Alternated level system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alternated level system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Winter's requiem
11-13-04, 10:40 AM I think its boring when all the players start on the same level, so I give them for example 20 levels. It's four players so they can all be level five, but they can allso have one level ten, two level twoand one level six. when you think about it, what are the chances that the whole party is the same level. It is also funny to see how the players can get along with eachother when not all of them have "experienced" the same things in their life. It is also fun for a dm and also a challenge for the players to roleplay this way. To have someone as a subordinate on the team and to have a leader and followers and such, this can make an alternative setting for a game.

Take for example Lord of the Rings, you have Aragorn who is going to be the new king and has mastered the art of the sword and the bow. He is extremely strong and is the leader of the party when Gandalf isn't around. Then if you take Pippin, whom is just a mere halfling which steals crops from someone's farm. It is impressive to see how these 2 can get along in the sotry and form a bond between those 2, even the level difference and place of origin and personality. This could also be possible in a game. This makes not the game and party more realistic, but then there is a difference in the team and it is more fun to roleplay this way.

But I wonder how I should divide the experience. I thought of using the alternate system that Arkon made in another thread which is rather good for these accosions.

Can someone tell me what they think about this?
Neerie
11-13-04, 12:41 PM Well, if your players agree, maybe you can go that way, but I can imagine a lot of groups where it would be the ultimate source of debating among the players (not the characters) as most would usually want to be the higher leveled.
Bringslite
11-13-04, 12:55 PM I don't like your idea. Such a wide difference in lvl is very dangerous. Encounters would have to be very very carefully crafted. The higher lvl PC's will be bored at the lack of challenge or the lower lvl PC's will be wiped out in one or two rounds. The high lvl PC will dominate and the lower will feel useless, if they can stay alive to feel useless. Think about it. Monsters that are fun for the lvl 10 will kill the lvl two in seconds.

The game and it's monsters is designed for the PC's to all be within a lvl or two of each other.
Winter's requiem
11-13-04, 01:45 PM True. I wasn't thinking about a game with three level one and one level twenty, that would make it too challenging for the level one and too easy for the level twenty. Anyway, if the palyers decide to have three level one and one level twenty, they will meet high level creatures, and the level one pcs have to decide to not act in the combat.(Killing creatures is not the only way to earn exp) I havent tried this yet, but how about this:The high level start with less treasure than the low level. Then they might wanna sacrefice the penelty of being low level to have more treasure.

There is a lot of things about this level system that need to be fixed, and thats why I put it on this messageboard, so if there is something I should change please write.
FriendoftheDork
11-13-04, 03:00 PM Sorry, it does not work without revamping the whole system, as levels matters too much when it comes to ability, survivability and having fun.

It could work in other systems, for example LotR where a 5th level warrior could easily kill a 20th level ministrel that hasn't put any ranks in fighting skills.

I've been playing in games with varying levels, and I tell you it's never fun to be 1st level when some are 10th.
There's nothing wrong with lower level ppl travelling with higher level ppl, that's what NPCs are for. If gandalf, aragorn, boromir, legolas and gimli were NPCs, the hobbits were PCs. Or perhaps the other way around, the PCs are heroes escorting hobbits.

My favorite part in LOtR is the end when the hobbits return home and have to fend for themselves, using what they've learned in their epic quest to defeat Saruman and his minions, and without help from the high level guys! Although as that point they weren't 1st level themselves ;)
Lord_Anthrax
11-13-04, 03:46 PM Well, as long as your players are all happy with it, then go for it. But I'd suggest you keep the level difference between them from being more than two levels to save yourself the headache of scripting suitable encounters.
Winter's requiem
11-13-04, 04:46 PM I guess I shouldn't use this system, it has to "cracks" in it. Maybe I'll make a level one game and see if the PCs become different levels. I once had a game where one player was level six while another was level two.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Winter's requiem 11-13-04, 10:40 AM	I think its boring when all the players start on the same level, so I give them for example 20 levels. It's four players so they can all be level five, but they can allso have one level ten, two level twoand one level six. when you think about it, what are the chances that the whole party is the same level. It is also funny to see how the players can get along with eachother when not all of them have "experienced" the same things in their life. It is also fun for a dm and also a challenge for the players to roleplay this way. To have someone as a subordinate on the team and to have a leader and followers and such, this can make an alternative setting for a game. Take for example Lord of the Rings, you have Aragorn who is going to be the new king and has mastered the art of the sword and the bow. He is extremely strong and is the leader of the party when Gandalf isn't around. Then if you take Pippin, whom is just a mere halfling which steals crops from someone's farm. It is impressive to see how these 2 can get along in the sotry and form a bond between those 2, even the level difference and place of origin and personality. This could also be possible in a game. This makes not the game and party more realistic, but then there is a difference in the team and it is more fun to roleplay this way. But I wonder how I should divide the experience. I thought of using the alternate system that Arkon made in another thread which is rather good for these accosions. Can someone tell me what they think about this?
Neerie 11-13-04, 12:41 PM	Well, if your players agree, maybe you can go that way, but I can imagine a lot of groups where it would be the ultimate source of debating among the players (not the characters) as most would usually want to be the higher leveled.
Bringslite 11-13-04, 12:55 PM	I don't like your idea. Such a wide difference in lvl is very dangerous. Encounters would have to be very very carefully crafted. The higher lvl PC's will be bored at the lack of challenge or the lower lvl PC's will be wiped out in one or two rounds. The high lvl PC will dominate and the lower will feel useless, if they can stay alive to feel useless. Think about it. Monsters that are fun for the lvl 10 will kill the lvl two in seconds. The game and it's monsters is designed for the PC's to all be within a lvl or two of each other.
Winter's requiem 11-13-04, 01:45 PM	True. I wasn't thinking about a game with three level one and one level twenty, that would make it too challenging for the level one and too easy for the level twenty. Anyway, if the palyers decide to have three level one and one level twenty, they will meet high level creatures, and the level one pcs have to decide to not act in the combat.(Killing creatures is not the only way to earn exp) I havent tried this yet, but how about this:The high level start with less treasure than the low level. Then they might wanna sacrefice the penelty of being low level to have more treasure. There is a lot of things about this level system that need to be fixed, and thats why I put it on this messageboard, so if there is something I should change please write.
FriendoftheDork 11-13-04, 03:00 PM	Sorry, it does not work without revamping the whole system, as levels matters too much when it comes to ability, survivability and having fun. It could work in other systems, for example LotR where a 5th level warrior could easily kill a 20th level ministrel that hasn't put any ranks in fighting skills. I've been playing in games with varying levels, and I tell you it's never fun to be 1st level when some are 10th. There's nothing wrong with lower level ppl travelling with higher level ppl, that's what NPCs are for. If gandalf, aragorn, boromir, legolas and gimli were NPCs, the hobbits were PCs. Or perhaps the other way around, the PCs are heroes escorting hobbits. My favorite part in LOtR is the end when the hobbits return home and have to fend for themselves, using what they've learned in their epic quest to defeat Saruman and his minions, and without help from the high level guys! Although as that point they weren't 1st level themselves ;)
Lord_Anthrax 11-13-04, 03:46 PM	Well, as long as your players are all happy with it, then go for it. But I'd suggest you keep the level difference between them from being more than two levels to save yourself the headache of scripting suitable encounters.
Winter's requiem 11-13-04, 04:46 PM	I guess I shouldn't use this system, it has to "cracks" in it. Maybe I'll make a level one game and see if the PCs become different levels. I once had a game where one player was level six while another was level two.