There seem to be three main arguments that the people who advocate giving new characters less xp make.

The first is that it doesn't matter in this system how much xp you have. As was pointed out by Franigo, if it doesn't matter how much xp you have relative to the group, then logically, there is no reason not to give them the same xp as everyone else. You're just spiting the player. If it does make a difference, as I would argue, then you're singling out a player for punishment for something generally outside their control, and that's not fair.

The second argument is that it could be fun to play a character who is at a mechanical disadvantage from a story perspective. Let me make this clear: that decision should be made by the player, not forced on him by the GM. Not everyone, in fact I will venture to say most players, won't enjoy such a situation once the novelty wears off.

The third argument is that you should give them less xp to reward players who have been there the whole time (in the case of new players) or for playing smart (in the case of not dying). In the case of new players, many look long and hard for a group to join. It's often difficult to join an established group, especially if you're new to the area. While I don't disagree entirely with the idea that having been a consistent player aught to be rewarded, I think gear/credits is a more appropriate way to deal with it. As for missed sessions, the penalty is not getting to play. If someone regularly misses sessions, it might be time to look for a new player. In the case of someone dying, the assumption seems to be that if you die you were doing something stupid. This might be the case, but it's equally likely they were doing something sacrificial or heroic. They could be playing out their motivations. You shouldn't penalize someone for something like that. Now if someone deliberately jumps in the sarlaac pit, the GM and that player need to have a talk.

Since my response was lost in thread 3 (or whatever), here's my cut and paste:

You know what I might do? The whole point of playing is having fun. Nobody's going to like lagging WAY behind - so I would give them just a bit below the group average. However, I would start them as a starting character. Every session when the group gets (to pull a number out of the air) 10 XP, I'd give that guy 30 until he reached the Target Average.

That way, he'll still get to learn the character and how it works, there's a sense of growth and accomplishment and you get some built in story progression until he catches up.

I'm just starting a new player into my group today. The rest of the group is at about 350-400 earned XP; I had the new player create a character as per RAW, then gave her a 100XP boost. Now I'll give her 50-100% extra XP per session until she catches up with the rest, then taper it down to equal XP with everyone else.

snip... then you're singling out a player for punishment for something generally outside their control, and that's not fair.

...Snip... that decision should be made by the player, not forced on him by the GM. Not everyone, in fact I will venture to say most players, won't enjoy such a situation once the novelty wears off.

Our table is host to a group of people that are there to enjoy a session together and the growth of a character is part of that.

I think there is plenty to be said about each way people went about their handing out xp, and no one (up until your post) was disrespectful of how others choose to play or run their games.

snip... then you're singling out a player for punishment for something generally outside their control, and that's not fair.

...Snip... that decision should be made by the player, not forced on him by the GM. Not everyone, in fact I will venture to say most players, won't enjoy such a situation once the novelty wears off.

All I csn say in regard to this is that all games are not created equal. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. RPG's at our table aren't about 'fair' or 'punishment', they aren't about winning or losing, they aren't about right or wrong and the are never player vs GM.

Our table is host to a group of people that are there to enjoy a session together and the growth of a character is part of that.

I think there is plenty to be said about each way people went about their handing out xp, and no one (up until your post) was disrespectful of how others choose to play or run their games.

You said that your table is there to enjoy the session and growth of character is part of that. So, it's about fun. Let me put it this way. I've been on the receiving end of that kind of GMing and it's not fun. Starting at lower level, lower xp, or whatever power base the system uses will make most people feel like a second-class player. Because they are. No GM should do that to a player. If the player likes the idea, fine and dandy, but you gotta make sure it's what the player wants and not what the GM wants.

The crux of the issue is this: I suspect the vast majority of players won't see "special" treatment as a roleplay opportunity, but instead as a kind of demotion. It's simply bad GMing to force this on a player and then expect them to appreciate the opportunity. The GM's job is to make sure everyone is having fun. I GM or play in two groups and not a single player in either group would like having this done to them--sometimes for different reasons, and there's a couple who might even leave a group if that was pulled on them.

(To note, I think the idea of starting a new player off with a base character and accelerating their xp gain is fine, at least in this system.)

Perhaps you shouldn't speak for players in general since you seem to have a very narrow focus on what constitutes as a fun game and good GMing. What works for you works and I can't critique you for your games, however you seem to feel quite comfortable in telling others theyare "doing it wrong" and are having "bad fun". Remarks like "doing that to a player" "the receiving end" "to force" "pulled on them" underline an outlook that is very much none existent at our table(s) and really makes me feel like you shouldn't be playing the 'voice of the player'.

An RPG is not a contest, there is no first or second class, there is no 'doing something to someone else', there is a group of adults taking a character and enjoying its path. Our group enjoys taking a role and slowly seeing that role expand, learning something new about the person they are playing every session. Giving them more xp without them having played for it wouldn't even sit right with them at all. The phrase "that's not fair" has never been heard at any of our table(s) and I don't think i would want to play at any where that kind of attitude exists.

Oh look... GM's arguing with other GM's about which playstyle is right.
And as per usual, arguing that the other GM doesn't speak for all players, whilst at the same time managing to sound like they themselves are speaking for all players.

How unusual.

Look, here's my thoughts on the matter:
Ask the players.

That's all. If the players (not just the new player) feel that the new player shouldn't have any extra XP, then do it that way (assuming the new player wants to play with an experienced group without getting extra XP).
If they feel that he needs a boost, ask them how much of a boost they think is reasonable.

Personally, I'd suggest (to the players) my above mentioned suggestion since I know my players well and feel that they would accept that as a reasonable boost.

But in the end, it's all up to the players.

I am not, and I repeat, am not laboring under the illusion that I speak for all players. I was very clear tgat I was speaking for myself and the people I play with. If you would have really read the back and forth you wouldbhave found that I objectedvtobtge 'doing it wrong' remarks by the other poster and not their way of doing things.

Typical dialogue in my game when a new player joins:
"Did anybody write down our XP total?"
"Nope."
"Nope."
"Uh, let me check...no."
"OK. Does anybody remember our XP total?"
Another chorus of 'no's'! Alternatively three completely different numbers.

If that doesn't give off the impression no one cares about the XP totals I dunno what does

Typical dialogue in my game when a new player joins:

"Did anybody write down our XP total?"

"Nope."

"Nope."

"Uh, let me check...no."

"OK. Does anybody remember our XP total?"

Another chorus of 'no's'! Alternatively three completely different numbers.

If that doesn't give off the impression no one cares about the XP totals I dunno what does

Are you in my group?...

Typical dialogue in my game when a new player joins:

"Did anybody write down our XP total?"

"Nope."

"Nope."

"Uh, let me check...no."

"OK. Does anybody remember our XP total?"

Another chorus of 'no's'! Alternatively three completely different numbers.

If that doesn't give off the impression no one cares about the XP totals I dunno what does

Nobody cares about the XP totals, they just care about the stuff they bought with the XP.

And that shouldn't be too hard to reverse-engineer, since specializations have a cost and it's pretty easy to check the skills they had from the start.

Let's put it this way, if you had asked your players if they wouldn't mind reverting their characters to the starting stats, I'm sure the mood would be different.

("Ok, everyone, we have a new player, so everyone revert their character stats to the starter stats." -"Hell no!")

Unless, of course, they really didn't care about xp.

Typical dialogue in my game when a new player joins:

"Did anybody write down our XP total?"

"Nope."

"Nope."

"Uh, let me check...no."

"OK. Does anybody remember our XP total?"

Another chorus of 'no's'! Alternatively three completely different numbers.

If that doesn't give off the impression no one cares about the XP totals I dunno what does

Nobody cares about the XP totals, they just care about the stuff they bought with the XP.

And that shouldn't be too hard to reverse-engineer, since specializations have a cost and it's pretty easy to check the skills they had from the start.

Let's put it this way, if you had asked your players if they wouldn't mind reverting their characters to the starting stats, I'm sure the mood would be different.

("Ok, everyone, we have a new player, so everyone revert their character stats to the starter stats." -"Hell no!")

Unless, of course, they really didn't care about xp.

Wouldn`t they care more because they actually earned it?

As a player, I want to start out from scratch + extra for obligation/Duty/Morality, then earn xp for playng the game.

Turnover is fairly frequent in our SR campaign, so it's less big of a deal. Characters are played maybe a couple of runs, tops, then they retire while they're still ahead or are dead. In WHFRP2e, we're honestly perfectly fine with massively divergent XP totals, from zero to over 5k. It doesn't matter so much. The less experienced characters get taken under the wing of the more experienced ones, and it helps the party grow together quicker and rely on another. I should point out that in both games, combat is fairly rare, so it's fairly easy to find your niche if you want, even with but a little XP. The parts of the game where power level would matter, as in, "set encounters", we don't really run things that way (never have, either, because none of us started with DnD), so there's no real need for party balance. We've long since tossed CR, tossed anything remotely 'balanced' out the window in favour of "what is plausibly there". If my players (or me when I'm a player) want an easy goal, we pick one where, in our judgement, there's not much risk. If we want a challenge, generally the opposite. Again, if we were playing a traditional campaign with encounters etc., I'd probably pay attention to XP totals for balance reasons. Sandbox, though? No real need whatsoever.

Typical dialogue in my game when a new player joins:

"Did anybody write down our XP total?"

"Nope."

"Nope."

"Uh, let me check...no."

"OK. Does anybody remember our XP total?"

Another chorus of 'no's'! Alternatively three completely different numbers.

If that doesn't give off the impression no one cares about the XP totals I dunno what does

Nobody cares about the XP totals, they just care about the stuff they bought with the XP.

And that shouldn't be too hard to reverse-engineer, since specializations have a cost and it's pretty easy to check the skills they had from the start.

Let's put it this way, if you had asked your players if they wouldn't mind reverting their characters to the starting stats, I'm sure the mood would be different.

("Ok, everyone, we have a new player, so everyone revert their character stats to the starter stats." -"Hell no!")

Unless, of course, they really didn't care about xp.

Wouldn`t they care more because they actually earned it?

As a player, I want to start out from scratch + extra for obligation/Duty/Morality, then earn xp for playng the game.

Just pointing out his fallacy of saying "xp don't matter" because his players didn't keep track of it.

But like I've said earlier, it's up to the players.

Ask the players and see what they say.

After all, it's the players that are affected, not the GM.

And even in a game as "lax" as EotE, a new player can feel pretty useless in an experienced group since they are facing a higher class of enemies and difficulties.

So either the player ends up feeling like the "third wheel" or he ends up having to make his character very specialised to make himself a valued member of the group.

Regardless, he'll always be "behind" the other players when it comes to skills and abilities.

Sure, theirs may be earned, but that won't change the fact that they'll alwaysh ave more skills and abilities than the new player could ever get.

That is only the case if the other players continue to play there character to infinity. Something that never happened in my games... Some characters die, others reach their logical conclusion others still get to the point where the traits they want to buy cost them so much xp others do get closer to them in skill, etc. Also, there is a huge difference between new characters and new players, especially new players I would always start at the 'lowest level'. There is already plenty to keep track of and it might just be too much having them spend a large amount of xp at the get go.

Now, should you come to find the player is not enjoying himself and might feel like the proverbial third wheel you could chiose to cross that bridge when you find it.

We have found that it is not so much the experience that sets the character apart but the roll you chose for him/her.

Of course the xp deepens the character but that is another story completely.

Pretty much 100% in agreement with Dante here. People swap through characters frequently enough. I've only really experienced this "only plays one character all the time" on roll20 and I find it a bit strange for me personally (I'd get bored...), but to each their own.

That is only the case if the other players continue to play there character to infinity. Something that never happened in my games... Some characters die, others reach their logical conclusion others still get to the point where the traits they want to buy cost them so much xp others do get closer to them in skill, etc. Also, there is a huge difference between new characters and new players, especially new players I would always start at the 'lowest level'. There is already plenty to keep track of and it might just be too much having them spend a large amount of xp at the get go.

Now, should you come to find the player is not enjoying himself and might feel like the proverbial third wheel you could chiose to cross that bridge when you find it.

We have found that it is not so much the experience that sets the character apart but the roll you chose for him/her.

Of course the xp deepens the character but that is another story completely.

There are people that play the same characters in campaigns that last for years.

It's really not that uncommon actually.

Also, instead of waiting for the player to start feeling like a third wheel, I'd start by asking them if they think the new player should have the same xp as them or maby just a bit of a boost.

You know, being proactive instead of reactive.

It's a group dynamic thing more than anything else. In some groups, one may feel like the third wheel. It happens, but that's got less to do with your XP total and more how people relate to you because of it. In other groups, the inverse is true, and you're the new guy who's cherished and protected and coddled for a bit. In other constellations, people don't know your sheet or don't bother looking and treat you like a competent adult regardless of what's actually on your page. There's no real one rule for every group here.

You can always reward strong RP. If a guy comes in with a fresh character and plays the "party n00b" like a fiddle, he should be tipped. However, rewarding the RP doesn't have to come down to just XP. It can (and should) be more specific. Say "party n00b" is a Mechanic and performs some clutch repair, allowing a ship jump into hyperspace. Something as simple as "you feel like a badass, your confidence in your Mechanics skill increases, take a free skill rank in Mechanics" can go a long way towards catching up a fresh character and making a fresh character feel valued. This can be applied to any skill check where a Triumph is rolled, a clever solution is devised, or the player presents some action that is otherwise memorable.

If you take this route, try not to overuse it and make sure your experienced players get some loving as well.

And even in a game as "lax" as EotE, a new player can feel pretty useless in an experienced group since they are facing a higher class of enemies and difficulties.

So either the player ends up feeling like the "third wheel" or he ends up having to make his character very specialised to make himself a valued member of the group.

Regardless, he'll always be "behind" the other players when it comes to skills and abilities.

Sure, theirs may be earned, but that won't change the fact that they'll alwaysh ave more skills and abilities than the new player could ever get.

I agree to a certain point. In my group, the guy with the most xp is the most useless and fragile in combat. It all depends on the challanges. A new character with no extra xp could still be best in his or her field.

Pretty much 100% in agreement with Dante here. People swap through characters frequently enough. I've only really experienced this "only plays one character all the time" on roll20 and I find it a bit strange for me personally (I'd get bored...), but to each their own.

And see, that's crazy talk - at least from where I sit. I get VERY attached to my characters and hate to give them up. I've had characters run for years, like as in over a decade. Oh sure, I'll swap them when they dont work or when they hit the end of their story, but these instances are few and far between.

Pretty much 100% in agreement with Dante here. People swap through characters frequently enough. I've only really experienced this "only plays one character all the time" on roll20 and I find it a bit strange for me personally (I'd get bored...), but to each their own.

And see, that's crazy talk - at least from where I sit. I get VERY attached to my characters and hate to give them up. I've had characters run for years, like as in over a decade. Oh sure, I'll swap them when they dont work or when they hit the end of their story, but these instances are few and far between.

I envy you. The longest I've gotten to play a character was about a year.

It's a group dynamic thing more than anything else. In some groups, one may feel like the third wheel. It happens, but that's got less to do with your XP total and more how people relate to you because of it. In other groups, the inverse is true, and you're the new guy who's cherished and protected and coddled for a bit. In other constellations, people don't know your sheet or don't bother looking and treat you like a competent adult regardless of what's actually on your page. There's no real one rule for every group here.

Well sure.

I know groups that don't play with XP at all... I know groups that freeform so much that they don't even use rules.

But that's all beside the point here, because the OP was asking how people handle getting a new chracter in the group. If you give him some bonus xp or cybernetics or whatever.

He's basically asking how people do it, but this thread turned into a "this is right and this is wrong" type thread real quick.

My answer, as always, is to ask the players.

(Of course, I know my current playergroup pretty well, so I'd just do the thing I first described, since I know that's a decent start point for a new character in my group)

I find a good way to gauge how someone fits in before all that is even an issue is to do a regular board game night, though, and watch how they play and interact. Same reason business deals sometimes get made (or broken) on the golf court.

I have seen all types. Some people are fickle and switch often, others get attached and stick with playing the same character, ithers again set out with an idea where they want their character to go and once they reach are ready to move on. Other characters die or get detained or something else happens that gets them retired. Players move, have children, get swamped at work.

All the more reason to not hand out too much xp at chargen (for me) some characters have been around the block while others have not.

Additionally I have had players that were attached to their character roll up a new one only to completely reappreciate the game (this was in dd though) but they had such a different outlook on progress and filling a certain role in the group that they breezed to said role in 3 sessions.

And in regard to

Also, instead of waiting for the player to start feeling like a third wheel, I'd start by asking them if they think the new player should have the same xp as them or maby just a bit of a boost.

You know, being proactive instead of reactive.

I really dislike having to be this literal in a forum all the live long day and I don't just mean in this specific topic. You seem to be looking for things that aren't there and jump on everything that can be interpreted negatively and immediately try to 'outsmart' those you are conversing with. This is a forum, I don't feel like having to type out complete essays everytime I engage in a conversation with someone.

I have been a gm for over 25 years, I understand RPg's, I know my players, I don't wait for them to get annoyed or bored or feel inadequat. I am proactive and make sure everyone is included. Thanks for the advice. It was bot necessary though.