A Campaign with Significant PC Level Differences: Could it Work?

[StreetPizza]

Hey there, Playgrounders! I have a question.

I just finished DMing a 3.5 campaign at my university-based D&D club relying pretty heavily on Heroes of Battle (large scale battles and all that). Afterwards, it seemed everyone enjoyed the game a good deal and probably would have come back after summer break to continue the campaign if they could. Thing is, by then, the club would probably also be having a new recruitment drive and, more importantly, new players. I'm not much for hosting multiple campaigns at once, which is why I had the idea of combining both new and old players into one campaign with the old players keeping their PCs and the new players rolling up fresh first level ones.

This way, the old players aren't forced to abandon their old characters and the new players have an easier time adjusting to the game by starting at the beginning and having more experienced players around them at all times.

If it happened, the campaign would probably have three players with sixth level PCs and three players with first level PCs. Battle difficulty probably won't be a problem here because most battles in the game will be army-on-army with plenty of low level mooks (some of which will be the new PCs) under a few high level commanders and champions (the PCs from the previous campaign) on both sides. This way, both parties of PCs get a decent challenge. I'll also probably have the new players level up at a faster rate at first until they catch up to the older players and become commanders or champions themselves.

Levels aside, though, I'm still pretty uncertain about this campaign and any problems that I might not have noticed, hence why I'm posting this question here for more experienced and insightful players and DMs like you.

So, would it work? If so/not, why? What other problems might there be with this kind of campaign and can they be remedied?

[Hirax]

I'll also probably have the new players level up at a faster rate at first until they catch up to the older players and become commanders or champions themselves.

That's how D&D's exp system is supposed to work out of the box. Are you using a different exp system?

[Jude_H]

This sounds horrible.

D&D is interesting because of its wargame.
If you use its wargame, either the level 6 characters will demolish everything in a round or the level 1 characters will be butchered.
If you don't use its wargame, you're using a clunky system for no reason and the high level characters are still going to overshadow the lower-level characters in everything.

Don't introduce new players with impotence and frustration. Just stat up some premade level 5-6s.

[ILM]

I think you should split the groups. Maybe not the campaign, you can have them play in the same setting/plot/battles, just not at the same time. Fundamentally, they're going to be fighting different enemies anyway so you'll really have two groups, only at the same table - meaning that at any time, one of them will just be sort of watching the other group play, even if you're alternating turns between the two or something. So until they catch up or get within, say, 1 level of each other, I'd just go ahead and split them.

This lets you have some creative license (say, using the experienced PCs as NPCs in the other group) and weave one group's actions into the other one's game.

The other benefit is that the new players, if unexperienced, may have a lot of questions. Splitting the group lets you help them get a grasp on the rules without bogging down the experienced group. I guess the group could help you with the education part but depending on the players I know I could get annoyed with the umpteenth "what do I roll again?" of the evening when I'm supposed to be playing.

[StreetPizza]

That's how D&D's exp system is supposed to work out of the box. Are you using a different exp system?

Whoops, should have worded that more clearly. When I said that the new PCs will be leveling up faster, I meant that they will generally end up doing more work than their fellow low-level mooks so that they would be leveling up faster in relation to their fellow mooks if their fellow mooks were also gaining experience from the encounters.


If you use its wargame, either the level 6 characters will demolish everything in a round or the level 1 characters will be butchered.

That's not what the game is going to be, which is why generally, in the large scale battles, the two groups won't be fighting the same single enemy--the low level PCs will be fighting enemy low level mooks and the high level PCs will be fighting enemy elites of similar level. That's why I used the wargame-type setting of Heroes of Battle in the first place.


I think you should split the groups.

That's an interesting idea. Generally, I wanted the two groups to be on the same battlefield but fighting different, level-appropriate enemies, but having the two of them completely separate (maybe playing simultaneously) would definitely eliminate the possibility of one of the high levels running over the the low levels' fight and removing the challenge or the inverse, which might result in a dead PC.

[ILM]

That's an interesting idea. Generally, I wanted the two groups to be on the same battlefield but fighting different, level-appropriate enemies, but having the two of them completely separate (maybe playing simultaneously) would definitely eliminate the possibility of one of the high levels running over the the low levels' fight and removing the challenge or the inverse, which might result in a dead PC.
You can still have that, I'm just suggesting you don't run the two games at the same table IRL. They can still be on the same battlefield, it's only that you'll solve the two battles separately. Still, when playing the low-level game, you could still describe what's going on in the high-level field (not in real time, of course, since that part will either already have been played or not yet) and one of your low-level PCs might still decide to run over there; alternatively, you could deux ex machina a higher-level PC (under your control) to run in and save the lower-level PC's bacon.

Hope I'm being clear enough. :smalltongue:

[StreetPizza]

Ah, okay. So (hoping that I got it right this time. :smalltongue:) you're suggesting that I basically DM them as two separate, simultaneous campaigns in the same world, right? That's probably going to be the easiest and least hassle-y way to do things without too much extra work on my part. As a matter of fact, for parts of the campaign that don't involve both parties (and really, only major battles should), that might actually be how I do things since it won't leave half the group doing nothing while the other half are doing something that only involves them.

[Canarr]

If you can find someone - maybe one of the more experienced players - to be the GM for the newbie group, that would make running the two groups next to each other a lot more manageable.

We've done the Co-GMing-thing a few times over the years, and mostly, it's worked quite well. Although the level difference between 1 and 6 isn't so awfully big that you couldn't run both groups in the same battle (especially in a HoB-setting). But I'd also look at player numbers in your case; depending on how many new players show up, you may have to get a second GM regardless, cause the game will quickly bog down once you exceed 5-6 players.

Good luck! :)

[Yora]

I think such parties would work best in campaigns with very few battles that have the party split up frequently for short durations to overcome non-combat obstacles.
A Heroes of Battle campaign would be quite the opposite of that. :smallannoyed:

Instead of just making the low level PCs level faster, I'd also slow down advancement for the high level PCs significantly. No sense in rushing the new players through the levels at a speed at which they don't learn anything about playing their classes. Maybe a +50% bonus to XP, but not more. For the other PCs, I'd cut XP down by half or even to one third, which makes it easier to catch up with them.
Though I'm a big fan of starting at 1st level, you should consider starting at 2nd or even 3rd level for the new PCs. At 2nd level PCs can take a lot more than at 1st without really getting much more abilities the players have to learn. This allows you to make encounters a bit more dangerous instead of making the enemies so weak they can't hurt the PCs and the high level players get bored.

As said above, I'd split the party up quite often. When the new players play the rookies, have the PCs played as such. For example have the senior PCs defend an important gate or something like that, but since they can't hold it forever, someone needs to get reinforcement from the main army. This is where the junior PCs come in and are send to get help. Then spend a bit of time with the senior PCs fighting off a group of attackers or two, but then focus more on the trials of the junior PCs making it back to the main army.
That way they are contributing to the plot in a very significant way, and they are really helping the senior party members out. But they can have their own encounters in which they can shine without having some 6th level guys stealing all the show.
Or have the seniors fight against the ogres while the juniors guard their backs against goblins. You just have to set up the locations for the encounters in a way that makes it possible.

Not sure if that's enough to make it all enjoyable for everyone, but I think it'd e a start.

[Ossian]

I worked just fine for the Lord of the Rings (if Aragorn was level 5, Pippin was in the negative...)

:)

[StreetPizza]

Alrighty, so it looks like the general vibe I'm getting is that it's better to split the two parties up for most of the time, which makes sense--the closer the two parties are, the more likely someone will accidentally wander onto the big boys' battlefield or vice versa. Plus, having separate parties, and by extension, separate battles, gives both parties a chance to shine whereas if all battles involved both parties, the lower level PCs might suddenly start wondering why don't kick as much ass.

Now, on the matter of starting at first level: I've seen how bad it can get too--in my last campaign, three of the six players either came close to being--or were--unconscious-ized by baddies in their first encounter. This is why, with the idea of separating the groups (thanks to you guys), I will now actually start the campaign with only the low level PCs at first level, have them do some level-appropriate, non-Heroes of Battle stuff until second or third level (this way, they're not forced up the levels or overly challenged; for them, it's still just a normal D&D campaign at that point), and then have them join the high level PCs' army, and even then it'll still be for the most part separate encounters except for the once-in-a-while "guard our backs while we beat up the big bad" scenarios until the low level party is about the same level as the high level party's elite mook cohorts--that way, they'll technically be "starting" at second or third level when the two parties come together but they still get all the fun of starting from first level.

When the two groups are playing simultaneously, until their levels are close enough to warrant them all fighting the same enemy, they'll be in separate encounters, which either means a lot of multitasking on my part (which could slow the whole game to a crawl if I'm not fast enough with it) or, like Canarr suggested, having a co-DM. I remember, in my first D&D campaign, a session that was basically the "crossover episode" between the two groups. There were ten players and the nobody had the idea of using co-DMs. Yeah, it was a disaster. I'll definitely be on the lookout for this kind of thing and someone who can co-DM when needed (one of the experienced players could probably do that if I keep them in the dark about plot details).

[Shpadoinkle]

I'd suggest starting the new players at level 2 instead of level 1. They're more likely to survive their first encounter and they should have some useful but minor magic items (scrolls, potions, stuff like that,) but beyond that playing a level 2 character isn't really different from playing a level 1 character. Warriors are still several levels away from multiple attacks and casters still only have level 0 and level 1 spells. Some classes don't get come of their trademark abilities until level 2 as well (rangers' fighting styles and paladins' divine grace and lay hands come to mind.)

[myancey]

I'd start them around the level of the current players. At level 1 you're as likely to die by a stray arrow as win a fight. A single crit from an NPC would do the trick for most level 1 classes. That being the case, any encounters you generate for the group will either be too underpowered for the 6th level guys or too overpowered for the level 1's.

I would not recommend having party members more than 2 levels from what you designate to be your 'group level'. (By group level I mean the level that you use to formulate CR challenges, etc.)

Even characters at 4 vs. 6 would be way overshadowed. I know I'd get pretty frustrated at a playing it.