Has anyone had chracters that had different amounts of XP.

I know some GMs would want to avoid it, but does it makea large difference?

I guess i can see a highly skilled char would have more options for decisions open to them but their base stats are unlikely to vary too much.

The campaign I would want to run would involve ccharacters having to leave,join, and be created at different points and then possibly rejoin or cross between parties at different points.

my thinking is your fighting against the empire you want as many allies as possible and you want as many people too be as strong as they can be.

Eg. Character realizes she is force sensitive after 15 adventures, after 21 adventures finds someone willing to guide them, so they leave the EOTE style sub-campaign and join the F&D sub-campaign

The way xp can be spent is so broad it's tough to say definitively one way or another if it's an issue. Someone can laser focus xp expenditures and be an absolute terminator at a single aspect of the game, or they can blow 300 xp and not be particularly amazing at anything.

The way we run is if you get killed or decide to retire a PC you aren't enjoying you aren't on par with the 'survivors'. It's not a huge difference, but it is a little less. Still, with a little focus you can narrow the difference easily.

The position that sucks is to be 2nd and 3rd best at a few things - If your role is unique, or you are the best at your roll, then there isn't much of an issue. You have your purpose and moment to shine, and if you're a little less well rounded than everyone else, that's something that can be remedied in the future. However, if your character overshadowed in their element, that players going to feel like they're just along for the ride, which isn't any fun. A mechanic who's mechanics isn't any better than the Gadgeteer's and the Ace Pilot's it just going to feel kinda silly.

Once house rule I saw floating around here was to give an extra 5 'challenge' experience to anyone who was under the party highest as a way to catch them up organically, and because the challenges are harder for them than for the rest.

On the other hand, our group just has a "group xp level" that everyone builds to, even if it means a couple of our characters have 'jumped' a little after missing 2-3 sessions.

I use what I call group checks which addresses the whole notion of only person shines. So for example the group is trying to gain access through a secure door/portal and do so stealthily. So one PC has to slice the lock, another simultaneously has to slice the security system, another needs to use mechanics and monkey with the door mechanism itself, and another has to use mechanics and alter some facility wide hydraulics system.

This imo encourages cross specialization, which is absolutely in keeping with how an elite team actually operates. It discourages min/maxing if players know they might have to be able to execute a number of checks and they can't just be a modded vibro axe with a name.

It also lets players of varying levels of xp feel like they are contributing.

It promotes team work and discourages Kanye West syndrome.

That seems like a good system, really, but I'm not sure how many times you can actually arrange for that in the same game. Definitely something I'm going to keep in mind for my own games though. How do you interpret those? Does everyone roll for their own piece and resolve separately, or do you combine everyone's pips and get a final 'operation result'?

In my experience, though, its not the 'backup' or 'secondary that has the issue'. It's the tertiary, and the not-so-specialist. For example, in our game we have one guy who's the 'Second Best". He's our backup pilot, backup mechanic, backup gunbunny, and backup force user. He does great. But we had an issue early on with the guy who was originally our secondary mechanic and secondary face but ended up tertiary at both. This makes it hard in the normal course of play to find a point where you have 3 different checks of the same type going on at the same time that isn't just assist another.

Granted, we have 8 (and occasionally 9) players at our table, so we're large enough to end up with tertiary characters. So I guess the warning is just, make sure the new character isn't going to be super-redundant with the existing party.

I don't use it for every check, it's for points in the story.

How you structure it depends on the 'it', or rather what is trying to be accomplished. Another example, the group is flying through an extremely dense asteroid/ship debris field. The team has to have 2 pilots on the stick (Pilot), someone else running constant sensor sweeps (Computers), someone else feathering the shields since there is no way to avoid all debris (Mechanics), and you could think up additional checks if you use your imagination.

To me, the sensor guy is key, and I would likely allow him to parse out his positive results to everyone else to add to their results, it's a finite pool so they would have to make a judgement call round to round. Structure the difficulty of the other checks accordingly, and if sensor guy @$$es up, then add some setbacks or even a challenge to everyone else.

I'm also applying the group check thing to medicine. I think criticals are too easily dealt with in game, so I like to add a reason to have actual doctors and medics along. I don't allow any attempts on a daunting critical in the field unless it's a super doc with Master Doctor which would drop it to Hard, however even with Hard to simulate the serious number of hands needed in that type of injury, it requires skilled assistance, so someone else with medic skill to help out, there is no unskilled 'holdin the flashlight' boost dice allowed. All again to promote teamwork, cross spec, and discourage power gaming, etc.

In the group I'm playing with, there's my Scoundrel/Commando and a force user. We started at Knight Level, and even then I suggested she gets at least a bit more xp, since even though our skills are equal and don't much overlap, I only have to worry about skills and talents when she also needs to concern herself with force powers.

We talked it over and she's happy with the progression so far, I still see force users as a massive xp sink, far moreso than a non force sensitive.

From what I've seen, it's not too bad of an issue as long as the XP discrepancy isn't more than 50 XP. But as 2P51 noted, depending on how the PC in question is built, your mileage may vary.

I'm playing in a campaign currently where the PCs actually have very different XP totals simple because the GM accounts for Motivation in each session's XP rewards, with my Ataru Striker, the Twi'lek Gamber, and the Astromech Mechanic being the top-runners due to our respective motivations coming into play almost every session, while other PCs Motivations don't. However, the disparity isn't that big, with the Astromech having the most thus far while our Duros Fringer has the least XP with a difference of 30 XP between the two of them. And both PCs are quite good in their respective fields with some overlap; the Duros is delving into the Driver spec which offers some mechanic/repair-based stuff but she's not as good as the Astormech, who is delving into the Slicer spec.

That said, one of our players, who was running a Mercenary Soldier, has missed a few sessions and would would be coming back at roughly a 75XP deficit in comparison to the group average. Assuming he decides to start showing up again (we're not holding our breath), he'd probably be lagging quite a bit behind the other PCs as many of us have 3 ranks in our key skills and at least one rank in a number of secondary skills, though I think the player focused on skills instead of talents in the early going, so the Merc would probably still be very competent in his role (ranged combatant) but he'd be missing the "bells and whistles" that talents would provide.

Personally, my Ataru Striker isn't very competent outside of his niche skills, due in large part to spending XP on talents and Force Powers, as well as taking the Force Emergent spec to eventually work my way up to Force Rating 2. So based upon skills, he's pretty lackluster compared to many of the other PCs. But then again, when you're playing a Force user in this system, you're either going to be playing the long game in terms of your effectiveness due to splitting your XP, or you're going to be hyperfocused early on in one area but lackluster in others.

The gap in my group is now more than 100 xp. It hasn't been an issue so far. But, as the top PC has eclipsed the 300 mark, I'm letting new characters start at knight level now.

Oh, and I'm Robin-Hooding XP, as I've already mentioned somwhere else: taking 5 XP from the rich and giving them to the poor each session, to mitigate the gap step by step.

Has anyone had characters that had different amounts of XP.

I know some GMs would want to avoid it, but does it make a large difference?

It makes little-to-no difference at all unless the lower-XP character is duplicating nearly all skills and talents of characters with more XP.

In other gaming systems with levels (SAGA Edition, D&D, etc...), levels mean A LOT.....defenses, hit-points, base attack bonuses, saving throws, armor class, etc... We've played most of those systems and starting a 1st level character in a group of 7th level characters is either suicide or extremely ineffective and uninteresting to play.

In FFG SW, Wound Threshold and Strain do not increase as you gain XP unless you buy the talents and even then you're talking a few points difference. A non-Hired Gun or Bounty Hunter character just isn't going to be very effective with a weapon and doling out damage. A new character can easily surpass established characters in more than one field at creation. And the reverse is also true as those characters won't have skills and social talents. So, no big deal in XP difference. However, we have been "trained" to avoid the XP difference by playing other gaming systems. Our first guy to 'join in' wanted extra XP to "catch up". I compromised and started him with +10xp more than a starting characters. I just felt like 'Zero' was not acknowledging his concern. But he was easily the best shot, best leader, and best intimidater of the group at creation without any further XP.

Guess I thought maybe character relations and equipment could help characters still seem important despite XP.

And give bpost die appropriate to their background, like if a character is from a agricultural based world they'd probably have some bonuses to talking to certain farmers etc.

Varying XP within a party is one of those weird old 'Earn your fun' D&Disms. There's no real reason *not* to sync up everyone's XP.

You don't gain anything by having characters join the party at lower XP and it discourages natural retirement of characters, whilst giving XP rewards for 'good roleplay' or following character motivations penalises quieter players and also just kind of implies that some of your party are 'playing it wrong'. It's certainly not a big deal in this system, but still best avoided.

I would have thought starting at low XP means you have more to look forward to and just fun earning different possibilities

But also starting at low XP means you can learn how to use your character gradually so as to not get too confused with too much choice

Varying XP within a party is one of those weird old 'Earn your fun' D&Disms. There's no real reason *not* to sync up everyone's XP.

You don't gain anything by having characters join the party at lower XP and it discourages natural retirement of characters, whilst giving XP rewards for 'good roleplay' or following character motivations penalises quieter players and also just kind of implies that some of your party are 'playing it wrong'. It's certainly not a big deal in this system, but still best avoided.

Unlike D&D, characters with the same amount of XP aren't necessarily balanced in EotE. So, there is nothing wrong with characters being vastly different in total XP. Unlike D&D, minions that were a threat to you at character creation, can still be a threat to you at 1000XP. Why, because WT and Soak don't move much over the course of a character's life. Yes, there are talents and gear that can help, but there are always means to reduce their effectiveness as you aren't playing the HP/Damage wars that occur in D&D where something that can kill a level 1 fighter, can't even scratch a level 15 fighter, even when it is him and his 20,000 buddies.

As for players not retiring characters, that isn't really a problem one way or the other. Maybe the campaign needs to reach a logical conclusion. Maybe they like what they have, even if there isn't much more room to "grow" the character. One advantage, that has already been pointed out, of a player having to grow from 0, is that you get a completely different character than one that is just handed a large bucket of XP and told "go for it". For example, some Talents might get skipped because they don't offer any need for the new character when you can just burrow straight to those high Talents. Or, the player realizes they can buy a bunch of specializations and then start building up the skills and Talents. So, they rebuild a character they've done, but for a lot less XP due to the lack of organic growth via play.

I would have thought starting at low XP means you have more to look forward to and just fun earning different possibilities

But also starting at low XP means you can learn how to use your character gradually so as to not get too confused with too much choice

As to point 1: not everyone has fun playing the obvious newb with a lot fewer class toys to throw around

As to point 2: this is not an issue for everyone, especially if the replacement is due to character retirement or death

Basically I have never seen a good reason for XP disparity. I cannot really think of anything positive it would add to a game, but I can easily think of a lot of negatives.

Kanye West Syndrome

I'm gonna let you finish, but Han Solo shot first.

I keep my players together in xp from sessions and let the special xp i doll out be what separates them.

This is a social event - there is no value in having players fall behind in xp. We are a group of people sitting around my sectional couch enjoying our time together.

One of my players was unable to make it to our last session. I had her character silently tag along and roll dice as NPC support. She will apply the same XP the others have (minus whatever role playing xp bonuses she might have received for ingenuity). I am not going to penalize a player for having a real life.

The campaign I would want to run would involve characters having to leave,join, and be created at different points and then possibly rejoin or cross between parties at different points.

That's exactly what happens in the multi-GM campaign that I run . We've had sessions with 500xp discrepancies, but it hasn't been bad at all. We've even had a few missions where a new character was voted MVP at the end in a party of high level vets. It's one of the reasons why I love this system, as that just wouldn't be possible with Pathfinder, for example.

I feel having an xp disparity is natural because sometimes people learn at different rates.Also via the movies we do see a group with xp disparity.My main feeling on not awarding the same amount of xp to all players and at my table the only player(s) that took issue with that style of xp are people who like to build optimized (almost munchkin like) characters in DnD.In my opinion that is something that players of this system have to unlearn what they have learned to quote a wise old Jedi master.

I would have thought starting at low XP means you have more to look forward to and just fun earning different possibilities

But also starting at low XP means you can learn how to use your character gradually so as to not get too confused with too much choice

As to point 1: not everyone has fun playing the obvious newb with a lot fewer class toys to throw around

As to point 2: this is not an issue for everyone, especially if the replacement is due to character retirement or death

Basically I have never seen a good reason for XP disparity. I cannot really think of anything positive it would add to a game, but I can easily think of a lot of negatives.

What you can't see any reason a Jedi Knight might be with a Jedi apprentice or why they would have different skill levels or how there would be a story with these 2 together?

And I think if you say 'not everyone' still means there are some people you can see why this is the case meaning you can see some reasons.

Guess just depends if people just want to win and be better than each other or if they want a cool story

Just to clarify, while I'm fine with variable xp gains over the course of an entire campaign, I still prefer to give the same xp per mission (with a few individual +1 rewards like MVP and GM Assistant). The difference in xp for my campaign is due to people taking breaks or playing new characters.

What you can't see any reason a Jedi Knight might be with a Jedi apprentice or why they would have different skill levels or how there would be a story with these 2 together?

And I think if you say 'not everyone' still means there are some people you can see why this is the case meaning you can see some reasons.

Guess just depends if people just want to win and be better than each other or if they want a cool story

Having a the narrative of master and apprentice doesn't justify large XP disparities.

Your last line is the Stormwind Fallacy and it's 100% BS.

Guess just depends if people just want to win and be better than each other or if they want a cool story

Your last line is the Stormwind Fallacy and it's 100% BS.

I had to look up the Stormwind Fallacy after seeing this. And that is what that line is...

I've been considering doing a mentorship idea. If your character dies through the story, you start a new one with the default starting experience. However, if your character invests the time to develop an apprentice or protégé, in a similar method to the duty mechanic, and develop loyalty, that character gets a percentage of the dead characters experience (based on the loyalty, 20 loyalty is 20% of the experience)

This also works in how to add in a new character, by developing one in advance as contact of sorts. The party can work to buying a newer and larger ship (or homestead, base, etc) to house these characters.