Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JackRipper 03-07-06, 09:58 AM	You shall not pass!!! Who doesn't know these powerful words spoken on the bridge of Khazad-Dum by the famous wizard Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In the end, his adversary did not pass, powerful though it was, and so Gandalf allowed those under his care to escape the darkness of Moria and the menace of the Balrog by making the greatest sacrifice. A great scene it was, wasn't it? But why was it great? Why were we impressed by the power of Gandalf, or, as he himself called it, the Flame of Anor? Wasn't it because, in comparison to the other members of his fellowship, he was by far the most powerful and thus only he could take on this great challenge? The battle of the titans, where swords were of no more use? Now my question: how will this great scene ever be realized in the game called D&D - or more specifically - realized in the game called D&D if it is a taboo to try and play a group of adventurers of greatly varying levels of experience? Pippin of the same level as Gandalf, or even Boromir, all of them ganging up on the Balrog together? No, that wouldn't work for me. Now, I realize I've been talking of the Lord of the Rings trilogy a little much, and you might indeed say that D&D is not meant to be like that. But frankly, nearly every great story of fantasy literature I know, deals with characters of varying degrees of power, often also traveling together. As a general example, I give you the especially interesting archetypal company of a tutor and his pupil; the tutor of course being the more powerful. This type of company is simply not possible as long as the game D&D does not allow a party of greatly varying levels. You might now say, that the game D&D can be played in any way the players want to, and its rules are there to be changed if necessary, and I agree, but still, whenever I bring up the idea of a group of players playing characters of different power, everybody immediately speaks of blasphemy (okay, I may have exaggerated there a little, but you get my point). As long as the D&D community even resents the thought of such an idea, there will be even less individual groups seeing it as a viable option of play. Instead of saying that this it is wrong of them to think so, I say that it could limit the scope of their game. I hate limits. Now, some say that it wouldn't be fun to play the weaker character, because you will never be able to stand out. Tell me then one thing: did not Frodo stand out during the entire trilogy of LotR? Or even Sam? Or Merry when he and Eowyn killed the Captain of Mordor? Or Ron from Harry Potter when he won his game of chess? Everybody can stand out, through Roleplaying first, and through the help of the DM, giving them opportunities, second. Yes, the DM must do a good job at handling such a party. He must make sure the powerful pc's have fun encounters that challenge them, but also must the weaker ones, while not being entirely helpless. The solution; create an encounter with a powerful demon that leads a troup of weaker orcs. Both weaker and stronger PC's will do their part. And say not that dealing with the weaker orcs wasn't as important as dealing with the big guy, since those taking on the bigger demon would've been overwhelmed if they had to deal with both orcs and demon. Now, yes, I realize always being the one killing the orc minions is less sexy as killing their great chieftain. Thus, the DM must do well to create opportunities designed for the weaker PC's to shine: say, the weaker PC is isolated from the more powerful PC in battle, and assaulted by the BBEG. All you as DM need to do is adapt the stats of the BBEG thus that he is defeatable for the weaker PC but still a great challenge, and of course make it thus that not suddenly the BBEG appears more clumsy, but let the weaker PC appear more heroic! As such, Sam can defeat Shelob, or Merry the Captain of Mordor. The game rules need hardly be changed to accomodate such play, even though some would claim it is not balanced to allow for such differences of level. Someone gave me a good example the other day: he said a group of a weak and a powerful character faced with a powerful wizard who casts a powerful fireball on the entire group kills the weaker one instantly. True. But who said the DM had to present an encounter wherein a wizard would cast a fireball at the entire group? The DM controls it all, and a good DM does this in such a way that the players notice as little as possible of this. So, why did that powerful wizard not cast finger of death on the powerful adversary, since he was a far worthier foe? Never would the players have said: and why didn't he cast a fireball instead? Even if they did, a simple: "He hadn't prepared it" will suffice. The DM controls all, and thus there is no reason for imbalance. I say, playing in this way requires from the DM more effort to accomodate each player individually, which is a good thing. It also requires more realistic roleplaying on the parts of the player; no longer are all foes defeatable by everyone in the group; some foes will be beyond you - some foes will be beyond even the most powerful of the group! For the most powerful characters should never be invincible; they are in danger as well. Be realistic though; if you ever wish to attempt this in your group, it will never work unless all players and the DM agree to it and understand fully what complications it brings. The players must all be willing to accept that they will not always be able to stand out. The DM must be willing to put effort into accommodating every player. The spirit of the game, working together, and not striving to be the most heroic, must be even more prevalent for this type of game to succeed in the end. Now, if you only think about these guidelines, you can play out how Frodo does what neither Gandalf nor Aragorn nor any other great name could've done: for the time is upon us, when the fate of all is shaped by the smallest of creatures...
Illion the Red 03-07-06, 01:27 PM	Did Gandalf face the Balrog alone? Yep. Did Gandalf slow the Balrog down long enough for the party to get away? Yep. Did Gandalf die? Sure looked like it. Could this be duplicated in D&D with a Paladin of the same level as the rest of the party playing Galdalf's role? Yep. He'd die too. I don't see the issue here. The great event was a battle of self-sacrifice. He knew he wasn't walking away from the fight, but went forward without hesitation. That's a situation that any PC can duplicate. It's up to the DM to set up the situation, and the most important part is for the rest of the Players to allow the sacrafice to be made.
JackRipper 03-07-06, 01:43 PM	The issue wasn't whether Gandalf can die a heroic dead by standing up against the Balrog; I used this scene as example because it illustrated well that not in every fight every member of the group can be effective, or should have to be for reality's sake. It also illustrated that Gandalf was there to protect the weaker members of the group from dangers they could not face themselves, specifically of course the Ring-bearer Frodo. If in a D&D game this scene would be played out with an equal-leveled party, none of the party members would consider that he couldn't help in that given encounter, thus resulting in nine party members trying to surround the balrog and kill it. So to answer also your last remark; yes, I agree, the other players must allow it, but they won't unless an ingame reason is provided (varying levels of power). It would be meta-game thinking otherwise (in an innocent way though): "let's give Bob a chance to shine in this battle, cause he's a paladin" or something like that. Thus it would add greatly to a game to allow different levels of power.
CzarGarrett 03-07-06, 02:00 PM	Its sort of a Dues Ex Machina situation. Which is one I think its better to avoid if possible. Since Legolas recognized the creature as a Balrog, he could have made some sort of knowledge check, realized how powerful it was, and convinced everyone else to run away. Would this have had the same effect as Gandalf standing on the bridge? Perhaps, but it wasn't as dramatic. The same can hold true for any D&D game. So long as the players have an oppertunity to realize the creature/being they are facing is well out of their league and can run, there is no need for a super powerful character.
Illion the Red 03-07-06, 02:02 PM	Although I do see your point, allowing such a disparity would be useful only in the short-term. In the long term, the lower-level Characters would be little more than passengers and spectators. Why would the 15th level Wizard bother to let the 2nd level fighters struggle with the Ogre, when he could just scorching ray it to dust in one eyeblink?
Frida 03-07-06, 03:03 PM	Roleplaying can never be like a novel. An authour has a set of characters at his/her disposal that he can do whatever he likes with, and decide everything into the smalles detail what would make for the best story. A roleplaying game is much more complicated and what matters most is that everybody has a good time. And every roleplayer I have ever met have much less fun if they feel that the are useless compaired to other in the party. Even if that would make a better story. So I feel that you should never compair your roleplaying campaign with a good book because it will never be the same. And I think that many things that is important and interresting in a book would be boring to play.
Seeker95 03-07-06, 03:17 PM	You're right. In a game designed for 4-6 players, it is assumed that the players are allowed to play on equal footing. It happens in every game. I mean, sure, you could play a game of basketball with a mix of middle school chess club students, high school choir members and an NBA player on each team, but aside from the wow-factor of actually playing basketball with an all-star chess club member, how long would the fun last?
SiouLubb 03-07-06, 03:28 PM	There's an echo of Gandalf's sacrifice in Star Wars: A New Hope with what happened to Ben Kenobi. He sacrifices himself so Luke and company can escape. I think you can do it. There are restrictions on how best to do it though. You first need a bunch of players who are open minded and MATURE. Second, having a defined story which will take a certain number of sessions to complete would be optimal. (Ie, story should play out over a number of months of real time, not years) Why? Because then you can approach players and say "okay, in this game, you're going to be the mid-level character. in the next story, you get to be the high level character, and after that you start as the low-level character." The maturity of the players is needed to handle the different levels of power they have. the high-level players have to be aware of the risk that they could make the lower level people redundant (and try to play in a way that involves the low level pcs and make them integral to the adventure). They also have to know and accept that the role of the more powerful heores in such stories is ultimately to move aside so the lower level heroes can be the stars. The low level players have to find ways to roleplay and have their characters grow/ be involved, AND not spend their time complaining that the other PCs are more powerful. The different-levels game will not work without the wholehearted agreement of all of the players. So, what else can you do? Looking at LOTR and Star Wars, a couple common threads- the low-level people have a reason for being there, and can do things that the higher level people cannot. Frodo could bear the burden of the Ring, where Gandalf feared he would be too easily tempted by the power it offered. To Obi-Wan, Luke offered the possibility of ressurecting the Jedi (and redeeming his own failure). So, having a few 1st level characters join the 15th level wizard and fighter at the inn for some dungeon crawling probably won't work. Let's try a few ideas. Royalty: The low-level characters are members of a royal family and the higher level characters are their guardians or teachers. In this case, the lower level characters have royalty, something the higher level characters don't and cannot acquire (in the context of the story). Destiny: The LOTR angle. Only the low level character has the divine mark, etc in order to fulfill the quest...... Limitations/curses: The higher level PCs (HLPCs, for the ease of my typing) are unable to undertake certain actions or go certain places that the LLPCs can. "In my younger adventuring years, I greatly offended the goddess Ahholnar. I cannot enter her realms upon the pain of obliteration. I will take you to the gate where you can cross over and bring the sacred scroll to the grand temple...."
MrBrown 03-07-06, 03:52 PM	A couple of not-so-connected points. 1. (High level) D&D spellcasters are kinda like Gandalfs. They have a huge power in their hands (compared to the "normal guys" like fighters and such) that they can only unleash in a limited fashion. The difference is that D&D spellcasters are restricted by game mechanics, while Gandalf was restricted by world mechanics (or perhaps just drama). The key to running restricted-high power in D&D in other ways could be, IMHO, giving it a world technical or a drama restriction. No ideas how to actually go about doing it though, at least not yet. 2. Niche is important. If a character is completely useless in his Thing, then there's a good chance that's what the player will feel like. Because in D&D everyone will get better at fighting (BAB, HP, saves), a big level difference (5+, maybe?) will make low-level characters useless in combat. If the campaign is less combat oriented, then some niches (the not-so combat oriented ones) can shine regardless of level differences. 3. If the players come up with it, there'll probably be no hurt feelings in trying it. I at least would go with it if the players wanted it for some reason, though I'd probably discuss various game mechanical issues first. I would _not_ "force" my players to it, especially not in an RPG like D&D where levels play a big part.
Nom 03-07-06, 06:45 PM	There are some other factors to consider: Gandalf, despite his enormous power, was constrained. Tolkein never gives us the full details, but at least part of the issue is that the more power he puts out the more likely Sauron is to notice him, and that is something he is explicitly trying to avoid. There may also be simple physical issues as to how much and how often he can use his power. D&D makes an effort to directly link a character's surivability and power level. The hit point abstraction is the most notable example. As a consequence, a high level character can easily shrug off blows that will disable or kill weaker characters, simply by virtue of having more hit points. This is quite different in some other systems (eg RuneQuest), where even high powered characters will have comparable "hit points" to weaker ones.
Ra-Tiel 03-07-06, 07:25 PM	Hi. === Just to add my comments to the discussion... ;) I think that adding a level 1 fighter and a level 1 rogue for example to a level 15 wizard is a really stupid idea. Mechanically, the wizard could probably beat the fighter in melee, and that's just wierd. A more sane approach would be what a friend and I were planning to do in StarWars, but sadly never had a chance to actually play out: one player would be the level 7-9 jedi knight, while the other player would be the level 1 padawan. This way you wouldn't have as big a level difference that it'd make the lower level character completely obsolete, but you still would preserve the difference of power of the two characters. Also, in StarWars there are means that a low level character can contribute very well to a fight (heavy blasters, anyone?). So, perhaps instead of mixing levels 1 and 14, why not try 1 and 7, or 3 and 9 or something along that line? Not more than 6 - 8 levels of difference, and focusing on social interaction/mysteries/detective games instead of dungeon crawling and it should play out fine. :) === Greetings, _Ra-Tiel.
Raven Dark 03-07-06, 07:55 PM	Now my question: how will this great scene ever be realized in the game called D&D - or more specifically - realized in the game called D&D if it is a taboo to try and play a group of adventurers of greatly varying levels of experience? Pippin of the same level as Gandalf, or even Boromir, all of them ganging up on the Balrog together? No, that wouldn't work for me. Such a scene can easily be realized in D&D. Sam, Frodo, Boromir and others were all PCs of comparable level--whereas Gandalf was a high-level NPC character there to guide them along the right path before suddenly being dropped out of the game. It's all in how you run it. :P
Seeker95 03-07-06, 09:30 PM	Nobody commented on the chess club wow factor? Sheesh. Tough crowd!
Pandaemoni 03-07-06, 09:36 PM	You shall not pass!!! That quote pales in comparison to "None shall pass!" as was said by the Black Knight to King Arthur. He managed to slow down Arthur just as Gandalf did the Balrog...also, there was a little bridge and, come to think of it, I don't think we actually saw the Black Knight really die. The parallels are astounding.
Seeker95 03-08-06, 06:52 AM	So what you're saying is that Tolkein ripped off John Cleese?
JackRipper 03-08-06, 09:32 AM	MrBrown makes some good comments there and I agree completely. To succesfully run this type of game you'll need to consider the type of campaign your running (kick in the door/storytelling style), as well as how every character has at least some purpose in the story or in the combat, or both. To go back to my comparison to the LotR: I see Gimli and Legolas less for story and more for combat purposes within the party (though simply stating this does do them too little credit as they were both great characters). Frodo had little combat purpose but his role in the story was essential. I think that different types of players would like to play these different types of characters: in advance of a campaign each player should be asked what type of purpose he wishes his character to have in the group. Doing this, and if the DM can provide to their wishes, there won't be any discontent from feeling useless. The opposite would be true: players would feel like they're receiving more individual attention. I also like SiouLubb's addition that shorter campaigns might help in allowing players to play out all these different roles in the party; the weaker one and the strong one, but also the combat-oriented one and the story-driven one. But since personally I like epic and long campaigns more than short ones, this would probably not sate my needs. Also, I think that it is too bad that not many players see the beauty of playing a weaker but very interesting character as opposed to a very powerful (and maybe also very interesting) character. Even more so when the DM can make sure that there are things to do for both characters like I explained in my initial post. Yes, the weaker ones will have a harder time surviving probably, and it is a risk, but that doesn't mean they're useless. Last to Ravendark's comment; I wouldn't like to RP this scene of Gandalf in Moria if I and the other players were the weak ones and the DM was playing Gandalf instead of one of us. Not because I would be powerless to help, but because the DM should never be the one to solve the PC's problems; if some other player would solve my player's problems, I would have no problem with that and comment him on a job well done.
MrBrown 03-08-06, 10:26 AM	To go back to my comparison to the LotR: I see Gimli and Legolas less for story and more for combat purposes within the party (though simply stating this does do them too little credit as they were both great characters). Frodo had little combat purpose but his role in the story was essential. I think that different types of players would like to play these different types of characters: in advance of a campaign each player should be asked what type of purpose he wishes his character to have in the group. Doing this, and if the DM can provide to their wishes, there won't be any discontent from feeling useless. The opposite would be true: players would feel like they're receiving more individual attention. The downside of this is that when one player receives (individual) attention, it's automatically away from the other players. And that usually means boredom. That means that in the worst case, in a group of 4 players each player will feel bored 75% of the gaming session. The reason why D&D focuses on groups rather than an individuals, and why all character types gain combat effectiveness, is because combat is probably the easiest group goal. While all character have their own turns, the fact that they are working for the same goal and affecting each other makes the actions of the other players interesting to each player. This in contradiction to the "nicheness" of each character, and thus somewhat in contradiction to playing with varying power levels. One answer might be to simply make the varying power levels only thematic, and not allow them to come out in play. In example, Gandalf is the great wizard, but he can't use most of his powers because big-bad-guys are watching him.
Grand Theft Otto 03-08-06, 10:45 AM	Such a scene can easily be realized in D&D. Sam, Frodo, Boromir and others were all PCs of comparable level--whereas Gandalf was a high-level NPC character there to guide them along the right path before suddenly being dropped out of the game. It's all in how you run it. :P In other words, run it like a crappy 5tyh grade DM who brings in their uber NPC? Sorry, ever since our junior high school cthulhu GM had his character kill Nyarlathotep, I've had a huge distaste for this lame style of gaming. Forget powergaming vs. RP... DM Fiat ruins more games faster than that schism. When you force a scene to play out in any situation, you're a crappy DM. Set it up, then let the players and the dice dictate how the action proceeds. Its a game, not a novel. If you want to read the players a story featuring their characters, Id suggest an author's group. In short, I think its a bad idea. Its not a lot of fun to be completely overshadowed in every way, when nothing you do really matters because theres a guy 6 times your level hanging in the background who could sneeze and solve your problems, but who has his hands tied until the DM deems fit. Make up your own stories, instead of trying to regurgitate scenes from books. Ars Magica tried a better form of this with the wizards and grogs. Each player had an uber wizard of a covey, and made up several joe schmoes (grogs). Frequently, a group would go out with 1-2 wizards and several henchmen types. In theory, it was fair, because people would rotate who got to be Superman, and who got to be Policeman or Bum with Hepatitus, but almost everyone who played it agreed that it was a deeply flawed concept. Most campaigns I know of changed to everyone running their wizard for some adventures, or everyone running their grogs for others.
Raven Dark 03-08-06, 11:51 AM	In other words, run it like a crappy 5th grade DM who brings in their uber NPC? Yeah!? Well you're a poopyhead! :P j/k Seriously though, in an ideal setting the NPC guide concept will work. You are right in that if you have an immature DM on a power trip, it will end up being a crap game. Than again, if you have an immature DM on a power trip, it won't really matter if he has a pet NPC or not. Your game is doomed. The same applies for immature players who wine as soon as the DM brings in an NPC even one level higher than they are (even though they don't even know the NPCs purpose yet). The fact of the matter is that there will always be someone more powerful than the heroes (otherwise there would be no challenge). The all-powerful but somehow limited guide to the heroes is a staple of fantasy. Gandalf and the hobbits, Luke Skywalker and Yoda, and Merlin and King Aurther just to name a few. YMMV. In an ideal group my concept of play would work. Than again, in an ideal group, most any kind of play should work out with little trouble. Please try and be more respectful in your future responses too. I did nothing to deserve the "attitude" that some of your post seems to carry.
loki87 03-08-06, 12:29 PM	On occasion, I've brought higher-level NPC's into the party, but only for the story and never as a power trip or to help the PC's through a campaign. For instance, at one point after the PC's had completed a low-level campaign, I had a higher-level NPC join them on their second campaign. He was a benefactor and mentor to the party, and had supported them from afar through their first series of adventures. In the very first encounter with him in the party, they faced an incredibly difficult opponent (a half-demon sorcerer of much higher level than the party), who slew the NPC. The party managed to escape, but spent the rest of their campaign on a quest for vengeance against the half-demon. It was critical to the story, and none of my players ever complained about it, and they all had a blast. However, I would never allow PC's to begin at different starting levels (ECL of course) as it can create boredom and envy in even the most mature gamers. Balance is the most important thing in D&D and you can't have balance in such situations.
Grand Theft Otto 03-08-06, 01:17 PM	Seriously though, in an ideal setting the NPC guide concept will work. I think it just works less poorly. IMX, the "guide" character simply creates a buffer between the players and the "real" action. Asking an NPC for information, or to provided limited assistance in some situations (you rally forces to divert the enemy, we'll sneak in the rear) is very different in my mind from having a higher level npc "party member". You'll notice Yoda never went on adventures with Luke, and Obi Wan's activity was pretty limited. Given the choice between an npc making a discovery and telling the pc's, and the pc's making said discovery and piecing things together themselves, I'll choose the latter.