Self-balancing party

[Jay R]

I would never do this in a real game; this is a thought experiment.

The PCs start at first level. After each session, the least effective character in that session levels up.

What would be the effects?

First of all, on average, a PC in an n-person party takes an average of n sessions to level up. The Fighters would go faster, the casters slower.

The leveling would be somewhat based on what they faced that session. In a session with no undead, the cleric might be less effective than his level would imply. Similarly, a melee fighter with no range weapon could appear ineffective just because the enemies are never in range. But over time, all of these would balance out.

Would it work? Would the players with casters feel cheated because the melee fighters had more levels ad were equally effective more-or-less? Are there specific levels so effective that once a player reaches that level, she's unlikely to ever level up?

[eggynack]

My first thought is that casters aren't necessarily the most powerful at level one. You could end up with a wizard running around with second level spells while the barbarians and fighters are playing at second level for awhile. Like, four person party, wizard's first to get to third, the barbarian is waiting three sessions to catch up to that. Not necessarily ideal.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Depends on what you mean by least effective. If someone who is normally a powerhouse rolls poorly, do they level up if the party weakling happens gets some lucky die rolls? Also, enemies faced is important. A melee barbarian is likely to contribute little to nothing in a shootout, but in a straight melee is going to outperform other party members. You'd have to have some form of adjustment in place for context for something this to work unless every encounter is tailored to be equally threatening to every player, which seems unlikely.

[Flickerdart]

The PCs start at first level. After each session, the least effective character in that session levels up.

Who decides the effectiveness of any one character? If it is the players, expect collusion among them to lead to more or less even levels anyway. If it's the DM, expect a lot of arguing and bad blood.

The effects on the game don't matter, because the effects on the metagame are disastrous.

[ComaVision]

The only way I could see this maybe working without a lot of arguing is basing it purely on damage done (or enemies pacified, maybe). In turn, that would totally discourage any resources spent on non-combat abilities.

[Twurps]

Well it was just a thought experiment right? So no worries yet about metagame effects.

Ignoring the metagame effects (which I agree are going to pose a problem/challenge): I think it's a very good Idea. So what if the wizard levels first? Walking around with a 5hp wizard at lvl one where the standard damage is 1d6 really S***s, for both the wizard and the rest of the party. If I were the fighter, I'd be happy to have him level past 6hp fast. He'll fall behind in levels soon enough, and when that happens, its fine too. Happiness all around.

That metagame though... ouch. You'll need a VERY solid gaming group to handle this. (that or a whole new rulebook on the definition of 'contributed the least')

[Uncle Pine]

In addition to everything mentioned above, this system encourages laziness and munchkinism.
What if I planned an absolute broken character and then purposely held back until I was comfortable with the level I reached, by contributing to everything the bare minimum necessary to survive?
What if I do something disadvantageous for the party like throwing a brick at the goblin king during a diplomatic mission? Do I get a level because I destroyed any chance of success for the party, therefore being the least useful party member by definition? What if I accidentally set on fire the party's headquarters?
What if I build a buffer and deal exactly 0 damage in my whole career, yet the Barbarian is the one killing every opponent singlehandedly? Who gets the level?
What if I finangle to be the only one alive at the end of each session? Am I the least effective member of a party with only one member? Possibly because I've killed everyone else?

[Particle_Man]

I could see it incentivizing malingering. "I stayed in the back and did nothing. Here comes level 5!" :smallbiggrin:

[mistermysterio]

Could end up with people who are intentionally making bad/weak decisions in order to be the least effective. It's too difficult to define: effective within RP? Within combat? How do you compare damage to battlefield control or healing? How do you rate social interactions? If you are in a social situation and the low-int, low wis fighter starts a fight, are they being ineffective because the party wanted to handle a situation diplomatically? Are they being effective because they knocked out a few NPCs?

It would take quite a bit of work and tinkering to create the system, and you'd have to have everything defined pretty well. You'd have to account for suboptimal player choices as well...

*shrug*

[Jay R]

Depends on what you mean by least effective. If someone who is normally a powerhouse rolls poorly, do they level up if the party weakling happens gets some lucky die rolls?

Yes - that's actually part of the point. The person who wasn't able to do much this session will have the ability to do more next time. This will create some short term anomalies, like the one you mentioned, but they should work themselves out over time.

The crucial change to the game is that no PC stays the least effective character.


Also, enemies faced is important. A melee barbarian is likely to contribute little to nothing in a shootout, but in a straight melee is going to outperform other party members. You'd have to have some form of adjustment in place for context for something this to work unless every encounter is tailored to be equally threatening to every player, which seems unlikely.

I think you have it backwards. In a normal game, every encounter needs to be balanced to be equally threatening to every character. In this one, the character who is outmatched will get a reward next session, and the one who got to do everything will not.

If I were running the experiment, I would avoid considering those issues, and just plan a fun game. Yes, this would give some players a free level after a session in which his character just didn't have all that much to do. This is a feature, not a bug.

And over the long haul, I think it would even out. Suppose the melee barbarian got three quick levels after shoot-outs. When they get back to melee, he'll stay there while everyone else catches up.


My first thought is that casters aren't necessarily the most powerful at level one. You could end up with a wizard running around with second level spells while the barbarians and fighters are playing at second level for awhile. Like, four person party, wizard's first to get to third, the barbarian is waiting three sessions to catch up to that. Not necessarily ideal.

If in fact the 2nd level barbarian is more effective than the 3rd level wizard, then why isn't that ideal? The whole theory of the experiment is that you spend very little time being ineffective, zooming up to a more fun level, where you might stay for awhile.


Who decides the effectiveness of any one character?

The DM, of course. That's who always hands out experience.


The effects on the game don't matter, because the effects on the metagame are disastrous.

I certainly agree that you could never play this way with the sort of players who argue and have bad blood. But I avoid such players anyway. This is a game for thoughtful people intrigued by the experiment. At my game, I suspect that Kevin would design characters that bloom a few levels later, with the expectation that they would get there faster. Feat trees without early payoff would seem more attractive, since they are fast tracks to higher levels. Mike and Will would probably take it as a challenge to out-perform the others, and consider having the lowest PC level to be validation of their abilities. Mary and Jon would not do anything differently, but would stay ahead by a level or two because they're not the best players. And Diane would probably not do anything differently, but she might decide that a single dip into another class is more valuable than usual, since it wouldn't necessarily slow down growth in her main class.

[eggynack]

If in fact the 2nd level barbarian is more effective than the 3rd level wizard, then why isn't that ideal? The whole theory of the experiment is that you spend very little time being ineffective, zooming up to a more fun level, where you might stay for awhile.

Nah, you're missing the point. The argument is that, hypothetically, the second level wizard is less powerful than the second level barbarian, while the third level wizard is significantly more powerful than the second level wizard, and the game gets stuck in that imbalanced state for awhile because the barbarian is still the second best character, and the other characters also spend a lot of time behind on this basis. The 4th-5th breakpoint might be more convincing here. Third level spells are really good.

[Segev]

This is a variant on a concept I'd posited a while back, though the concept works best for a system where you spend XP on specific, targeted things, rather than on leveling up as a whole. That is, each time you try something that the GM called for and fail, you get an XP towards advancing that thing at which you failed.

Adapting it to D&D-style leveling, I'd have it be something where you mark how often people try to contribute, and how often they succeed, and how often they fail. Award XP for each real effort, and award bonus XP for each legitimate failure.

I think the "well, I'll hold back to be least effective to level fastest" will be self-correcting; people who always hold back won't ever use their phenomenal cosmic power. Plus, being ineffective is unsatisfying, or even frustrating.

[Dagroth]

This is a variant on a concept I'd posited a while back, though the concept works best for a system where you spend XP on specific, targeted things, rather than on leveling up as a whole. That is, each time you try something that the GM called for and fail, you get an XP towards advancing that thing at which you failed.

Adapting it to D&D-style leveling, I'd have it be something where you mark how often people try to contribute, and how often they succeed, and how often they fail. Award XP for each real effort, and award bonus XP for each legitimate failure.

I think the "well, I'll hold back to be least effective to level fastest" will be self-correcting; people who always hold back won't ever use their phenomenal cosmic power. Plus, being ineffective is unsatisfying, or even frustrating.

I used to play a SciFi game called "Other Suns" which had a skill mechanic that was basically the opposite of what you're describing. Every success with a skill put a tik mark by it. A critical success was worth 5 tik marks. At the end of the session, you'd roll a stat check based on what the skill was. You got a bonus to the roll based on how many tik marks you had. If your Roll+Stat+tik marks was higher than your current skill, it went up. Thus, lower level skills were easy to raise up, even if you only got one or two successes.

[Jay R]

Many problems are easily fixed by a DM who is not a fool.


In addition to everything mentioned above, this system encourages laziness and munchkinism.

Munchkinism is worthless unless you wait for the last few sessions to unveil it. If you ever manage to build a PC who is doing more and better things than everybody else, then the rest of the party will catch up to you in relatively few sessions.

Munchkinism only works in the long term if the munchkin goes up a level with everybody else.


What if I planned an absolute broken character and then purposely held back until I was comfortable with the level I reached, by contributing to everything the bare minimum necessary to survive?

You weren't ineffective; you were malingering. I hope I'd be smart enough to see it. But if not, you'd get a level. Now you can either play that level for fun, and stay there as the rest catch up, or continue to not have fun to get more levels with fun abilities you don't use.


What if I do something disadvantageous for the party like throwing a brick at the goblin king during a diplomatic mission? Do I get a level because I destroyed any chance of success for the party, therefore being the least useful party member by definition? What if I accidentally set on fire the party's headquarters?

Nope. If the Paladin tried to get a treaty with the goblins, and you tried to prevent it, and the treaty didn't happen, then you were the most effective character that game. The Paladin goes up a level; she was ineffective.


What if I build a buffer and deal exactly 0 damage in my whole career, yet the Barbarian is the one killing every opponent singlehandedly? Who gets the level?

You're both being effective, and you both have fun things to do. Probably a third PC.


What if I finangle to be the only one alive at the end of each session? Am I the least effective member of a party with only one member? Possibly because I've killed everyone else?

That's just breaking the game. Anybody can arrange to do that in any game. You wouldn't be invited back.


I could see it incentivizing malingering. "I stayed in the back and did nothing. Here comes level 5!" :smallbiggrin:

You still have to be involved to get experience. After about the second melee round, the DM would say, "You know that refusing to play won't get you a level, don't you?"


Could end up with people who are intentionally making bad/weak decisions in order to be the least effective.

The solution is an adventure that takes all your abilities to conquer. Ideally, a party that works together in good faith can defeat the enemy, but a PC who is not trying would very likely die.


It's too difficult to define: effective within RP? Within combat? How do you compare damage to battlefield control or healing? How do you rate social interactions? If you are in a social situation and the low-int, low wis fighter starts a fight, are they being ineffective because the party wanted to handle a situation diplomatically? Are they being effective because they knocked out a few NPCs?

I think a holistic approach wouldn't be that difficult. It's very often clear that a given session didn't give much for a PC to do, or the things she tried to do didn't work. The goal is to fix the problems of PCs who are consistently outclassed by the rest of the party. If the choice is hard to make, then there are no frustrated, overshadowed players, which shows that the system is working.


It would take quite a bit of work and tinkering to create the system, and you'd have to have everything defined pretty well. You'd have to account for suboptimal player choices as well...

*shrug*

Actually, one of the goals is to make "sub-optimal" choices less so. If you really like the idea of a particular character idea, but it couldn't be made as powerful as another, you can still use it, and it will soon be balanced with the rest of the party by winding up a level or two higher.


Nah, you're missing the point. The argument is that, hypothetically, the second level wizard is less powerful than the second level barbarian, while the third level wizard is significantly more powerful than the second level wizard, and the game gets stuck in that imbalanced state for awhile because the barbarian is still the second best character, and the other characters also spend a lot of time behind on this basis. The 4th-5th breakpoint might be more convincing here. Third level spells are really good.

Self-correcting. Consider a four-person party, comprising a 3rd level wizard, 2nd level wizard, 2nd level barbarian, and 2nd level cleric. And assume that the third level wizard is consistently the most effective, and the 2nd level barbarian is the second most.

Then two games later, it's Wizard 3, Barbarian 3, Wizard 3, Druid 3. Is the Barbarian still 2nd most powerful? Not if you think a Wizard 3 is consistently more powerful than a Barbarian 2. Maybe he's still out-doing the cleric. OK, after a 3rd game, it's Wizard 3, Wizard 3, Barbarian 2, Cleric 4.

At this point, the barbarian will likely go up. Note that on average, the whole party goes up every four games. Pretty much as soon as your character level is no fun to play in that party, he'll go up.

And in any event, I agree that 5th level wizards will stay there awhile. That's because they are lots more fun to play.

[eggynack]

Self-correcting. Consider a four-person party, comprising a 3rd level wizard, 2nd level wizard, 2nd level barbarian, and 2nd level cleric. And assume that the third level wizard is consistently the most effective, and the 2nd level barbarian is the second most.
I know it's self-correcting. I'm just saying it self corrects pretty slow, and the inconsistent speed at which classes gain power as they level can mean your system can produce a number of sessions in a row where one character is significantly ahead. Which isn't great.

[JonathanPDX]

Focusing it on the "least effective" character makes it negative. Telling the players "At the end of each session you, as a group, pick who levels up. If there's a tie nobody gets to level" makes it a positive. The Barbarian might vote for the wizard because he knows how much the magic will help (and he can't wait to get hasted.) Or perhaps the Barbarian crits the boss and the other players say "That was so cool, you deserve to level up for it!"

If balance is an issue put a cap on consecutive levels by one character, perhaps 3 would be a safe number to start with.

Effectiveness also assumes combat, but not every session is endless fighting. Under the assumption of effectiveness, what happens when the party is in a city or social situation? Does the killing machine barbarian level up again because he's not social? What if the dumb barbarian happens to solve the riddle instead of the smart wizard? Does the wizard count as "less effective" mechanically and level up because the barbarian player came up with a solution?

-JonathanPDX

[Flickerdart]

I certainly agree that you could never play this way with the sort of players who argue and have bad blood. But I avoid such players anyway. This is a game for thoughtful people intrigued by the experiment. At my game, I suspect that Kevin would design characters that bloom a few levels later, with the expectation that they would get there faster. Feat trees without early payoff would seem more attractive, since they are fast tracks to higher levels. Mike and Will would probably take it as a challenge to out-perform the others, and consider having the lowest PC level to be validation of their abilities. Mary and Jon would not do anything differently, but would stay ahead by a level or two because they're not the best players. And Diane would probably not do anything differently, but she might decide that a single dip into another class is more valuable than usual, since it wouldn't necessarily slow down growth in her main class.

You are trying to imagine how the system might work. But that's easy - any system has an ideal case. Designing a failure-proof system is the hard part. My day job involves understanding where systems can fail, and making sure that those cases no longer result in failure, so this is a way of thinking with which I am intimately familiar. And in fact, you are glossing over the most important variation - that of the DM, not the players.

If the DM decides who levels up, then this is not a "least effective character levels up" system. It is a "DM decides what levels the PCs are at" system. Benevolent DMs may indeed use it in the way you want it to be used. But "effective" is such a broad, nebulous concept that the DM effectively has free reign. Will some of them enforce party balance? Probably. Will they all have the same understanding of what balance is? Absolutely not. There are plenty of DMs that believe Monks are overpowered and Wizards are trash. Other DMs will not care about balance, and reward characters that are funny, that are roleplayed well (remember roleplaying XP?), that stay on the rails of their railroad, etc. The metagame returns, and the players start thinking about how to play the DM, not the game, to level up.

You are trying to find out what happens if this rule were introduced in a game with perfect players and a perfect DM? Why does that group need your rule? They are already building balanced characters. The level of power they obtain is about the same, because instead of going into 5 levels of Fighter, they get 3 levels of Warblade and have the same numbers, or even better numbers.

[Catarang]

You are trying to imagine how the system might work. But that's easy - any system has an ideal case. Designing a failure-proof system is the hard part. My day job involves understanding where systems can fail, and making sure that those cases no longer result in failure, so this is a way of thinking with which I am intimately familiar. And in fact, you are glossing over the most important variation - that of the DM, not the players.

Sure, we should be working on making the system failure proof, but we're never going to make it A**hole proof.

Most problems arising from munchkining and party conflict can be fixed with a disclaimer at the beginning of the system outlining common problems that groups run into and how to avoid them. If the party is aware of them and still runs into them, maybe the system isn't right for the party, but usually the party isn't right for the system.

[Flickerdart]

Sure, we should be working on making the system failure proof, but we're never going to make it A**hole proof.

Most problems arising from munchkining and party conflict can be fixed with a disclaimer at the beginning of the system outlining common problems that groups run into and how to avoid them. If the party is aware of them and still runs into them, maybe the system isn't right for the party, but usually the party isn't right for the system.
None of what I described in my post constitutes, in any way, malign intent. Just DMs that differ in opinion on what should be rewarded, and what the goal of the system is.

But you can at least make a system resistant to that behaviour. "Everyone levels evenly" is resistant. "DM picks who levels up" is really, really vulnerable. Which is sort of my whole point in the last paragraph - a perfect party will play perfectly, but they don't need this rule. The imperfections of imperfect parties (AKA all of them) will only be amplified.

[Malimar]

Could end up with people who are intentionally making bad/weak decisions in order to be the least effective.

This is a problem with e.g. Dungeon World and its ilk: you gain an XP every time you fail at something, so you see some players finding ways to stack tons of penalties on themselves so they fail as often as possible.

[Segev]

This is a problem with e.g. Dungeon World and its ilk: you gain an XP every time you fail at something, so you see some players finding ways to stack tons of penalties on themselves so they fail as often as possible.

This behavior tends to be pretty obvious. While yes, you could have a meta-metagame of trying to be as sneaky about it as possible, it generally breaks down because people are still able to notice trends. If you notice somebody deliberately setting themselves up to fail, don't give XP.

Or, more importantly, never give XP unless the failure was, itself, meaningful. This works especially well in high-narrative games like ____ World, where there's already a lot of "was this significant to the game?" judgment.

[Jay R]

Next question: Assume you are playing this system in good faith, with players and a DM you trust. What do you do differently?

For instance, when I play a caster, I normally would never take a level of anything that did not increase spell casting ability, because I'd be behind from then on. But under this system, I would strong consider starting as a 1st level Rogue, to get massive skill points, and then building the wizard character.

Or possibly a single level of Fighter just to start with more hit points.

I suspect that my Rogue 1 / Wizard 4 or Fighter 1 / Wizard 4 would get to Wizard 5 just about as fast as a pure wizard would, because the additional abilities, while nice, are simply not as powerful as another level of wizard.

[Catarang]

None of what I described in my post constitutes, in any way, malign intent. Just DMs that differ in opinion on what should be rewarded, and what the goal of the system is.

But you can at least make a system resistant to that behaviour. "Everyone levels evenly" is resistant. "DM picks who levels up" is really, really vulnerable. Which is sort of my whole point in the last paragraph - a perfect party will play perfectly, but they don't need this rule. The imperfections of imperfect parties (AKA all of them) will only be amplified.

Sorry that this was not made clear by my post. I only meant that a lot of the problems being talked about can be fixed with a disclaimer, such as:


This is a problem with e.g. Dungeon World and its ilk: you gain an XP every time you fail at something, so you see some players finding ways to stack tons of penalties on themselves so they fail as often as possible.

Or:


In addition to everything mentioned above, this system encourages laziness and munchkinism.
What if I planned an absolute broken character and then purposely held back until I was comfortable with the level I reached, by contributing to everything the bare minimum necessary to survive?
What if I do something disadvantageous for the party like throwing a brick at the goblin king during a diplomatic mission? Do I get a level because I destroyed any chance of success for the party, therefore being the least useful party member by definition? What if I accidentally set on fire the party's headquarters?
What if I build a buffer and deal exactly 0 damage in my whole career, yet the Barbarian is the one killing every opponent singlehandedly? Who gets the level?
What if I finangle to be the only one alive at the end of each session? Am I the least effective member of a party with only one member? Possibly because I've killed everyone else?

I actually agree that a perfect party won't need this system, and that the real problem is determining how to make determining the least effective player in a session failure proof, I just wanted to make a general statement against the argument of "what if some guy wants to game the system." Surely there has to be some middle ground between impossible to work with munchkins and a group that can have a tier 1 and a tier 6 and all still have fun that can benefit from this system?

[Jay R]

But "effective" is such a broad, nebulous concept that the DM effectively has free reign. Will some of them enforce party balance? Probably. Will they all have the same understanding of what balance is? Absolutely not. There are plenty of DMs that believe Monks are overpowered and Wizards are trash.

You're assuming that the DM is trying to calculate how effective the PC should be in general. I'm not. The DM isn't evaluating a character sheet, but observing a session. The PC who levels up is the one who was not able to do much that session. How powerful I think Monks and Wizards are in general is meaningless if Mary's character did fun things that worked while Mike's character had very few abilities that work against the ghasts they actually faced, and made several bad rolls when he tried something.

And like any other major decision, I would of course talk to the players about it.


... the real problem is determining how to make determining the least effective player in a session failure proof,...

It doesn't need to be failure proof. It's self-correcting. What's a failure? Somebody that the DM thought wasn't having much fun gets a more powerful PC. He uses him effectively, and so the other players automatically start catching up.

No matter what clever method a player comes up with for continuing to get more levels than the rest, it only works as long as he never dominates the encounters.

[Flickerdart]

Next question: Assume you are playing this system in good faith, with players and a DM you trust. What do you do differently?

Again - your good faith is not the same as everyone else's.


You're assuming that the DM is trying to calculate how effective the PC should be in general. I'm not. The DM isn't evaluating a character sheet, but observing a session. The PC who levels up is the one who was not able to do much that session. How powerful I think Monks and Wizards are in general is meaningless if Mary's character did fun things that worked while Mike's character had very few abilities that work against the ghasts they actually faced, and made several bad rolls when he tried something.

And like any other major decision, I would of course talk to the players about it.

You would, sure. Is the real question of this thread if Jay R was your DM and had this rule, what would you do differently?

[Ualaa]

In the theoretical experiment, you could add the disclaimer that anyone who did not try to contribute as well as their character could, gets removed from the experience equation that session.

So if one of the characters intentionally fails, whether least successful or not they cannot get the level up for that session.

Similarly, not participating or only doing so in a very non-optimal way... dual-wielding 1-handed exotic weapons which you're not proficient with, or the wizard with a STR penalty only using the composite longbow for that session automatically disqualify themselves from consideration for experience.

Out of those who attempted to win every encounter, be it a social situation, solving of a puzzle, disarming of a trap, killing of an opponent, etc... the one who is least successful at the encounter, while still clearly attempting to succeed is the one who levels up.

The DM would not even need to be the absolute arbiter; that could be a vote among the group. Assume five players, and give everyone two or three votes for most effective character without being allowed to pick their own character. Make the votes weighted, so their top choice is -5, their second choice is also -5 and their third choice is -3. A character who was not selected as most effective by a given player gets a secret score of 0. The DM totals the scores, and if the least effective (as voted by the group) is one of the least effective two players as determined by the DM, that character levels up... but if the players are gaming the system, and one of the more effective characters is voted as least effective, then no one levels that session.

Lots of variations, if you were to attempt to make this work in an actual campaign or game... as a theoretical experiment, no one sabotages the chances of success in any encounter by doing less than their best and the DM is perfect in selecting the least effective character for that session.

[OldTrees1]

Next question: Assume you are playing this system in good faith, with players and a DM you trust. What do you do differently?

For instance, when I play a caster, I normally would never take a level of anything that did not increase spell casting ability, because I'd be behind from then on. But under this system, I would strong consider starting as a 1st level Rogue, to get massive skill points, and then building the wizard character.

Or possibly a single level of Fighter just to start with more hit points.

I suspect that my Rogue 1 / Wizard 4 or Fighter 1 / Wizard 4 would get to Wizard 5 just about as fast as a pure wizard would, because the additional abilities, while nice, are simply not as powerful as another level of wizard.

Hmm.

I might not do anything differently. In a playgroup that does not need to worry about mild envy or mild jealousy, this kind of a system would provide negative feedback. Thus any deviations from the mean I make would be negated. So I need not worry about any mistakes I am making. My above average build decisions will be negated but most of those are to add options I want so I would not avoid them.

I would be a bit less concerned about feature value density of the levels I am taking so I might opt to take the route that costs more levels to get equivalent features. On the other hand since I value those features more than the HD/BAB/Saves I would still be greatly incentivized to seek the high feature value density option.

The only exception that comes to mind is skill rank caps. Characters defined by their performance in one or more skills, say a dungeon guide, would be incentivized to gain those extra levels at the expense of feature value density.

A note for a DM implementing such a system: Resistance to envy increases when you just gained something. As such a system where everyone gets a reward & the least gets a reward would fit more playgroups than a system where only the least gets a reward.

[Twurps]

I actually agree that a perfect party won't need this system........

I play i a pretty solid group (i'd never call any group perfect). But I would still like this system.

I would like to use my op-fu on a wizard someday. But I wouldn't dare, cause I'd ruin the game. I've never dared venture past half-casters.
With this system, I'd give it a go. Like Jay-R described one of his players, I'd expect to be at least 2 levels behind, and would take pride If I could make it to 3-5. I get to build my wizard, game doesn't break down, everybody wins.

[Flickerdart]

A note for a DM implementing such a system: Resistance to envy increases when you just gained something. As such a system where everyone gets a reward & the least gets a reward would fit more playgroups than a system where only the least gets a reward.

I like that. If this system were amended to "all PCs gain EXP based on the inverse of their contribution" it would be essentially a rehash of the "lowest level PCs earn more EXP" rule that already exists, and would be much less problematic. Of course, all the issues with it still exist, but with an established baseline for EXP earned, you could expect to progress in levels even if you lacked the DM's favor.


I play i a pretty solid group (i'd never call any group perfect). But I would still like this system.

I would like to use my op-fu on a wizard someday. But I wouldn't dare, cause I'd ruin the game. I've never dared venture past half-casters.
With this system, I'd give it a go. Like Jay-R described one of his players, I'd expect to be at least 2 levels behind, and would take pride If I could make it to 3-5. I get to build my wizard, game doesn't break down, everybody wins.

As proposed, only one PC would level at a time. In a party of 3 fighters and 1 opped-up wizard, only one fighter could level at a time, regardless of the fact that all the fighters are equally worthless. The Fighter 20 vs Wizard 13 fights all went to the wizard, so even after 21 sessions, the fighters won't be ahead.

Of course, if you're a buffs guy, and the DM doesn't consider buffing to be "effective" because after all you didn't kill anything, your clever plan doesn't pan out.

[eggynack]

You're assuming that the DM is trying to calculate how effective the PC should be in general. I'm not. The DM isn't evaluating a character sheet, but observing a session. The PC who levels up is the one who was not able to do much that session. How powerful I think Monks and Wizards are in general is meaningless if Mary's character did fun things that worked while Mike's character had very few abilities that work against the ghasts they actually faced, and made several bad rolls when he tried something.

That doesn't mean the DM won't overvalue or undervalue certain elements. Consider that monk versus wizard case that was already posited. If the DM thinks monks are overpowered, and wizards underpowered, there's a good chance it's because they're highly valuing damage done directly, and placing heavy mental emphasis on various cool things monks can do, while undervaluing damage derived from buffs and BFCs and putting a, "Well, that's just what magic is supposed to do," label on various cool things wizards can do. Or, in a more general sense, if a DM thinks monks are overpowered, they reached that point by thinking that the monk is doing overpowered things in each individual session, whether an objective analysis would find that to be the case or not. A DM doesn't say, "Wow, this wizard is really overperforming this session, and really overperformed last session, and the one after that, but I think monks are just more powerful anyway." They say, "Wow, this wizard is really underperforming in all these sessions, because such is my mode of evaluation, so I think monks are more powerful." And even if they started with the monk overpowered thing with limited evidence, confirmation bias is very much a thing.

People observe wrong, a lot. This system allows for a lot of weirdness of this form, whether the DM is putting their personal opinion or their session by session observations at the center of their assessment.

[Catarang]

Maybe the system could be improved with the DM narrowing the group of people that could receive the session's level-up down to 2 people, and having the party vote on who gets it by next session? Or Vice Versa?

[Jay R]

That doesn't mean the DM won't overvalue or undervalue certain elements.

True. But in the long run, that won't matter. It only matters if they are close enough that it isn't obvious. Maybe the wizard gets a level too early. But as soon as she is dominating the battles, she won't level up, and others will catch up.


Or, in a more general sense, if a DM thinks monks are overpowered, they reached that point by thinking that the monk is doing overpowered things in each individual session, whether an objective analysis would find that to be the case or not. A DM doesn't say, "Wow, this wizard is really overperforming this session, and really overperformed last session, and the one after that, but I think monks are just more powerful anyway." They say, "Wow, this wizard is really underperforming in all these sessions, because such is my mode of evaluation, so I think monks are more powerful." And even if they started with the monk overpowered thing with limited evidence, confirmation bias is very much a thing.

Yes, confirmation bias exists. But if the wizard defeats all the enemies every time before anybody else can act, it's noticeable, even by the most biased DM.


People observe wrong, a lot. This system allows for a lot of weirdness of this form, whether the DM is putting their personal opinion or their session by session observations at the center of their assessment.

Agreed. The system depends on the DM's observation and judgment. Of course it will fail under the assumption of a blind, foolish DM. I agree completely that you couldn't do it with a DM whose judgment you don't trust.


You would, sure. Is the real question of this thread if Jay R was your DM and had this rule, what would you do differently?

No, of course not, as proven by the fact that I gave an answer myself, and Jay R can never be my DM.

It's, "if somebody whose judgment you trust were the DM and had this rule, what would you do differently?"

I assume that with a DM whose judgment you don't trust, the answer is that you'd refuse to play. [Frankly, I suspect your answer to what you'd do if I were the DM is "refuse to play". That's fine. Assume a DM that you trust.]


Out of those who attempted to win every encounter, be it a social situation, solving of a puzzle, disarming of a trap, killing of an opponent, etc... the one who is least successful at the encounter, while still clearly attempting to succeed is the one who levels up.

True. But I suspect that in the long run it really doesn't matter. Suppose somebody finds a way to look less effective than he is. He can level up faster than anybody else, but only as long as he continues to do less than anybody else. You can gain more power, but only if you don't use it. To level up this way, you have to actually do less, and use less power, than every other player.

I'm not convinced that the average munchkin is willing to do that. Let’s try a reductio ad absurdum. Somebody wants to level up to level 10, before anybody else gets to level 2. To do that, he will have to make a level 9 character less effective than any of the level 1 characters.

Does anybody think he can do that?

And even if he could, getting to level 10 that early means playing nine games without doing anything fun. Really – playing a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th level character doing less than the least effective 1st level at the game. [And not being sure we'll ever play the game at 10th level when he's planning to bust out. Will the other players keep coming if he's made 9th level when they are at 1st?]

I’m just not worried about the prospect. The sort of person who wants greater power than the other players wants to do things with it.

The average munchkin is a spendthrift. To munchkin this system requires being a miser. People start catching up as soon as you use your power as much as the least effective other player.

Frankly, all my players want to do impressive things. I can't imagine facing this problem.


A note for a DM implementing such a system: Resistance to envy increases when you just gained something. As such a system where everyone gets a reward & the least gets a reward would fit more playgroups than a system where only the least gets a reward.

Very good point. I might change it to everybody gets 1/4 of a level increase, with the least effective getting a full level. This solves the problem you're bringing up while making it take longer to correct mistakes. [The most important aspect of the system is that an over-powered character as defined by actions seen in gameplay doesn't improve until the others catch up.]

[OldTrees1]

Very good point. I might change it to everybody gets 1/4 of a level increase, with the least effective getting a full level. This solves the problem you're bringing up while making it take longer to correct mistakes. [The most important aspect of the system is that an over-powered character as defined by actions seen in gameplay doesn't improve until the others catch up.]

That would work well and should handle the "as seen in actual gameplay" metric well.

You even have an adjustable constant that you can scale based upon your player's preferences for faster correction vs higher envy resistance.

I do not know your players, but from your description I could easily see them being okay with that ratio (or a bit less, or a bit more).

[eggynack]

True. But in the long run, that won't matter. It only matters if they are close enough that it isn't obvious. Maybe the wizard gets a level too early. But as soon as she is dominating the battles, she won't level up, and others will catch up.[
The improper evaluation is putting you more or less fully behind normal leveling in terms of balance. The wizard may only ever be one or no levels ahead, but in a normal game they would always be no levels ahead.



Yes, confirmation bias exists. But if the wizard defeats all the enemies every time before anybody else can act, it's noticeable, even by the most biased DM.
They might not just be defeating all the enemies every time. They might just be using BFCs and buffs to make the enemies trivially easy to defeat by the other characters, which is less noticeable.

[Lormador]

I generally find this manageable on a finer scale than just levels. If Mr. Tier 1 is having a field day and it's time to level up, I'll talk with the player about possibly not picking the most powerful option available that would further blow the doors off the build.

I'm also pretty careful about who I allow to play tier 1 or 2 classes, depending on party composition.

It's equally possible (and necessary) to help out those folks with tier 3+ characters, who really need to use their resources efficiently to remain relevant as they level alongside wizards, clerics, and druids.

The voting system has a lot of merit when applied with the spirit with which it was written.

The problem I can see with implementing it is that a new player is often going to be the least effective party member: but this person is the one the least able/willing to level up his character often. It's work to level up a character, and it's a lot to ask of a new person (especially when they gain a feat at that level).

[Quertus]

What would change in a system where only one player leveled power session? Well, I'd stop trying to get 11+ people in a game! :smalltongue:

What counts towards measuring effectiveness? Who cares? If the group agrees on what counts towards effectiveness, and let the BFC mage advance extra fast because he's "useless"... eh, for them, that's a feature, I guess.

Where this system becomes questionable is when everyone isn't a perfect gaming killing machine, but instead is "inefficient" for RP reasons. If the level 5 wizard is afraid of spiders, and so sits comatose for one spider-themed session, he could easily level while still being the most powerful member of the party. But, even so, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the system is self-correcting. Even if someone gets an unnecessary boost in power, they'll only temporarily be ahead of the party. As opposed to the equal-level party with the Incantrix, the CoDzilla, the Elan Beholder Mage, the Ninja, and the Monk / True Namer "gish".

Actually, if you're looking for fault points, I suspect the worst issue would be someone who is consistently second-worst in the party, yet never levels. So I like the idea of everybody getting something.

Hmmm... A while back, I read a post where someone broke level advancement into 4 sections, such that, by gaining 1/4 of a level every season, you got something (almost) every session.

So... What if each player gets 1/4 of a level each session, but the character who contributed the least gets 2/4 of a level? Alternately, still assuming some accepted metric of measuring contribution, what if every character who contributed less than their share gets 2/4 level?

If you aren't using quarter-level advancement, and only leveling at whole levels, and you want to hand out exactly one level worth of points per session, you could make the math fun, and, in an x-player group, where y of those players contribute under par, you give each of those y players 2/(x+y) of a level, and the each of the other (x-y) players 1/(x+y) of a level.

But, in the end, I'd still be playing tier 1 casters. I'd just be thankful that the martial characters are getting nice things. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

Actually, if you're looking for fault points, I suspect the worst issue would be someone who is consistently second-worst in the party, yet never levels. So I like the idea of everybody getting something.

The only person who was worse than the second-worst last time just leveled up, so the second worst is likely to become worst pretty quickly.

[dhasenan]

You are trying to find out what happens if this rule were introduced in a game with perfect players and a perfect DM? Why does that group need your rule? They are already building balanced characters. The level of power they obtain is about the same, because instead of going into 5 levels of Fighter, they get 3 levels of Warblade and have the same numbers, or even better numbers.

What happens with cooperative players and DM who are not necessarily skilled at optimizing characters for fun within the group. That's much different from perfect players who know what tier to roll and what level of optimization to use and who own every splatbook under the sun.

If the players aren't cooperative, you should play a competitive game with an impartial arbiter.

If the players aren't well versed with every character option and just want something that sounds cool, this proposal lets them all do useful things.

[SangoProduction]

The one thing I see coming out of this? I'll start it off with a story since it's appropriate for a bard.

I was playing a bard/druid with a preexisting group. They were relatively Low Op, aside from another new guy, who was an uber charger...yeah, low Op gms really hate damage.

We ambush a goblin camp for information about something. It goes well, with me hanging in the back just giving everyone bonuses to attack and damage.Then, suddenly, an ogre runs screaming and flailing out of its ragged tent to hurl itself at the ubercharger.

Many slow... turns later....

I had used up my second level spells (mostly using Slow to keep it from full attacking, while one of the Clerics moved in to the Ubercharger to heal him up from that full attack charge the ogre did...actually allowed us to tank it out), and I had already used one of my Grease spell. Suddenly 2 turns later, it gets a free action teleport that puts it upright...because reasons... (Probably because the DM didn't like not having the ogre move.)

"OK guys, it's not even half way down, let's run." Wanna guess how many of them actually ran? Well, damn. My character's lawful good..."I'll...Fine...I'll fight until I have run out of spells to slow it down. If we refuse to run still, I'm taking this goblin, and going alone."

So I launched control spell after control spell. I used ran out of Bard spells, and had just 1 useful Druid spell..."May you return to the wilds!" I cast Entangle so the ogre would drop on the grease that it saved against last turn. I move my Phynxkin mount, Leena, (and thus myself) to pick up an unconscious goblin (which was uncomfortably close to the hulking beast that was fighting off thorny vines).

...It got another free action teleport. And it splits both its attacks between me and my mount (because he didn't want to one shot me, I take it...which he almost did regardless... but whatever, I'll ignore the metagaming).

I tell everyone to hold their actions. This bastard hurt Leena! The liquid rage poured from mine and Leena's mouths. The contagious rage in the air spread like wildfire. I activate Dragonfire Inspiration. The ranger launches a volley of +5d6 fire damage arrows. Leena then, carrying myself, leaps on to the chest of the hulk and begins tearing and searing all she touched.

And the ogre went down in a blaze of glory.

After the fight, the group settled down, and said "Wow, well done. You were really impactful there. I don't think we could have won that without you." No. You certainly couldn't. But I was still rather elated by the praise.

...

Wanna know what response that statement would have brought instead of elation? Probably bitterness and distrust.

[ace rooster]

Where this system becomes questionable is when everyone isn't a perfect gaming killing machine, but instead is "inefficient" for RP reasons. If the level 5 wizard is afraid of spiders, and so sits comatose for one spider-themed session, he could easily level while still being the most powerful member of the party. But, even so, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the system is self-correcting. Even if someone gets an unnecessary boost in power, they'll only temporarily be ahead of the party. As opposed to the equal-level party with the Incantrix, the CoDzilla, the Elan Beholder Mage, the Ninja, and the Monk / True Namer "gish".


Actually, this is a more substantial weakness than you imply. Advancement based on being the least effective advances based on chance of being least effective in a session, rather than expected value of effectiveness. The scared of spiders wizard is an RP way this can happen, but more likely is something like a rogue. They are almost useless in an undead based session, so would probably be the one to advance no matter how powerful they are the rest of the time. If SA immune sessions happen fairly frequently the rogue will consistently find themself ahead of the curve, and the self correcting fails. Where they are effective they will dominate.

The converse of this is characters who are always able to make themself somewhat useful. They will level less than you would expect, because they would get passed over for characters that have a bad session. A level 3 wizard might be more effective against undead by dropping fog clouds and silent images than a level 9 rogue. The rogue would be the one that would level! This may feel like nerfing tier 1s, which is a feature, but it is disproportionate. It makes it very rare for the character to have a good session (as opposed to a mediocre one).

[Jay R]

One more set of questions, please:

1. Have you ever had a group of players and a DM that you think could run a game like this well?
2. Does the idea sound like it might be fun or interesting to try with the right group?
3. If the answer to either 1 or 2 was yes, what would be the most positive thing you might expect to see?
4. In any case, what would be your biggest concern going into it?
5. What question do you think I should have asked here? [After somebody else posts a question, feel free to answer it as well as mine.]
As a professional statistician, I know that a few demographic questions are very often useful. But I don't think age or gender or nationality have any relevance here. The only one that might have any value is this:
6. What was your first version of D&D?

Here are my answers:
1. Yes, but certainly not most groups.
2. Yes, it's intriguing, and I'd love to see how the reality compared to our guesses. [I won't do it because I don't have much playtime these days.]
3. The ability to take a role-appropriate but under-powered option and have it be balanced in play. Also, we have one player who isn't very tactically-minded, and I expect that he would get to have more effect, by being consistently a level or two higher.
4. People who would accidentally mess up the game by not understanding it.
5. If I had an answer, I'd have included it.
6. Original D&D.

[OldTrees1]

1) Barely no. My first group (highschool) was abnormally okay with their characters being overshadowed. I once tried to implement a BAB rule change that gave more iterative attacks based on class type. They reacted with indifference. So they would be affected more by annoyance at the imposition of this rule than by any increased chance of player vs player strive.
2) I could see myself running it for 1 adventure. However it is not appropriately aimed for me to consider using it as a game patch (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).
3) I consider it a fun little mechanic to test. I would like to see it in use once just to know what it looks like in use.
4) My biggest concern is that people are more envious than the judge themselves to be. However usually their judgement is not too far off so this is not too big of an issue.
5) How player vs player competitive s your group? I tend to see near 0 player vs player competition in my groups. Although my second group (college) had 2 players out of 6 with different player vs player competition perspectives.
6) Icewind Dale/Balder's Gate (AD&D) or Literal D&D (3.0)

[Flickerdart]

What happens with cooperative players and DM who are not necessarily skilled at optimizing characters for fun within the group. That's much different from perfect players who know what tier to roll and what level of optimization to use and who own every splatbook under the sun.

If the players aren't cooperative, you should play a competitive game with an impartial arbiter.

If the players aren't well versed with every character option and just want something that sounds cool, this proposal lets them all do useful things.

Yeah, we'll see how long they stay cooperative. :smallamused:

[Nifft]

It's a cool and interesting idea that would never work.

[Algeh]

I worry that it would hurt a certain character type who is already really poorly optimized in D&D: the Jack of all Trades type.

They will almost always have *something* they managed to do in each session, because the kind of player who builds this kind of character does it because they want to always be able to contribute in some way no matter what.

Consider a party with Well-Optimized Character A, built around being effective in Type A situations, Well-Optimized Character B, built around being effective in Type B situations, and our JOAT, who can help out in both A and B but is not optimized for either. (The specifics of what types of situations A and B are is left as an exercise for the reader - I'm trying for a minimal example here.)

So, if it's a session where Well-Optimized Character A got to shine because it was a Type A Thing, and Well-Optimized Character B couldn't do anything because it didn't fit their build at all, our JOAT was probably only second worse to B, since they at least did something that kind of helped. Next session, it's a Type B thing, so B, who just leveled, really gets to shine and show off their next new stuff. JOAT helps out again, while A is totally useless, so now A gets to level.

Lather, rinse, and repeat. It may take quite a few levels for JOAT to be worse than "optimized for completely not this", but yet that character will never be the best at anything or really get a chance to shine (unless the DM throws a situation no one is optimized for at the party, in which case JOAT will presumably be most useful, still not get to level, but at least get to shine for a session).

[OldTrees1]

I worry that it would hurt a certain character type who is already really poorly optimized in D&D: the Jack of all Trades type.

They will almost always have *something* they managed to do in each session, because the kind of player who builds this kind of character does it because they want to always be able to contribute in some way no matter what.

Remember mixed sessions happen more often. If only the least gets the points, then the JOAT's relative competence in both fields is maintained at a constant level relative to their specialist allies.

A 3 event session picked from 2 kinds of encounters would result in 4 cases: AAA, AAB, ABB, and BBB. This would leave the JOAT at 33% of the strength of each specialist (because only AAB and ABB are contested).

A 4 event session picked from 2 kinds would have 5 cases: AAAA, AAAB(4), AABB(6), ABBB(4), BBBB. Here the JOAT would be at (6*1/2+4*1/3)/10 vs each specialist. This is 13/30 ~= 43% in each field. In reality they would bounce back and forth within 33%-50%.

So you are right that JOAT have a unique interaction with this mechanic. I would note that they still have this negative feedback loop so they will level. However their relative strength becomes session design dependent.

[Yahzi]

After each session, the least effective character in that session levels up.
I recommend a book called "Freakonmics."

You're incentivizing the worst possible behavior. The results will be bad behavior on a staggering scale.

[Zancloufer]

The basic idea is solid, but I think it is a little too abstract. Better idea would be some sort of EXP bonus. Something like the character than contributed the least in any given combat/encounter gets 2x the EXP they should. This works better because;

1) No on is ever NOT gaining EXP. So everyone levels, just some level a little faster.
2) By basing it off 2x the EXP they should get, PCs that get too far ahead gain less EXP per encounter. So if a player gains a 2-3 level lead they probably won't maintain it.
3) You can even eye-ball it with a CR calculator and mess with the "CR" of the party until the "challenge" of it matches how hard you think the encounter was and then give out EXP based off it. Though the CR calculator gets a little wonky if the CR of any given enemy is less than a PC's ECL.

[OldTrees1]

I recommend a book called "Freakonmics."

You're incentivizing the worst possible behavior. The results will be bad behavior on a staggering scale.

Slight correction:
You are adding an incentive for the worst possible behavior. This does not negate existing incentives nor necessarily create a net incentive towards the worst possible behavior. However it will tend to shift behaviors in that direction (unless there is a deep local minimum utility in between the now local maximum utility and the absolute maximum utility).

[Amphetryon]

One more set of questions, please:

1. Have you ever had a group of players and a DM that you think could run a game like this well?
2. Does the idea sound like it might be fun or interesting to try with the right group?
3. If the answer to either 1 or 2 was yes, what would be the most positive thing you might expect to see?
4. In any case, what would be your biggest concern going into it?
5. What question do you think I should have asked here? [After somebody else posts a question, feel free to answer it as well as mine.]
As a professional statistician, I know that a few demographic questions are very often useful. But I don't think age or gender or nationality have any relevance here. The only one that might have any value is this:
6. What was your first version of D&D?
1. No; I have never been in a group where at least one Player would neither game this system for disproportionate advancement nor create a Character whose shtick would hamstring advancement without further DM intervention.
2. No, for the reasons given in #1. I am legitimately skeptical that the "right group" for this actually exists. At best, I can envision a group where those who dislike the outcomes this system created are quiet about their complaints.
3. N/A
4. Advancement would be entirely based on the DM's perceptions and ideas of an effective Character. Buffers/de-buffers in particular would be vulnerable here, in my opinion.
5. How can a group minimize the gap between most and least effective Character without extra time optimizing OR DM intervention?
6. Red Box set.

[Twurps]

One more set of questions, please:

1. Have you ever had a group of players and a DM that you think could run a game like this well?
2. Does the idea sound like it might be fun or interesting to try with the right group?
3. If the answer to either 1 or 2 was yes, what would be the most positive thing you might expect to see?
4. In any case, what would be your biggest concern going into it?
5. What question do you think I should have asked here? [After somebody else posts a question, feel free to answer it as well as mine.]
As a professional statistician, I know that a few demographic questions are very often useful. But I don't think age or gender or nationality have any relevance here. The only one that might have any value is this:
6. What was your first version of D&D?


I didn't want to bother at first, but it seems my gaming experience is far from average, so here goes:

1. Yes. It would fit well in my current gaming group.
2. Yes. see 1.
3. A wider variety in tier selection, while still maintaining party balance
4. 'contributing the least' doesn't sound very friendly, so prolly rephrase that. DM trouble in adjudicating, but that should even out within 3 sessions max.
5. no idea.
6. d&d 3.5

[Quertus]

The only person who was worse than the second-worst last time just leveled up, so the second worst is likely to become worst pretty quickly.

My meaning was already covered better than I could express it - the idea was the character who always contributes poorly, in the party of characters who are specialized to the point that they take turns not contributing at all.


One more set of questions, please:

1. Have you ever had a group of players and a DM that you think could run a game like this well?
2. Does the idea sound like it might be fun or interesting to try with the right group?
3. If the answer to either 1 or 2 was yes, what would be the most positive thing you might expect to see?
4. In any case, what would be your biggest concern going into it?
5. What question do you think I should have asked here? [After somebody else posts a question, feel free to answer it as well as mine.]
As a professional statistician, I know that a few demographic questions are very often useful. But I don't think age or gender or nationality have any relevance here. The only one that might have any value is this:
6. What was your first version of D&D?

Here are my answers:
1. Yes, but certainly not most groups.
2. Yes, it's intriguing, and I'd love to see how the reality compared to our guesses. [I won't do it because I don't have much playtime these days.]
3. The ability to take a role-appropriate but under-powered option and have it be balanced in play. Also, we have one player who isn't very tactically-minded, and I expect that he would get to have more effect, by being consistently a level or two higher.
4. People who would accidentally mess up the game by not understanding it.
5. If I had an answer, I'd have included it.
6. Original D&D.

1.I'd love to find out.
2.Yes.
3.Balance issues mostly automated, freeing everyone up to focus on the game, and worry about the metagame less.
4.That it would encourage otherwise good players to game the system, or possibly cause bad blood by calling on contribution. Actually, no, I take that back: that, like every time I've seen the focus turn towards contribution, that it would poison the group. Or, more generously, that such focus would point out / exacerbate the poison that already existed.
5. Perhaps what the closest things we've ever seen, and how they turned out?
6. Advanced?


I recommend a book called "Freakonmics."

You're incentivizing the worst possible behavior. The results will be bad behavior on a staggering scale.

It would encourage me to build and play a tier 1 character to the best of my ability, instead of holding back for the sake of "party balance", because I know balance will be handled at this layer.

Or give me the chance to play a more experimental build, which might have difficulty contributing, if it doesn't come together the way I hope.

Or it might even encourage me to play an RP-heavy concept that I wouldn't normally consider, owing to the fact that the system doesn't handle it well.

... Or is that what you meant by bad behavior?

[Nifft]

It would encourage me to build and play a tier 1 character to the best of my ability, instead of holding back for the sake of "party balance", because I know balance will be handled at this layer.

Or give me the chance to play a more experimental build, which might have difficulty contributing, if it doesn't come together the way I hope.

Or it might even encourage me to play an RP-heavy concept that I wouldn't normally consider, owing to the fact that the system doesn't handle it well.

... Or is that what you meant by bad behavior?

I suspect what is meant is something more like:

You can't guarantee lowest performance simply by virtue of playing to the best of your ability. Someone else can deliberately be less useful than you, in order to scoop up the juicy prize.

That person is "winning the prize" by participating in bad faith.

Self-sabotage is a rewarded activity.

[Quertus]

I suspect what is meant is something more like:

You can't guarantee lowest performance simply by virtue of playing to the best of your ability. Someone else can deliberately be less useful than you, in order to scoop up the juicy prize.

That person is "winning the prize" by participating in bad faith.

Self-sabotage is a rewarded activity.

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. So... Does "Everyone whose contributing is under par advances faster" suffer the same problem?

[Flickerdart]

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. So... Does "Everyone whose contributing is under par advances faster" suffer the same problem?

This just encourages the entire party to be incompetent morons. Players that don't defect will have huge pressure to defect because they are contributing to the party, and yet receive no reward.

On top of that, it's much harder to place a generic "par" threshold than to just accurately pick one guy.

[Telok]

Hmm. What happens to characters run by good players that are highly competent and flexable? Basic wizard, cleric, bard, beguiler builds can easily contribute significantly to many situations without overshadowing other party members. Under the one level per session method they would have to be the weakest person in the group by a significant margin in order to level up. This mainly speaks to the power of spells in the game, but you could see casters five or six levels behind everyone else. While that might not be too much of a capability gap it could easily be too much of a hit point and saves gap.

The jack of all trades character may have a similar issue. Their session contribution has to be less than the contribution of a character with the worst set of abilities for that session in order to gain a level. Player skill also comes into play. Highly competent players can contribute significantly even when their character sheet is considered underpowered, while some players can fail to contribute much even with a character that is considered powerful. I've seen a uttercold necro build contribute almost nothing by dint of the player having no interest in anything but combat and then standing around invisibly buffing himself while his allies and minions died fighting. Do we want to reward that behaivor while the rest of the group rolls up new characters or plans a naked prison break from a slave galley (which is not combat so help from the leveled up guy)?

[Cosi]

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but doesn't this cause problems with the exact people who you were trying to avoid causing problems? If you're a power gamer who would disrupt a normal game, won't playing a game like this cause you to avoid contributing as much as possible?

[Quertus]

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but doesn't this cause problems with the exact people who you were trying to avoid causing problems? If you're a power gamer who would disrupt a normal game, won't playing a game like this cause you to avoid contributing as much as possible?

Hmmm... 4 player party, equal builds, choose to contribute nothing for 5 sessions --> dominate for 15. Ok, I can see how it could be abused.

[Dagroth]

I have a tendency to build non-OP characters who, once they hit a certain level threshold, suddenly become very powerful.

A Warmage/Favored Soul Mystic Theurge with no early-entry tricks. That character's build became powerful because of select feats that, when combined with select spells, suddenly gave them a very powerful gimmick that the GM wasn't expecting.

A Warlock Shadow-Pouncer build is another one that is middling-fair until suddenly he's doing 2-3 full attacks a round with a reach weapon!

Those kinds of characters would rise rapidly under such an XP system.