Unbalanced PC groups - is this okay?
Brimshack:
One of the things I liked about 1st edition D&D in comparison to 3.5 (I haven't tried 4th) is that you could start a 1st level character in an 8th level group. By the time the others made 9th, you'd be 8th. Still a little behind, but perfectly viable and capable of holding your own. That was much more difficult in 3.5, both because of the way x.p. worked and because players expected to start at comparable levels.
I like the experience of starting with a small a weak character that has to duck and dodge its way through a game or two, providing I have genuine hope of getting somewhere in time.
As a GM I also like to make deliberately unbalanced groups. For 3.5 I used to say things like; 2 Characters each with an ECL of 7 between them. Players could then decide for themselves; a 3rd and a 4th, perhaps a 2nd and a 5th? Maybe even a 1st and a 6th? In my current game it's point-buy system for all abilities, and I usually say 2 characters each with an extra 25 experience to spend as you like. Some players distribute it between the two, but most pack it all into one character. This way we still get some of the neophyte characters, but it also enables players to get some decent monsters made as well. Of course this wort of thing always works much better if the experience and leveling system facilitates 'catching up' so to speak.
So, I'm a big fan of diminishing returns. Whether its about newbie characters or those that fall behind, letting the little guy learn substantially more than the big one gives you the chance to enjoy the imbalance while indulging in the hope that one day your newbie will actually carry his own weight.
Daniel B:
Here here Cranewings, Brimshack,
Quote from: Brimshack on May 12, 2009, 06:14:11 PM
As a GM I also like to make deliberately unbalanced groups.
<snip>
Of course this wort of thing always works much better if the experience and leveling system facilitates 'catching up' so to speak.
So, I'm a big fan of diminishing returns. Whether its about newbie characters or those that fall behind, letting the little guy learn substantially more than the big one gives you the chance to enjoy the imbalance while indulging in the hope that one day your newbie will actually carry his own weight.
Right there with ya Brimshack. In fact I'd say I downright love mixed groups not just because of the tactical doors it opens, but because of the pure color. Also agree with you on the "diminishing returns", I've actually been working on a combat system to make it so the multiple numbers give a strong advantage, so that a bunch of little guys can reasonably compete with one big guy. I'm hoping this will make it very difficult to choose whether to one run big guy or several smaller ones. (And a decision that is difficult shows that the options are nearly equally valuable.)
Daniel
Brimshack:
It sounds like we are heading in similar directions, ST. Is your system available for perusal.?
Daniel B:
For those reading, I've sent Brimshack a private message, but ONLY because the following discussion isn't really relevant to the thread. (So in other words, feel free to message me as well)
Daniel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page