PDA

View Full Version : 4e w/ varying PC levels



Ent
2008-08-26, 11:42 PM
I'm still behind on actual 4e games played.

I'm going to start up a long-term campaign by the end of the year and am wondering what players being at different xp totals or levels will be like in 4th. I'm expecting some players won't make every single session and my first thought is to only award xp to those present (and NPC the character) or only award half, as I preferred in 3rd.

Off the bat it doesn't look half as bad as it did in 3rd when even one level could make a player feel left behind. Has anyone seen this in play yet, or can guess at the problems?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-27, 12:59 AM
The 4E DMG has some good ideas here. It recommends awarding XP to all characters, including the ones who aren't present; or, if you don't like that, letting those who miss a session lag behind for the next one, but awarding the difference at the end of that one. Check out the chapter on rewards and experience for details.

That said, I'm not sure how big of a difference it'll make if PCs are a level or two apart. Scale back the average encounter level a few fractions, and you should be fine.

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 01:00 AM
The 4E DMG has some good ideas here. It recommends awarding XP to all characters, including the ones who aren't present; or, if you don't like that, letting those who miss a session lag behind for the next one, but awarding the difference at the end of that one. Check out the chapter on rewards and experience for details.

That said, I'm not sure how big of a difference it'll make if PCs are a level or two apart. Scale back the average encounter level a few fractions, and you should be fine.

So, the solution is to cook the books as it were? I never even bothered to check that. Another flaw with 4th edition. Fun.

Colmarr
2008-08-27, 01:05 AM
<scrubbed>

But getting back to the OP's actual question, I haven't seen the phenomenon in play, but I don't think it'll make much difference to play.

You might need to juggle your encounter budget a little to balance encounters for the presence of a lower-level PC, but I expect that the presence of that PC isn't going to be a great issue unless the PC is 3+ levels behind the others, or to put it another way: the current opponent is 4+ levels above the PC. Once you reach that point, the PC starts to become "useless" and you will have trouble balancing encounters.

There will be an issue however in that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no way in 4e for that character to automatically catch up to the others. He still gets 1/5 xp share despite his lower level. You'll need to either give him some sort of solo encounter or quest reward to allow him to catch up, or otherwise (as Turkish Proverb so eloquently put it) "cook the books".

Totally Guy
2008-08-27, 01:21 AM
With level representing character power rather than rigourous optimisation and class some feel that the wizard was shortchanged and should be more powerful than his associates.

This can be modelled easily in 4th Ed by having the wizard at a higher level than the other characters.

To do this naturally a DM can assign more XP to a wizard, just because they are a wizard.

So the "wizards should generally be a bit more powerful than the other classes" argument becomes "Wizards should gain experience at a faster rate than the other classes" when moved to 4th.

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 01:32 AM
<scrubbed

But getting back to the OP's actual question, I haven't seen the phenomenon in play, but I don't think it'll make much difference to play.

You might need to juggle your encounter budget a little to balance encounters for the presence of a lower-level PC, but I expect that the presence of that PC isn't going to be a great issue unless the PC is 3+ levels behind the others, or to put it another way: the current opponent is 4+ levels above the PC. Once you reach that point, the PC starts to become "useless" and you will have trouble balancing encounters.

There will be an issue however in that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no way in 4e for that character to automatically catch up to the others. He still gets 1/5 xp share despite his lower level. You'll need to either give him some sort of solo encounter or quest reward to allow him to catch up, or otherwise (as Turkish Proverb so eloquently put it) "cook the books".

<scrubbed>

The player didn't earn the experience and unless They neglected a part about the character being at risk it's advancing them for something htey didn't really go through, or giving them more advancement than they deserve later.

IE: It's equivalent to an accountant altering the ledger so it doesn't show a misapropriation of funds towards an illicit or unearned area. Someone taking money they didn't earn for example. "Cooking the books"

The New Bruceski
2008-08-27, 01:42 AM
So for large differences, do you have a better solution than cooking the books?

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 01:48 AM
So for large differences, do you have a better solution than cooking the books?

It depends on the group, how large a difference, etc. I'm merely saying that the way he listed it (IE give them that much more experience in the next session or assume they are there) was a bad set of options in my opinion. Not even that it was unusable. And I was saying it was a little bit "cheaty" feeling to me, hence the reference to crooked accounting.

I will say I've played in groups where when your char died you got a new one at LVL1. Managed keep the flow for everyone too.

Colmarr
2008-08-27, 01:48 AM
Stuff

You flippantly suggested 4e's methodology is a bad thing. I flippantly suggested it's a good thing. Let's call it even.

You assume that D&D is an endeavour that should have a risk-for-reward system that is influenced by real life availability. I don't see why such a structure is necessary.

D&D is ultimately a game that allows friends to fight imaginary monsters together. I don't see why my friend's character should be worse at it than mine just because he had to go to his cousin's wedding last week.

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 01:50 AM
You flippantly suggested 4e's methodology is a bad thing. I flippantly suggested it's a good thing. Let's call it even.

You assume that D&D is an endeavour that should have a risk-for-reward system that is influenced by real life availability. I don't see why such a structure is necessary.

D&D is ultimately a game that allows friends to fight imaginary monsters together. I don't see why my friend's character should be worse at it than mine just because he had to go to his cousin's wedding last week.

IF the characters still in danger, you'll find me much more receptive ot the system described. as it is It reads to me like "FREE XP FOR NOT ENDANGERING MY CHARACTER! WEE!" And again, I just get the feeling this is because they don't think its possible to have good mixed level parties.

Colmarr
2008-08-27, 02:07 AM
IF the characters still in danger, you'll find me much more receptive ot the system described. as it is It reads to me like "FREE XP FOR NOT ENDANGERING MY CHARACTER! WEE!" And again, I just get the feeling this is because they don't think its possible to have good mixed level parties.

I understand where you're coming from, and I used to agree. In fact, I was a vocal component of risk-for-reward during my MMO raiding days. However, I think it's ultimately a pointless complexity in D&D.

PC1 is not competing with PC2, so there's no need for PC1 to be penalised for their absence. And even if there were, that penalty is IMO already appropriately addressed by them not getting treasure whilst absent.

All penalising xp does in my opinion is make a player that is having difficulty playing D&D (ie. unavailability) even less able to play D&D (ie. having an underpowered character that is outshone by his companions and potentially overly-threatened by opponents). It's a no-win situation for the player involved and by corollary for the gaming group in general.

Yours is a fine rule for groups that explicitly choose to use it, but I don't think it should be the default.

Edit:


I'm merely saying that the way he listed it (IE give them that much more experience in the next session or assume they are there) was a bad set of options in my opinion. Not even that it was unusable. And I was saying it was a little bit "cheaty" feeling to me, hence the reference to crooked accounting.

Fair enough. I probably overreacted to the implication of cheating, the overall snarky tone of your original reply, and the suggestion that 4e's approach was objectively measurable as some kind of "flaw". I'm not usually the type to pro-actively snipe :smallwink:

turkishproverb
2008-08-27, 02:11 AM
I understand where you're coming from, and I used to agree. In fact, I was a vocal component of risk-for-reward during my MMO raiding days. However, I think it's ultimately a pointless complexity in D&D.

PC1 is not competing with PC2, so there's no need for PC1 to be penalised for their absence. And even if there were, that penalty is IMO already appropriately addressed by them not getting treasure whilst absent.

All penalising xp does in my opinion is make a player that is having difficulty playing D&D (ie. unavailability) even less able to play D&D (ie. having an underpowered character that is outshone by his companions and potentially overly-threatened by opponents). It's a no-win situation for the player involved and by corollary for the gaming group in general.

Yours is a fine rule for groups that explicitly choose to use it, but I don't think it should be the default.

Did I list a rule? I listed a situation I had played in before. As to the penalizing, I"m not sure if I'd call it that or call it not rewarding someone without cause.

As to weather they are competing, well that's a separate issue. Just because child A isn't competing with child b doesn't mean its right to promise both children $5 for a good grade, and then when Child A works hard and gets their high mark and Child B gets a middling or low mark and doesn't do their homework still give them the fiver. Kind've makes Child A feel like their effort was pointless.



Fair enough. I probably overreacted to the implication of cheating, the overall snarky tone of your original reply, and the suggestion that 4e's approach was objectively measurable as some kind of "flaw". I'm not usually the type to pro-actively snipe :smallwink:

It's cool hope this post helped explain things a little. I didn't' mean to imply as harshy as I did, I'd just been watching the producers too many times so had fake accounting on my mind.

Colmarr
2008-08-27, 02:15 AM
I don't quite agree with your child analogy, but don't really want to push the issue further.

You dislike/disagree with the 4e DMG's approach to missed sessions. I like/agree with it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but at least we've done so in a civil manner (unusual on the net these days) :smallsmile:

TheOOB
2008-08-27, 02:25 AM
Personally, I believe in 4e you should award XP evenly to all party members, regardless of attendance. I believe this for three reasons.

First, 4e has an awful lot of good math put into making it balanced, and having a mixed level party just makes it harder to design encounters. You want it easy to design encounters, the easier it is to do, the more time you can spend making the encounters unique and interesting.

Second, because in 4e there is no use for XP other then determining your level, giving out uneven experiance will quickly unbalance your party. In 3.x there where several ways of losing xp, dieing, crafting items, level drain, ect, but the experience system was designed so that lower level players gained xp faster to fix things up. In 4e there is no way to lose xp, so there is no way to catch up. You make a player a level behind, they will always be a level behind, and probably get frustrated because of it.

The third, and perhaps most important reason is because D&D is just a game for fun, not a chore. By making players who miss a session lose XP, you are giving them an ultimatum, either come to the session, or risk being put behind the rest of your party. At first you might think this will encourage people to attend, and it does, but in the long run it just feels like an obligation, I for one know several people who if they had to go away for a month and know they would could back two levels behind, just won't come back to the game, and no body wants that do they?

Swok
2008-08-27, 02:34 AM
Furthermore, it's pretty damn easy to explain the actual pc's absence as "he had...something to do" and fill in "something to do" with something to do with the character. The Cleric was requested to assist the church. The druid had to tend to a grove in the nearby woods. The awakened cat...goes wherever cats go when they spontaneously disappear (elemental plane of cats?). All of these situations could mean the character could still be in danger, and would still gain experience. It also doesn't punish people for having a life.

Totally Guy
2008-08-27, 02:40 AM
You should have seen the week my DM had a cousin's wedding to go to. We all got 4 level ups without him.

All role play XP too.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-27, 04:03 AM
Well from having played in a group where a couple of "retainers"(semi NPC's we've picked up, who have been played as side characters by players to help out the party) who were lower in level (by 2 full levels and rather shortchanged on equipment). I have the following observations to make.

I noticed that the difference in power was not that big a deal where it appeared at all.

One of the lower level characters even managed to outshine the "main" characters a bit via some good roles (consistantly getting 19-20's). Made us wonder why we weren't following him.
The other character of lower level did not shine, but I'll note he was rolling rather poorly (made up for the other characters luck). He still managed to help out, but his big flashy moves pretty much wiffed.

So as long as the party remains within about 3 levels I doubt it would be too big of a deal. The lower level party members might start have a problem connecting hits after that.

Also as your XP is theoretically getting tallied, If the DM wants to give the lower level characters a touch more XP that's his perogative. Though it's not that big a deal as eventually as levels go up the difference in xp will become less of an issue. Being 1000xp back at level 1 is a big deal, 1000xp back at level 20 means almost nothing. If your being particularly evenhanded you could even throw an encounter their way that would involve them alone (challenged to a duel, jumped by an assasin/monster while other party members not present.

Being a few levels down might not be too bad, but if the character is seriously behind, schedule a "makeup" session or two to remedy the situation, they lost out on fun... why not make it up to them.

Though I agree on not giving characters XP for not showing up, not so much to punish players who have responsibilities etc, but to encourage a sense of accomplishment for getting those xp. If they're free for some people at no risk and no "work" they'll start getting undervalued by everyone.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-27, 04:04 AM
Well from having played in a group where a couple of "retainers"(semi NPC's we've picked up, who have been played as side characters by players to help out the party) who were lower in level (by 2 full levels and rather shortchanged on equipment). I have the following observations to make.

I noticed that the difference in power was not that big a deal where it appeared at all.

One of the lower level characters even managed to outshine the "main" characters a bit via some good roles (consistantly getting 19-20's). Made us wonder why we weren't following him.
The other character of lower level did not shine, but I'll note he was rolling rather poorly (made up for the other characters luck). He still managed to help out, but his big flashy moves pretty much wiffed.

So as long as the party remains within about 3 levels I doubt it would be too big of a deal. The lower level party members might start have a problem connecting hits after that.

Also as your XP is theoretically getting tallied, If the DM wants to give the lower level characters a touch more XP that's his perogative. Though it's not that big a deal as eventually as levels go up the difference in xp will become less of an issue. Being 1000xp back at level 1 is a big deal, 1000xp back at level 20 means almost nothing. If your being particularly evenhanded you could even throw an encounter their way that would involve them alone (challenged to a duel, jumped by an assasin/monster while other party members not present.

Being a few levels down might not be too bad, but if the character is seriously behind, schedule a "makeup" session or two to remedy the situation, they lost out on fun... why not make it up to them.

Though I agree on not giving characters XP for not showing up, not so much to punish players who have responsibilities etc, but to encourage a sense of accomplishment for getting those xp. If they're free for some people at no risk and no "work" they'll start getting undervalued by everyone.

Fronko
2008-08-27, 04:46 AM
Well, we have a simple appraoch to discrepancies in XP: Distribute XP as usual, but award 10% extra to those that are lagging behind. For a certain amount of time, they will be one level behind, but they'll catch up fast enough, to not feel left out.

Not sure, if that works for larger discrepancies, but so far this has worked for us.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-27, 04:52 AM
Well, we have a simple appraoch to discrepancies in XP: Distribute XP as usual, but award 10% extra to those that are lagging behind. For a certain amount of time, they will be one level behind, but they'll catch up fast enough, to not feel left out.

Not sure, if that works for larger discrepancies, but so far this has worked for us.

A very good approach - it gives the characters who did participate in sessions an advantage over these who stayed at home, while at the same time making sure that those who didn't come won't be stuck in a case of Can't Catch Up (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleb55q7pd7k3nf). Non-even party levels suck in the long run and don't contribute to the fun at all.

Saph
2008-08-27, 07:44 AM
Off the bat it doesn't look half as bad as it did in 3rd when even one level could make a player feel left behind. Has anyone seen this in play yet, or can guess at the problems?

Speaking as someone who's actually DMing a 4e game; don't worry about it. The reason comes down to maths.

Long explanation

First, 3.5 levels tend to be quadratic; characters (especially spellcasters) start slow and then get faster and faster. 4e levels are linear; each level increase is about the same.

Second, a level in 4e means less than it did in 3.5. 4e characters start much higher than 3.5 ones, but then gain power more slowly. Two 1st-level 4e characters are much stronger than one 3rd-level 4e character.

Example; I was watching one of the final battles while one of the other DMs at my club was running Keep on the Shadowfell. The BBEG was a level 8 solo (ie, theoretically a challenge for 5 level 8 PCs), with a bunch of other monsters backing him up. The PCs were a party of 7 characters, all level 1 and level 2. The PCs won without even taking any fatalities.

Short explanation

It doesn't matter because a level or two in 4e doesn't make all that much difference.

- Saph

Burley
2008-08-27, 07:52 AM
Yea. PUPPIES!
Super cute.

Fixed that for ya. (Just 'cause I can, and 'cause I wanna.)

As for the subject at hand: 4e and EXP are things that can be completely seperated. I run a 3.5 game and play in 4e and the only reason for EXP that I can genuinly think of is for Item Crafting, and I do that using "quest materials."
4e really doesn't need EXP bonuses. The DM just needs to say, "Okay, you guys leveled after tonight's session, so... Go level for next session. Yeah, Greg, I know multi-classing sucks. If you don't like it, don't do it. We have this conversation every time. Why do I even invite you? No, no. The party used to need a cleric, when we were in 3.5. You're wierd obsession with playing heal-bot doesn't gain fruition in 4e. Just leave, Gre... What is that? Is that... is that a Black Mamba? AUAAAUGARGHShoobop!"

Do you understand now?

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 07:55 AM
The third, and perhaps most important reason is because D&D is just a game for fun, not a chore. By making players who miss a session lose XP, you are giving them an ultimatum, either come to the session, or risk being put behind the rest of your party.

Though the reverse is also true. The player is giving the DM an ultimatum "I'm going to quit this campaign if I am not as mechanically powerful as other players."

Honestly, I've never had a hard time with uneven leveled parties. There were several times back in AD&D when a party of level 7ish lost a member and he came back as a level 1 character. Yeah, even if he was a fighter he probably still avoided combat for a while since he had few HP or magical gear comparitively, but that wasn't so bad. Gave the person the chance to RP a trainee in a group of professionals, so to speak.

Grey Watcher
2008-08-27, 08:50 AM
Red Watcher: I think it's time that we put a stop to the misquoting, condescending remarks, and carrying baggage in from other threads.

Yakk
2008-08-27, 09:25 AM
If you want to only give out XP for adventuring (which is an acceptable rule), then the simple solution of giving out a bit of bonus XP for people "behind the curve" works.

If you are 1 level behind, grant +50% XP until you catch up.

If you are 2 levels behind, grant +100% XP until you catch up.

If you are 3 levels behind, grant +200% XP until you catch up.

etc.

You can even call it the "Tutoring" bonus.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-27, 11:05 AM
So, the solution is to cook the books as it were? I never even bothered to check that. Another flaw with 4th edition. Fun.

I don't understand a word you wrote, there. Can you try to re-phrase it?


Colmarr makes a good point - you should base the monster level limit on the lowest-level PC, to avoid making them useless in combat. Unless the gap is huge, this will still put the monster level limit some levels above the highest PC's level.


The player didn't earn the experience and unless They neglected a part about the character being at risk it's advancing them for something htey didn't really go through, or giving them more advancement than they deserve later.

IE: It's equivalent to an accountant altering the ledger so it doesn't show a misapropriation of funds towards an illicit or unearned area. Someone taking money they didn't earn for example. "Cooking the books"

It's the exact way I ran XP in D&D 3.5 for a year or two before 4E. Everyone's always at the same XP total. (This varied by campaign, though; in some campaigns, I saw advantages to individual XP rewards, but in almost all d20 games, I saw no reason to even track XP individually, as such. Everyone's the same level and goes up at the same time, especially since XP isn't earned from combat anyway in most of them. That, and none of my players ever crafted magic items or bothered with raise dead, so that didn't enter into it.)