, or punish the party by having them do baby sitting duty till the new guy is up to snuff. We got together to roll dice and smack bad guys with sharp and blunt things this campaign. Why slow down the fun.

>>96849465
resurrection was always an option, but the player may want to retire the character and play a new one.
why punish them with starting at level 1 when their previous character would just be 1 level below the party

>>96849459
what to you mean by extremely fast?
In modern dnd it would take at the bare minimum a couple of months to reach up to a moderate level party
Have you ever played at level 1/2/3 when the average mob the party is facing can one shot you?
I am not even talking about 3.5, where even a couple of levels difference is enough to get you completely decimated and in a heroic game where you get swarmed by mooks good luck keeping the level 4 orc chuff from negating your character with a single attack roll
DO you guys even play games?

>>96849497
>modern dnd i
things are not by default 5e not are all threads. The OP says OSR, but its assumed that all editions may be mentioned since this is a common problem.

since you like -1 then do not waste more time and energy and make a mess from integration. Resurrection (pay some gold or something hefty but doable) and give him a penalty -4 for the first session or adventure after that and then he returns to nomrla and you can have some price payed but without the mess.

so you can carry on within the context of 5e gameplay specifics.

>>96849508
I also gave my preferred method for osr games which is to start at half the xp of the lowest experienced member.
Not as punishing as osr games like to be with level 1 restarts but not modern dnd levels either

>>96849529
just raise him (it can happen in an enclosed dungeon or a place where no new "adventurer" appears) and give him a hefty penalty for a session or adventure it would work for you better it seems than having a new character made even at level 1 or at lower like your OSR version of the transition. Since you want to minimize loss of time and do not like other versions of what to do when dying then choose the most convenient and least disturbing methods game-wise.
1)raised and with a penalty for a bit and then continue
2)if he does not want choice 1 then do your -1 level and continue

but death must matter and be a big thing, or else regardless of edition and setting etc it will get boring and degrade

>>96849508
>>96849537
>Nogames retard trying to force the false dichotomy either there is a price to pay for death (start at lv 1) or no price to pay at all, just resurrect him lol
Fuck off no games faggot troll

>>96849529
>modern dnd
5e is cancerous dog vomit, but with faggots.

>>96849560
>Fuck off no games faggot troll
go play 5e tranny (you will never be a woman, just a faggot with a corpsehole)

>>96849257
>my person of colour
We get it, you're racist (and white)

>>96846075 (OP)
Obviously start at same level.

Higher level monsters are way more dangerous than lower level ones even when you're high level yourself. In a lot of cases you just instantly vaporize in the mere presence of one and there's fuckall you can really do without spellcasting or a warehouse's worth of magic items.

>>96849567
>that fit
lol
I see I struck a nerve
Good

Now fuck off and play some games before you come here with your unsolicited advice

>>96846075 (OP)
Depends on the game and the flow of the campaign. Sometimes a level 1 would be appropriate. Sometimes it would be a disaster for both the character and the party.
The general rule is that they start from the beginning though.

>>96847588
Forcing a player to be a level one character when the party is level 6-7 is already horrible, they'll just get shotted by a random aoe or a thug and practically will be absolutely fucking useless. Yea yea friendship and all that but it fucking sucks for the player and the party.

>>96848537
So all level ups would give are a slight increase of stats?

>>96849775
Fighters get an upgrade every 3 levels (so their progression is kinda +2/3 instead of +1/1 like in Add2e), other than that they'll gain hp. Other classes have it worse, mu will get better at level 6!
So a 1st lvl Dwarf for example has better Saves than a 9th lvl magic user - the only issue is really about hp, 1st level are just too squishy, they will double their hp by reaching 2nd level. It's why i let new pc come with half the xp of the current team - other than having more hp and possibly a few spells, it isn't really giving them much.

>>96849828
>so their progression is kinda +2/3 instead of +1/1 like in Add2e
That was a big improvement in Add2e

>>96849828
Having everything improve by tiny amounts and your hp making leaps and bounds each level is the most baffling game design decision

>>96848426

There's nothing wrong with a challenge and high lethality, that's why we like it, the only problem is when you have to make a new character who can't catch up without being a burden that wouldn't make any sense for a party to protect unless you give the PC something that makes him essential to a plot (which may lead to a main character complex) or just handwave it through metagaming by having the characters just take him in for no reason other than players playing.

Your second idea was better; you just lose one level and equipment.

>>96848537
It does matter a lot if your system has exponential wizards

>>96848927
I see your point, but in practice that may end up with that character dying, only to be replaced by another dying character. It may work if the character is a wizard, but if the player picks a fighter, cleric or rogue, it's practically useless in high-level combat. You'll end up with a reasonable coward who passively gets the XP others farmed and I don't think anyone is going to like that.

>>96847425
Honestly, upgrading NPCs to PCs sounds like a great idea

>>96846075 (OP)
I always make them start at first level. The higher level characters protect them and they usually level up relatively quickly. If you're using Gold as EXP (Which you should be,) It usually takes no time at all for characters to get a couple levels under their belt as long as they're playing smart.

>All the people saying start him at level 1
At this point, I'm genuinely questioning why you're even bothering setting him behind. It sounds like the player's not doing anything until the rest of the party does everything for him and catches him up to snuff with everyone else; and now he gets to play the game. I can understand a level or two behind, but level 1 is really seeming like it's too much.

>>96851175
I mean, you get things to do in an osr game. searching, carrying a torch, carrying loot, etc but its usually small things your retainers will be doing usually so you basically play an npc till you get to be a proper part of the crew again

>>96846904
>Why would a somewhat solid party accept and protect a random adventurer that may very well be a burden in their quests?
They're desperate for help and can think of a scenario where some cannon fodder might be useful

>>96851175
Those are most likely contrarian trolls latching onto the most retarded possible opinion in hopes of getting (you)s.

Even in OSRest of OSR meatgrinders I played the new hire would start at Level - 1 or be promoted from hireling or helpful NPC. Then again, our characters were supposed to have SOME backstory so we were usually more attached to them than to John Statblock the 7th.

>96851956
>carrying a torch, carrying loot,
yeah fuck that
If I made time to be at the game I want to play the fucking game
and if the rest of the table thinks it's justified to punish me for taking one for the team so they can escape or just a plain ol' unlucky roll
I'm not even going to stick around to the end of the session, just stand up, do a 260 and walk away with my beer
naturally it will never happen at my table because we keep clear of cunts and manchildren

seriously what is it with /tg/s supposed "OSR enthusiasts"?
whenever they open their mouth it's always the most retarded fuddlore and zealous fun police
It's like they are a bunch of chronic nevergames who make their entire identity on digging up the most retarded advice on the net about how to create the most miserable experience and then build a zealous cult around that advice
You never hear this retardation from those anons who actually post game reports

>>96852619
>It's like they are a bunch of chronic nevergames who make their entire identity on digging up the most retarded advice on the net about how to create the most miserable experience and then build a zealous cult around that advice
That's the OSR community, yes.

>>96846179
>Just take a random peasant and drag him around until he absorbs enough Violence Vibes to balloon into a proper fighter

Sometimes I want to make an alien setting based entirely on OSR grognard ramblings, just to illustrate how ridiculous that setting would be.

>>96846075 (OP)
>Do you have those PCs start at level 1
Ask me how I know you are a never-game
>meant for OSR players.
Then you would already know the answer if you played any of those games at least fucking once

>>96852646
That setting already exists

>>96850564
Nothing I said had anything to do with lethality.
What "second idea" are you referring to? I haven't presented one.

>>96851175
You're assuming that there must be an insurmountable gulf in capability between a low level and high level character. Why?

>>96852646
It isn't ridiculous in the least.

>>96852808
>spending gold makes you more likely to survive hits in combat
>all non-human races have a single path of advancement
>you are not allowed to become a stronger druid until you murk an existing druid of higher level

>>96852838
Yes, that isn't ridiculous. Like I said.

>>96846075 (OP)
In early editions, each player had a main character and a number (based on their charisma) of henchmen. They accompanied the main character in their adventures, leveling with them (usually a level or two lower) and could be used as replacements if the main character died, without having to do ass pulls about a complete stranger leaping from a nearby bush and claiming the deceased's gear, or having to halt the time sensitive plot/dungeon crawl to go back to a town to recruit another character for the player to play. The Henchmen where already a trusted member of the party so could take over in an instant.

This seems to be pretty unknown to many modern gamers, as most RPGs nowadays are less wargamey, less about being the commander or leader of a small unit and more about being a lone superhero who can deal with anything (until they can't).

>>96849764
It really depends on the players and the tone of the campaign I guess. My experience has been 2e and 5th edition. In the 2e campaign I played the game was rather high lethality and when I joined in, I was a level 1 mage in a party that was between levels 5-7. It was tough for the first few sessions because I could only cast a couple of spells at the time, but it forced me to think creatively and I had a lot of fun figuring out how I could contribute with the few meager spells I had available to me at the time. Survival was my sole focus for those few sessions and I absolutely played like I could be one shot at any time. In the 5e game we played, the power level was far higher than the RAW rules were designed for (we were running through an entire pathfinder campaign module converted on the fly to 5e, so the party was swimming in magic items), so newer characters were introduced just two or three levels below the party average because it would have been near impossible to play a level 1 character in those circumstances.

If the players don't want to play that way then the game shouldn't be played that way, but I wouldn't knock playing the newbie in the party if everyone is on board with the idea, it was much more fun than I had originally expected.

>>96854379
This is wishywashy bullshit. You are dishonest.

>>96854611
No

>>96846075 (OP)
Start them at -5 the current party's level

>>96846179
I wish I had a dm/group that was this kino. My group just wants to be coddled. And they wonder why they get bored a quarter way through the campaign.

>>96855745
They get bored because your games are ass and half your players are useless because you made them restart at level 1, retard.

>>96846075 (OP)
Make the character lower level than the rest of the party, so they can protect him/her.

>>96846904
>Makes sense, but how do you justify it in-game? Why would a somewhat solid party accept and protect a random adventurer that may very well be a burden in their quests?

They new character share the same mission than the group; the group rescue the new character and he/she is in debt now; the new cahracter has something the group needs (knowledge, skill, an object); etc.

>>96846075 (OP)
Depends on a variety of things, like the current circumstances, if there's a logical character that could step up, that the player is willing to use, and a variety of other things. Campaign pacing is another big one, if this is a fast moving campaign, it makes more sense to have a more complete replacement, for example.
Generally, though, I have a sort of idea of the "minimum viable replacement", a character that can still contribute without making death cheap, that's my default if something more contextually appropriate doesn't line up, and they'll just gain levels or whatever faster.
Actually starting from level 1 is just miserable, leaves the player with often nothing to do on rounds, because they can't actually do anything helpful, and tends to just lead to the death cycle which reduces EVERYONE's mood. Because it's the game everyone means with questions like this, for D&D 5.e, for most parties, this is a fourth level character, with a non-spectacular magic item if appropriate. At fourth level, a character can generally "do" something, and is out of the danger zone of just suddenly dying again.

I do think a period of weakness after a death is called for and brings value to life, and makes it linger for a bit, but this has to be felt as a group. Punishing one player with several sessions worth of not being allowed to play the game isn't healthy for the table, and breeds venom if that death was preventable in some way, not really camaraderie

dungeon crawl games are so fucking bad lol

>>96848537
>Levels are less important in older D&D systems.
It's funny you say that, because in a recent thread the line was "stats aren't as important in older d&d, levels are more important."

>video game logic dictates that you can respawn but your character is level 1 so it's mathematically impossible for you to do shit
It would be preferable to tell them Blackleaf is dead and to get out, because they don't exist anymore.

>>96852974
>This seems to be pretty unknown to many modern gamers,
I can't be expected to develop a backstory, distinct roleplaying mannerisms, and custom character voice, for not only a PC plus 2-6 additional possible PCs who might never actually see play. That's a completely and totally unreasonable standard to expect.

>>96846075 (OP)
In 3.5e i always ruled that if your character dies or gets retired you can reroll a new one having 80% of the average group experience and the least between 80% of your last character wealth and the average wealth for your new character starting level.

>>96864120
>Warduke - like to hit things, simple as

This is an example from published material, why holding yourself to a higher standard?

>>96846075 (OP)
Generally they start at level one and will catch up (abilities are roughly the same), but I also have specialists and special characters that are available put in the world, e.g. Conan as a level three fighter stuck out on the Tree of Woe

>>96846075 (OP)
New characters start with XP to place them halfway through Level 1, unless the average level of the party is over 7. In that case, they start at "average party level -5", but never, ever, start higher than level 8 regardless of party level.
>the last contingency has only been needed once in my whole play experience

Once you get past about level ~7, the stuff you start encountering in published adventures and random tables starts routinely requiring +X weapons to hit, and hits hard enough that a PC of level 2 or lower is almost guaranteed to die off a single hit or area attack all the time. I've found over the years that the above setup makes PC death meaningful setback, but keeps the new PC on the back burner for an adventure or two until they can get some loot and XP to catch up. It also tends to avoid a death spiral where even the most careful players are somewhat insulated from getting killed by single bad die roll or AOE effect, without simply needing to run away from *every* combat encounter.

there's nothing wrong with starting characters at whatever level you want. if people stop trying to stay alive because their replacements will be of a similar level they're retards and you need to talk to them. or give them a weaker character if they died in a stupid way.

that said the way you give out XP is entirely arbitrary. it's entirely logical for a lower level character to level up multiple times after a big job.

>>96849062
Because modern retards would rather spend time online talking about playing than actually playing

>>96846179
Have a (You). You earned it. Otherwise there are no consequences.
>>96846075 (OP)
I normally give my players the ability to win their souls back to the material plane with enough work. The more potent their soul (their level), the harder it is to regain in. Still, some of my players get really attached, and so do I to some degree, so I just think it's more fun if they can choose to give their characters a good farewell.

>>96849394
>There is no teamwork involved in sitting back having a bodyguard so you wont die
A lack of team work was probably got your retarded ass killed in the first place.

I feel like this is really only a problem if you're falling for the epic super long campaign bullshit. Maybe it's just because we usually roll shorter games these days but generally dying for us is basically a non issue because either we all follow soon after or the campaign never got far enough to lose that much.