A King, a Priest, and a Beggar walked into a dungeon: Variant Power Levels in Party

[Mr. Mask]

I'm curious about the idea of having a party where not everyone is of equal power level. The beggar and the king and the priest in one party. Normally if that happened, the King would need some serious flaws to balance out their benefits, and the beggar would be a ninja. But I started to wonder that it may be interesting to play them at separate power levels. The king is educated, trained for combat, and has a lot of political power--but they are also responsible for their kingdom and have to worry about politics. The beggar has no responsibilities, but their skills are a little more specialized for surviving on the street than for adventure. That sounds very interesting, but it brings up the question of can you make it work.

I figure there are RPGs that put a lot more emphasis on roleplaying than on optimal builds, so those may be good examples to look at. I sort of wonder about a mechanic where you are awarded extra points if your character was not suited to a given challenge, so a weak character all around quickly gets a lot of points to use for... something. It could simply be upgrading stats, which basically means you can play at a lower power level in exchange for greater awards in the long run (like early DnD with humans vs. elves etc.). That could be interesting, but there may be more interesting directions available.

More importantly is making the game interesting for the beggar, and for the king, and for the priest. This can partly be accomplished with spotlight moments/adventures, where one segment relies on combat prowess, another on studying tomes, and another on finding someone in the underbelly of the city. This can also be accomplished with multiple avenues of approach, where the aforementioned challenges are optional, one of them being suitable to progress the quest. Both of these strategies have the problem that other players might not be engaged during a player's moment.

A more ambitious way would be to give everyone something to do. I once ran a game where I dealt with about four groups of players, all doing separate things, which linked together into the same quest. It wasn't easy, and wouldn't have worked so well in real time, as you can only do so much at once. You could get around it with co story tellers, something few RPGs seem to extol, but that does add some logistical load and require more manpower (players may potentially be able to act as story tellers for another player's scene, in some cases). However, for say an encounter with three characters, you could have the king facing a dozen goblins, while the beggar is trying to stop one from sounding the alarm, and the priest is trying to outwit the riddle book discussing problems from obscure Latin texts. In some ways, this might be easier for mechanical encounters than roleplaying, as it takes longer to think up and give exposition, usually.

It's an interesting idea, but the answer seems out of reach.


Anyone have experience with games where players were of different power levels? Reasons it went well or poorly? Idea for how playing with different power levels might be able t owork out, or problems it needs to overcome?

[Knaight]

The big question here is what the RPG is focused on. If it's about accomplishing things, overcoming challenges, etc. then highly variable power levels are likely to be an issue. If it's about conflicts within an area outside of the power, it's much less likely to be. If it's about the character arcs of the player characters, power could be completely besides the point.

The best examples I can think of for games that do this well are Primetime Adventures and Now Playing. Both are structured cinematically, specifically after episodic TV shows that have a larger arc. The mechanics aren't about character power or making things happen, but about influencing the scenes that show up, the characters present, and other such things. Both could easily handle a group with a king, a priest, and a beggar, even if you use the archetypes that make the king more the classic heroic king, the priest the moral paragon in a conflicted world, and the beggar an extraordinarily poor person with nothing and no-one in the world.

[oxybe]

Not all games would care if the party consists of a 2 blue collar schmucks and the PRESIDENT OF THE US OF A (in all caps, like a "good" president should).

For sillyness look at the videogame Final Fight, we have Cody (a streetwise thug who loves punching stuff), Guy (a noble ninja and friend of Cody) and Haggar (the former wrestler turned mayor). Each character has a rather distinct background and in all truths, Haggar's position as mayor would be more of a problem then a boon in real life.

But this isn't real life. It's a fictional world where street thugs, ninjas, wrestler-mayors go on a bloody rampage through town to save the mayor's daughter (and Cody's girlfriend) and wipe out the Mad Gear gang.

This extends to any other game, be it video or tabletop: Is your world one where a king can put aside his kingly duties and go on adventuring? One where a priest can leave his parish without issue to go kick butt for the lord? Where a beggar can have the training and health required for fighting and surviving in a dangerous dungeon?

If yes, then it works.

You can also use their backgrounds as quick handwaves:

-Because he's a beggar and knows the inns and outs of the city, he knows where every entrance/exit to the dungeon is
-Because he's a king the party doesn't need to manage buying food/inn stays/replace old or broken gear as he just tells the store owner to pass the check to the castle.
-Because he's a priest, the party can get healing and curative balms made quicker and easier.

It does become a problem if you're playing a game like D&D where gold can be traded in for power, as the King can potentially just empty the treasury to equip him and his buddies (or worse, just himself).

But again, this is all about how the world is presented to the players. If it makes sense to have an adventurer king and you find a way to not make "is a king" into a broken power, then it's all cool. If you can't, well, that concept should likely be shelved.

[Wardog]

How are you modelling the characters and their abilities?

In D&D, a beggar could reasonably be a "commoner", an "expert", a "fighter", or a "rogue". A king could reasonably be a "noble", an "expert", a "fighter", or indeed most other PC classes. Other classes are also possible.

If they are equal level, plenty of beggars could be as good as adventurers as plenty of kings. And all the wealth and political power of the king doesn't necessarily count for anything in a dungeon.

(Of course, the priest is presumably a cleric or druid, of completely overpowered compared to both the beggar an the king).

[TheCountAlucard]

The present player characters in my seafaring game are as follows:

• Pirate captain, somewhat of a fragile speedster with a magic sword and armor, can also bolster himself somewhat with summoned aquatic monsters.
• Barbarian, the son of a thunderbird and the chief of his tribe. Extremely skilled brawler with superhuman strength, heavy armor, and an artifact weapon given to him by the gods of the sky.
• Ship's surgeon - she has a magic sword and armor, but next to no skill at using either. She spent a little bit of time learning how to throw a punch. Very good at patching people up, though.
• Other player characters (no longer present for various reasons) in the game included a merchant's daughter (some archery skills and telekinesis), the obnoxious son of a satrap (very combatty, but that didn't help when someone sank him in his heavy armor in shark-infested waters), and a shipwright (with no combat skills whatsoever).

Which is to say, there is wisdom in oxybe's words - very few games even pretend that the player characters are guaranteed to be "balanced" against each other. If you start a World of Darkness game with a mummy, a vampire, and a sin-eater, the difference in power levels will be pretty darn obvious.

[goto124]

I imagine it'll take a lot of effort for the players to not munchkin. Sure you can do that even with 'equal' power level, just that you'll have to be much more concious about it when a king or god is in the same party as a commoner.

[oxybe]

King doesn't automatically mean best fighter in the land. Unless you're King Boranel.

Kings, combat potential-wise, are on the same scope as commoners and merchants.

Imagine, though, that Papa Smurf, King Boranel and Superman were in an adventuring party. Here we see a scope disparity and where it hurts the gameplay where combat is involved. Since anything that would challenge Boranel is likely leagues above what Red Hat Smurf can handle but is something Supes could best on an off day with an arm tied behind his back.

Mostly due to laser eyes, but those solve a lot of problems.

In a game of politics however, where combat isn't a big focus, Papa Smurf representing the magical world, Boranel representing humanity and Superman representing those who are less then gods, but more then mortals, all three are pretty well balanced.

It's all about focus and scope.

[Eisenheim]

It doesn't necessarily model differing power levels, but FATE has a mechanic to reward characters for being put in situations that they are unsuited for. If a character with an aspect like "Glass Jaw" winds up in a fist fight, which they likely don't have the skills to do well in. They can essentially ask for fate points in exchange for failing automatically instead of rolling for a what's likely to be a losing fight.

[Vitruviansquid]

Power levels do not matter to a player's enjoyment of the game.

Power levels are often mistaken to be important because in many RPG's, your character's power level is tied to feelings of participation and achievement, which are the actual sources of player fun. In a hypothetical game about gaining fame and glory where combat takes 10% of the game's time and mechanics while bragging about it at a tavern takes 90%, power level might be useful so you can do glorious deeds, but would play second fiddle to a charisma stat.

So in your example (which I will assume is a game in which power level does have a big impact, like DnD) the king's drawback of having more responsibilities outside of adventuring does in no way offset his power. It does not, in fact, make the king a less attractive class to players. Even though the in-character king may be annoyed at his extra responsibilities, the out-of-character player is getting more spotlight in the game, more obstacles to have fun trying to surpass, and more opportunity to play how his character feels about goings-on in his realm.

This is also why DnD 3.5's scheme of having the spotlight switch from character to character does not work. If you have three characters, one is better at combat, one is better at studying tomes, and one is better at finding people, you still don't have equal "spotlighting" if your system is rigged up so that players will spend 90% of their time in combat, 5% studying tomes, and 5% finding people. Each character might be as indispensable as the others to succeeding the quest as a whole, but in this situation the combat-specialized class is getting 90% of the feeling of participation. In order for the priest and beggar players to feel as good as the king player, you'd have to have 33% of the content of your RPG be in each combat, studying, and finding people (at which point you'd probably be designing 3 different games that should be published as 3 different products).

I would say the answer to your riddle is to have a game mostly about one activity (let's say combat) but each class has a different way of approaching that activity, and in such a way that each class has an niche to play for the success of that activity. Outside of a few balance quirks, DnD 4e is pretty much this game.

[Grek]

The answer you're looking for is "Troupe Play" Ars Magica style. The fact that the King is stronger, smarter richer and all around more useful on more adventures than the Beggar doesn't matter, because the Beggar is useful for this one particular adventure (otherwise you wouldn't have brought him along) and next time the Queen (played by the Beggar's player) is going off with a traveling Minstrel and a yam Farmer on some other adventure. The key is that you're alternating between playing one strong, broadly applicable character and playing a small group of weaker, more specialized characters.

[Milodiah]

There is a game called Rifts.

In this game a PC party can include a dragon in human form and a homeless man.

At no point does it ever pretend this is "balanced", and several editors' notes indicate they don't even believe in the concept of character balance.

The main gun of a Glitter Boy power armor suit can blow the armor off a decent combat character in one shot, and could take nearly 100 shots from that fellow's gun to be taken down. And even though everyone who doesn't like the game points to this as a problem, I can honestly say having a Glitter Boy in the party we're currently playing hardly ruins anything. My character's just a spy. No psionics, no armored fighting vehicles, no power armor, no magic items or whatnot. He's got a rifle that does pretty good damage, and quite a bit of talent at his job. And the latter is what made him the most important character in the party for the last two story arcs.

[Flickerdart]

There's no reason that a king or a priest should be more powerful or skilled than a beggar. Put Pope Francis, Prince Charles, and a random homeless man into a party, and they're probably going to have about the same level of competence in many standard adventuring tasks.

[Knaight]

And even though everyone who doesn't like the game points to this as a problem, I can honestly say having a Glitter Boy in the party we're currently playing hardly ruins anything. My character's just a spy. No psionics, no armored fighting vehicles, no power armor, no magic items or whatnot. He's got a rifle that does pretty good damage, and quite a bit of talent at his job. And the latter is what made him the most important character in the party for the last two story arcs.

It's not a problem because your spy is probably significantly better at the Glitter Boy at most everything spying related. They are in drastically different niches, how good they are at their respective niches isn't actually all that hugely important. If you were playing another character who's primary tools were violence and they were drastically inferior at it than the Glitter Boy, I'd expect the balance issues to suddenly come into sharp contrast.

[Milodiah]

It's not a problem because your spy is probably significantly better at the Glitter Boy at most everything spying related. They are in drastically different niches, how good they are at their respective niches isn't actually all that hugely important. If you were playing another character who's primary tools were violence and they were drastically inferior at it than the Glitter Boy, I'd expect the balance issues to suddenly come into sharp contrast.

Still not true, as there is another power armor pilot in the party. His weapons do less damage, he has less armor, etc. but they're both still highly useful for their different capabilities. Just because you've got a huge, huge bruiser and a medium-sized bruiser doesn't automatically mean the medium bruiser's game is ruined.

[Knaight]

Still not true, as there is another power armor pilot in the party. His weapons do less damage, he has less armor, etc. but they're both still highly useful for their different capabilities. Just because you've got a huge, huge bruiser and a medium-sized bruiser doesn't automatically mean the medium bruiser's game is ruined.

Again, if they're both useful for their different capabilities that character has something where they're significantly better than the Glitterboy. There can also be balance issues where one character is just flat out worse than another, and in the specific context of a task focused RPG that can cause issues.

[Eric Tolle]

If I'm playing the King, I don't NEED to go into the dungeon. I simply force the Beggar to swear fealty to me, and order him to go into the dungeon, and then give me the treasure should he come out. If he disagrees, I simply have him hung, and the player can roll up a character that will obey my orders next time.

In my time gaming, I have seen situations rather like this in the past. Oddly enough, it pretty much always turns out badly for the person playing the equivalent of the Beggar.

[goto124]

Trolle, I've played a game where it feels rather like that. I left for a reason.

It's an OoC problem though. If you're playing a Tabletop together, you really shouldn't be jerks to your fellow players.

[oxybe]

If I'm playing the King, I don't NEED to go into the dungeon. I simply force the Beggar to swear fealty to me, and order him to go into the dungeon, and then give me the treasure should he come out. If he disagrees, I simply have him hung, and the player can roll up a character that will obey my orders next time.

In my time gaming, I have seen situations rather like this in the past. Oddly enough, it pretty much always turns out badly for the person playing the equivalent of the Beggar.

That is assuming people would still want to play with you (or let you play with them) after pulling (or attempting to pull) such a jerk move on them.

Seriously, that sort of BS would never fly at my table, either the regular one i'm playing at right now, or one I would GM.

[Vitruviansquid]

If I'm playing the King, I don't NEED to go into the dungeon. I simply force the Beggar to swear fealty to me, and order him to go into the dungeon, and then give me the treasure should he come out. If he disagrees, I simply have him hung, and the player can roll up a character that will obey my orders next time.

In my time gaming, I have seen situations rather like this in the past. Oddly enough, it pretty much always turns out badly for the person playing the equivalent of the Beggar.

I had the same initial reaction as everyone else, of "this would NEVER fly at my table."

Then I realized that I don't think I've ever played or ran a game where any PC has authority over another one.

[Satinavian]

Authority of one PC over another is in my experience not a problem at all, if both players agree. Authority comes with responsibility and people learn this extremely fast.

Actually i have seen more players refusing to play the authority figure than willing to do this. Games revolving about hard decisions can become quite stressfull to the leader. And while the easy decisions will probably be made by the other players encountering the situation, it's the hard ones that get shifted to the ruler all the time. And any mistake wuill be his fault. I have seen more than once players being not up to this task.

@ Topic

I wouldn't do it in D&D. The system revolves a lot about combat. Im most editions, wealth is a means to both get versatiliy and survivability. Also both ability and survivability is hard bound to level.
If you take weak and poor people with you, they are not only less useful, they tend to die a lot in random dangers, aoes or simply as collateral damage and you have to take extreme measures to prevent this.

Other systems ? Usually works surprisingly well.


Also "having an in-party command chain" is not the same thing as "different powerful characters in the same group"

[Wardog]

If I'm playing the King, I don't NEED to go into the dungeon. I simply force the Beggar to swear fealty to me, and order him to go into the dungeon, and then give me the treasure should he come out. If he disagrees, I simply have him hung, and the player can roll up a character that will obey my orders next time.

In my time gaming, I have seen situations rather like this in the past. Oddly enough, it pretty much always turns out badly for the person playing the equivalent of the Beggar.

Beggar goes into dungeon, finds magic ring/lamp/sword / meets someone who reveals he is the rightful heir to the throne / a wizard / the son of a god / etc. Adventures ensue, culminating in beggar overthrowing king. King is subjected to the horrific fairy-tale death of your choice. Precedent: more folk-tales than I can count.

[endur]

If I'm playing the King, I don't NEED to go into the dungeon. I simply force the Beggar to swear fealty to me, and order him to go into the dungeon, and then give me the treasure should he come out. If he disagrees, I simply have him hung, and the player can roll up a character that will obey my orders next time.

This gets into the whole issue of force and consent.

The more diplomatic approach is to ask the beggar to swear fealty. Or to remind the beggar of oaths already sworn.

"Forcing an oath to be sworn" gets into the realm of PVP.

Asking the hero to go into the dungeon and retrieve the McGuffin is a staple of many fantasy stories.

Of course, the question is, is the King the quest giver? or the ultimate enemy of the hero?

Having mulitple levels of authority in a party can be handled in a role-playing game, but it is not easy. There are elements of PVP, potential for jealousy, etc. It also becomes more of a simulation and less of a game.

[TheCountAlucard]

hung

Hanged, actually.

In my time gaming, I have seen situations rather like this in the past. Oddly enough, it pretty much always turns out badly for the person playing the equivalent of the Beggar.

Oh, we're doing anecdotal evidence?

In my seafaring game, the former ship's purser used his position as an officer and high birth to act like a general ****, viewing the crew's lives in terms of price tags, ordering folks around when the captain was away, boasting about being able to slaughter them, and putting the entire crew on bread and water for the offense of one of them.

It's no coincidence that shortly after that, he met a grisly end involving sharks, deep water, and him wearing heavy armor.

I'll admit it doesn't fit perfectly with the King/Priest/Beggar setup at the beginning of the thread, but the parallels can certainly be seen, yes?

[Milodiah]

There can always be issues when there is a rigid authority structure that player characters are expected to adhere to, i.e. military settings. There's a reason most PC parties end up being special-snowflake black ops nonuniformed adventurers rather than, say, members of the 31st Regiment of Foot...if one player character is the colonel and the others are private soldiers or noncoms, A) it's gonna be weird that the colonel and the privates are going off in a small group with each other, B) the high-ranking officer is going to have responsibilities he can't just ignore, and C) there's likely going to be some tensions if it's not done well and with a flexible group. Pretty much the same with an actual king, A) why is he taking these peasants rather than his most trusted knights, B) why is he wandering off from the throne when there's probably some war, famine, trade dispute, religious duty, ceremonial responsibility, legislation, etc. that he's actually supposed to be doing, and C) is that guy gonna annoy the hell out of the other PCs by making them pitch his tent, care for his mount, etc.

Another thing I'd be worried about is that the king would no doubt have more resources at hand than the GM intended to give him, unless you're playing a very specific type of game.

GM: "You discover an abandoned watchtower now controlled by a necromancer and his legion of undead."
King: "I return to the city we passed through, walk up to the commander of the garrison, clap my hands, point at my crown, and tell him to do his job!"
GM: "...they lay siege and retake the watchtower. One of them finds an ancient map in a complex cipher."
King: "I clap my hands and tell my court advisors to sort it out."
GM: "...they do."

Doing anything else would really be the more unrealistic of the two options, after all.

Besides, if the PC is the king then who's gonna give them the quest

[Flickerdart]

Another thing I'd be worried about is that the king would no doubt have more resources at hand than the GM intended to give him, unless you're playing a very specific type of game.

GM: "You discover an abandoned watchtower now controlled by a necromancer and his legion of undead."
King: "I return to the city we passed through, walk up to the commander of the garrison, clap my hands, point at my crown, and tell him to do his job!"
GM: "...they lay siege and retake the watchtower. One of them finds an ancient map in a complex cipher."
King: "I clap my hands and tell my court advisors to sort it out."
GM: "...they do."

Doing anything else would really be the more unrealistic of the two options, after all.

Besides, if the PC is the king then who's gonna give them the quest

Psh, if the town guard could root out necromancers, or the court advisors could sort out mysterious ciphers, we wouldn't have adventurers...or for that matter, an action-king who rides around smashing things instead of doing his job and ruling the place. The king could also be some Conan-esque figure who got to be in charge precisely because of personal mettle, and off-loading that kind of tasks will severely hurt his legitimacy in the eyes of his vassals.

As for the quests thing, a king calling up his old adventuring buddies for one last hurrah defeating [Negative Adjective] [Type of Ruler] of [Location] is pretty standard trope-wise. Then the "quest giver" is necessity rather than an NPC.

[TheCountAlucard]

Besides, if the PC is the king then who's gonna give them the quest

A god, obviously.

[Trevortni]

Does the king need to have full access to the resources of various sorts granted him by being king? What if the king is trying to find the traitor in his ranks, and the only people he knows he can trust are the beggar who remembers how kind he has always been to him and the priest who heard the murmurings of treason while trying to uproot an unknown evil growing in his own domain?

We might find that the king has the most obstacles, and the least ability to do anything about them; while the beggar has the most freedom of movement and ability to affect the world around him, but any misstep will prove fatal more quickly (though possibly less surely) than it would for the king.

And when they are actually together, their combat effectiveness may be on similar levels, though you might want the beggar to go first in the sewers but remain unseen in the castle. In social situations, the king might prove more charismatic with the upper-classes, but will get laughed at in the taverns where the beggar will get his every question answered with a pat on the back.

As I got interrupted in the middle of typing this, I have no idea if there was anything else I wanted to add at this point.

[dps]

As for the quests thing, a king calling up his old adventuring buddies for one last hurrah defeating [Negative Adjective] [Type of Ruler] of [Location] is pretty standard trope-wise. Then the "quest giver" is necessity rather than an NPC.

Or, the king gathers a rag-tag bunch of misfits to help him regain his throne from a usurper. Not an uncommon plotline--actually, a bit cliché.

[DodgerH2O]

Even with a disparity in power levels and a focus on completing tasks related to the variable power level the desires of the players can make it work.

I've seen the player who just wants to participate, not necessarily meaningfully, but just to hang out at the table as it were. They take actions in combat, occasionally give opinions during planning sessions, but they don't want the spotlight. These players are fine being overshadowed in every way, sometimes they prefer it. These types of folk can remain engaged in a game while mostly spectating, and that's really the crux of the issue. If everyone at the table feels engaged with what is happening and is having an enjoyable time, then great.

Now if you've got a hypothetical group of three players, each of whom wants the spotlight say 50% or more of the time, it doesn't matter what power levels you have, nobody will be completely happy all of the time. This can be exacerbated by the power disparity, but ultimately is a player problem. The two issues work, or, possibly fail, together. It's possible to frame the narrative so everyone has their moments, or strengths, but even if all three contribute meaningfully to every encounter, they get at most 33% of the spotlight, which might keep them coming back, but falls short of what they want.

[Satinavian]

There can always be issues when there is a rigid authority structure that player characters are expected to adhere to, i.e. military settings. There's a reason most PC parties end up being special-snowflake black ops nonuniformed adventurers rather than, say, members of the 31st Regiment of Foot...if one player character is the colonel and the others are private soldiers or noncoms, A) it's gonna be weird that the colonel and the privates are going off in a small group with each other, B) the high-ranking officer is going to have responsibilities he can't just ignore, and C) there's likely going to be some tensions if it's not done well and with a flexible group. Pretty much the same with an actual king, A) why is he taking these peasants rather than his most trusted knights, B) why is he wandering off from the throne when there's probably some war, famine, trade dispute, religious duty, ceremonial responsibility, legislation, etc. that he's actually supposed to be doing, and C) is that guy gonna annoy the hell out of the other PCs by making them pitch his tent, care for his mount, etc.

This actually works better with a king than with modern military. Feudalism is all about personal bonds and loyalty to persons rather than ideals or nations. The king doing thing with a couple of trusted retainers would be perfectly normal. Also, strange people getting in high positions because they know the right people would be less of the problem. One of the PCs doen't seem to fit in the royal retinue ? Let him be related to someone important who pulled some strings to place him there.

But modern military campaigns work too. You probably would not have that much of a rank difference in the group. Some regular soldiers and a sergant will work, but a group of high ranking officers planning and leading an important part of the whole war in the way of a Great General Staff would be pretty interesting too.

GM: "You discover an abandoned watchtower now controlled by a necromancer and his legion of undead."
King: "I return to the city we passed through, walk up to the commander of the garrison, clap my hands, point at my crown, and tell him to do his job!"
GM: "...they lay siege and retake the watchtower. One of them finds an ancient map in a complex cipher."
King: "I clap my hands and tell my court advisors to sort it out."
GM: "...they do."

The group should get tasks matching their abilities. If the group is a king and his advisors/retainers, the problems should be the problems of the whole kingdom. Stuff that the whole kingdom does.
Also "court adviser" would be a very matching fit for a role of another PC in the kings group. Why should that be an NPC ?

Besides, if the PC is the king then who's gonna give them the quest

That is what royal audiences are for. People can take their problems to the king It is not like that kind of concept is foreign to RPGs.