Fair Starting Level

In other games players have been allowed to join then party at the average level of the party, fair but not.

Example:
Kose and Jhawn start at level 1 and over the course of 10 sessions, Jhawn gains level 3. Kose on the other hand has half assed and is almost level 2. Then Kose goes and gets himself killed. The rest of the party is level 5 so the average level of the party is 4. Kose rolls up a new character and comes in at average level (4) thus surpassing Jhawn not through roleplaying or valor but through a DMs house rule. Not remotely fair.

In the current game players started at either lvl 1 or lvl 2 depending on their background. Now that backgrounds are manditory is it still a fair criterea for starting level? What happen when the party reaches mid level, high level?

How about you start at the average level of the party minus three or four.

Whats this starting at average level bull?

At lower levels who cares if we are 1st or 4th. Same difference.

Now once we hit mid to high levels why do you deserve special privileges?

Well maybe you earned them.

I can understand if you played your ass off and contributed to the overall party/campaign, then the DM says you know why I'll hook you up.

Why should we have a ?RULE? on this.

Example: say Alan was 6th level and he was backstabed and killed by..hmm lets say Sean. So, if Alan acted as stated above and was civil about it, then yes. He deserves better than a 1st level toon.

Overall why does this rule even exist?

Hmmm...

maybe you're right. there shouldn't be a rule. It should be wholely the GM's discretion. Some players like to think they know what level they'll start at. In the end, the Game Master knows who deserves the level 4 start instead of the toon start. I wonder if not knowing what you'll start at will encourage better roleplaying. Will people play better in hopes of a better start when they die? We'll see.

Yet, if we stuck with the rule, average level of the party minus two or three seems better in some cases and bogus in others. I don't PC enough to see it from the other side of the table. Its a shame that only Shoo and Chaz will ever comment.

I absolutely believe that it should be the discretion of the DM. I think the DM sees who really puts effort and care into their characters. The DM knows who will work hard to make their character an asset, regardless of level.

I actually have a few points to make, so I will just number them...

1. The whole idea of average level minus a few doesn't make sense to me. I think, if going by this type of rule, it should be based off the level of the character that died. For instance... Say Alan was level 4 and gets back stabbed by.... i don't know.. I will go with Chaz's example... GREED... But everyone else is level 7. Should he then start right back at level 4? No. It should be based on HIS level... not the level of other players.

2. So what happens when we get to even higher levels? If we are all steady playing at mid levels like 8, 9, 10... (if ever reached....) than how can you expect a player to join at level 1, 2, 3? Here, something needs to be completely established. Perhaps a more intense background... explaining things you've done, been through, battles fought, booty stolen.... those types of things that creatively introduces your character at a higher level.

3. Not every player is the same. Some of us will sit at the table and actually roleplay the entire time... interacting, giving ideas, saving others, saving ourselves, figuring out strategies... etc... Some sit at the table and only talk when it is their turn to roll. Who deserves the higher level? If you don't know how to roleplay outside of battle and dice roles, why should any consideration be given to level? You don't care enough so why should we? or the DM?

Too bad no one thinks I will ever post....

Great points

If its GMs discrescion than everyone has to accept his/her descisions and not cry and moan about them.

Why would I bother to give my opinion. You all know what it is and it would be ignored like most other things I say because I'm just trying to be "overpowered" even when I'm not.

The forum is so everyone can give their opinion and it will be there in writing for everyone to see. I'm curious about what your opinion is on the matter. If you and Lyrah can stop bellyaching over who's pussy is more raw and itchy we can get a decent dialogue going.

Yea, so Starting level. I think that is what we were talking about....

I like the way we used to do it where you would come back at a lvl or two lower than the average. This helps keep the lvls close and no one is left out from doing what they want/need to do. I also like the idea of coming back at the lvl you died at. The only problem with that is that the party will reach very high lvls quicker.

I've become partial to the idea of earning your level. Being level 7 because the last jerk that held your spot was 7 doesn't feel right to me. Not to say that starting at level 1 is the way(thus me starting this thread) but instant level of the party is lame. The others have earned their level and survived why should the guy that died have a baring on this new stranger?

That's why we said the average lvl minus a lvl or two. This way you wouldn't come back at lvl 7, instead you would come back at lvl 5 or 6.

Legendary wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. Just because you don't see what someone is trying to do, doesn't mean they're not doing anything. And just because someone isn't being outright and forward or it's just beyond your comprehension doesn't mean they're not role playing.

I'm not taking sides but I had to say something here. Everyone does roleplay differently.

Animated and irratic:
Chaz

Quiet and Reserved:
Toni

Sneaky and Cunning:
Dark Shoo
The Great ME
Greed

Disruptive and slightly retarded:
Flow Merro(PAT)
Random

Investigative and InCharacter:
Lyrah
Terrell

Most of our group fall into one or more of these categories Not all of us understand the other types. But we need to be tolerant. We should not condemn people for their roleplaying merely because its different. Toni hides in the corner of any scene 88% of the time but I haven't seen anyone post about that style of roleplaying

However, in the example given, You roleplayed being rude and antisocial but you didn't take any actions toward decifering the truth from the lies. If you were playing with the idea and intentions of finding out whether The Hand is evil you didn't actually roleplay any of it. I agree that your ROLEPLAYING shouldn't be destructively criticied but if your intent is to portray a specifc act or set of actions and the portrayal is poor then you can't be too mad at the audiance for not understanding.

"...Toni hides in the corner of any scene 88% of the time but I haven't seen anyone post about that style of roleplaying"
I didn't even think of this a a style of role playing. I always thought it was just the way he role played. If I had to think about it I would say that he probably does it because people in the group make fun of him too much. When he tries to do something, instead of letting him do what he wants to do and then giving him suggestions on some of the other things he could have done a lot of people just shout at him that hes stupid or that he should have done this or that. Now, these people might have been right, but that doesn't mean the way they vocalized themselves was. So this to a timid person would be very unnerving and make it so he doesn't want to do anything because it's just going to make things worse. Also, just because he didn't do something you wanted him to do so that it would benefit you over him doesn't mean he did the wrong thing. I'll have more later, I'm really hungry and haven't eaten anything today yet.

We're sorry MCP.

Okay guys so back on track, if I'm following correctly the general concensus is that starting level should rest solely on the shoulders of the GM. Even though a few believe that average level of the party -1 or -3 is also fair.

Thoughts people?

I would say -1 but your new character cant be higher level than your previous character.

The Great Gromwold wrote:
Kose and Jhawn start at level 1 and over the course of 10 sessions, Jhawn gains level 3. Kose on the other hand has half assed and is almost level 2. Then Kose goes and gets himself killed. The rest of the party is level 5 so the average level of the party is 4. Kose rolls up a new character and comes in at average level (4) thus surpassing Jhawn not through roleplaying or valor but through a DMs house rule. Not remotely fair.

Why not look at the flip side of this? What if the roles were reversed. What if Kose was lvl 7 and Jhawn was 9 and Jhawn died. Since he did put so much effort into his character would it be fair if he sacrificed himself to save Kose and then came back at lvl 1? I don't think so, but if he came back at the average minus a few lvls, he would come back as lvl 5, 6, or 7. I think this is much more fair than having him come back at lvl 1.

I also like how you used mine and Shawn's names with a slight change lol.

Needed names, nothing personal. I would have thought of funier names like Tyrone Bigums and Quagmire. Lmao!

With the starting level completely at the DMs discretion things would be situational and true sacrifice like Jhawn's would be evealuated fairly.

Lol Bigums...

Evaluated by whom? The DM? Which one? My only thing is if it is up to the DM, could it at least try not to be biased so that some aren't screwed over?

I would say that finding out what the other players thought about what lvl new players or dead characters come in as, but that wouldn't work. There are people in the group that would say that some people should come back at lvl 1 just because they think it would be funny.

Random... what a dick...

The GM's job is to be fair and though it seems contrary some of us try to be objective. I for one take into account what is best for the party, a player's participation, and effort by that player to progress the game. If by this criteria someone come off lacking they will be disappointed by their starting level.

Ok, I can see that. The problem with that is that since everyone is different, the way they think or perceive things are different as well. You, as a DM, might think that someone is not role playing or participating in the group, but the person playing might see it differently. They might think they're doing a good job and when they get penalized for doing this "good job" it's going to upset them. I for one hate telling the DM my ideas for what I think is happening and how I want to react to that event because I feel that the DM will change what he's trying to do to counteract what I'm doing.

For instance with the whole white wizard and the hand and dinner and all that stuff. I had ideas in my head on how I wanted to act, and I did what I needed to do in order to accomplish those goals. Now had I told the DM how I'm reacting to what's going on with my character, then the DM would change what his overall scheme was. The way I saw it happening was that this black knight was trying to get the orbs for some evil purpose. The white wizard was trying to stop him from accomplishing this. This is a good thing, but nothing says that the white wizard isn't trying to stop the black knight simply because he wants to do the same thing as the black knight. Now had I said that in game everyone would've been like, "O you're retarded and stupid and that doesn't make any sense." Then the DM would make sure that these events didn't take place just because someone thought of them and is already trying to find a way around their plan. Then I would look like a dumb ass cause it didn't happen the way I thought it might. Now, since I didn't say anything, and if I hadn't said anything here, the plan would've gone the way the DM wanted it to and since I was prepared for it we, as a group, could prevent this from happening. But that idea is out the window, of that I'm sure.

I know, it was wordy. The point is that telling someone what you plan on doing in the future will change the way that person thinks of doing things, whether they think it will or not. If you tell a child not to touch something, what do they do? They touch it. But had you not said anything they might not have ever touched it at all, or even ever thought of touching it. It's just how the human brain works.