So this is kinda related to my other post about the snipers from hades ( for some reason i cant say he ll?)
So i need to make a new character for the campaign im in but im only getting about 40% of the XP (120 extra from start) i hade for my other charater and mabye some bonus? (its uncleare) my question is being so far behind the curve is theire any way for me to catch up and be actully useful in the group
Also is this comon for many groups to do this in this star wars rpg?
Edited by amuller93How useful you will be is heavily dependant on the other Characters in that Party:
Are they super-specialized or broad and well rounded?
Using some strong/stacked Talents?
Got almost perfect gear (the gear itself and modding)?
Any Force users (and how far they got into the Force trees)?
Is there a role in the Party that no one really handles well? (Supportive Builds can be quite strong and pretty much always useful unless they are on their own)
With the somewhat strange way the other Char got himself removed, it is a bit of a stretch to really give useful advice. But there are a lot of very strong and almost broken Builds flying around which don't need a lot of XP to work well (in the case that this level of play will stay in place on your table). The Order 66 Podcast did some interesting builds in their Specialisation Episodes for example.
For your last Question:
Until now we had no PC casualties and also no one who wanted to make a new PC within an ongoing campaign, so I got no experience with such, but as a GM I'd vote to give the new PC the same XP as the old one, unless it is part of the new PC concept (Padawan anyone?).
Maybe it’s time to find a new GM
If I understand you right, you are making a character for an existing group and you are not getting total XP equal to what the existing characters possess, correct?
If that's the case, then yeah, why should you get automatically bumped up to the group's current XP total??? You didn't earn it or do anything. I understand that some play that way. i.e. your 350xp character dies so you replace it with another 300-350xp character you create from scratch.
I NEVER allow that, and here's why. SWFFG doesn't have the level and power discrepancies other games have. In other games that deal with "levels", a beginning-level character has low hit points, can't hit much, is behind on spells & powers, and can't really do anything compared to the others in the group. In other games you need to bring it somewhat close to the group's "level". In SW FFG, a beginning-level character can come in with YYGG in a skill (or skills) and instantly be among the best in the group. That goes for combat, piloting, social skills, and all others. That might not apply so much for 400, 500+ point characters when we're talking dedication(s) and multiple specializations.
That said, a starting character ALWAYS gets the basic starting XP, regardless (110 Human, etc...). I am not sure what your 40% or 120 means in your questions. But, there is no budging, IMO, on making a new character. As a GM, I also understand that players who spends all starting XP on Attributes are rather plain, so as a general rule I give out an extra 20-30xp to spend after they made a character. If others in the group are hundreds and hundreds of xp higher, then I might go to 40-50xp, no more. As a side note, if a new character is given 75xp or more to begin, a clever person can buy down a tree to Dedication. Hasn't played a second of gameplay and upped an attribute already. That never sat right with me.
Just now, DurosSpacer said:You didn't earn it or do anything.
Pretending to be a sarcastic robot or a feisty space princess is, of course, hard work.
I agree with Yaccarus. If I had killed off one of my player's characters, I would start them with the same xp or within 5%.
It sounds like this gm is either very inexperienced or very vindictive. If it's inexperience, try working with him and explaining what he's doing does not lead to healthy games. If he's vindictive, find another group.
As you lost your character from ignored rules if you do wish to still play I whoud power game like a MF
if the GM has a problem with this tell him it’s the only way you think you will have a chance (is he useing the knight level play rules from FD?)
1 hour ago, DurosSpacer said:If I understand you right, you are making a character for an existing group and you are not getting total XP equal to what the existing characters possess, correct?
If that's the case, then yeah, why should you get automatically bumped up to the group's current XP total??? You didn't earn it or do anything. I understand that some play that way. i.e. your 350xp character dies so you replace it with another 300-350xp character you create from scratch.
I NEVER allow that, and here's why. SWFFG doesn't have the level and power discrepancies other games have. In other games that deal with "levels", a beginning-level character has low hit points, can't hit much, is behind on spells & powers, and can't really do anything compared to the others in the group. In other games you need to bring it somewhat close to the group's "level". In SW FFG, a beginning-level character can come in with YYGG in a skill (or skills) and instantly be among the best in the group. That goes for combat, piloting, social skills, and all others. That might not apply so much for 400, 500+ point characters when we're talking dedication(s) and multiple specializations.
That said, a starting character ALWAYS gets the basic starting XP, regardless (110 Human, etc...). I am not sure what your 40% or 120 means in your questions. But, there is no budging, IMO, on making a new character. As a GM, I also understand that players who spends all starting XP on Attributes are rather plain, so as a general rule I give out an extra 20-30xp to spend after they made a character. If others in the group are hundreds and hundreds of xp higher, then I might go to 40-50xp, no more. As a side note, if a new character is given 75xp or more to begin, a clever person can buy down a tree to Dedication. Hasn't played a second of gameplay and upped an attribute already. That never sat right with me.
Well one the player was in the group for some time so he has put in the time
I for one try to keep all players at least close in power level otherwise you will have problems ie character is useless and the player gets board or stops caring. At the least I have them start with knight level play rules from FD let’s them get a lot of one tree and some cash to have some good gear but only one the shelf buys no crafted gear or whatnot
I had a new player join my game about a year ago.
The other PCs had about 600 earned XP, and I started the other PC with 100 less (so about 500 earned XP).
It has never been an issue. His character is just as capable, and brings skills that the others don't have.
7 hours ago, salamar_dree said:I had a new player join my game about a year ago.
The other PCs had about 600 earned XP, and I started the other PC with 100 less (so about 500 earned XP).
It has never been an issue. His character is just as capable, and brings skills that the others don't have.
I would just wanna point out that i have been playing with this group for almost a year now and im baiscly all that time is for nothing now, my GM is saying that thiere will be story reasons to catch up but i honestly dont buy that
Also thats only a 100xp diffrences my other charater hade 340 earned xp so im getting 220 less than what i hade
Edited by amuller93I had a new player join a campaign that was almost 30 sessions in and she never once complained about feeling inadequate.
1 minute ago, Vorzakk said:I had a new player join a campaign that was almost 30 sessions in and she never once complained about feeling inadequate.
Thats different, if i joined a ongoing campaign i would be fine with the starting XP but after playing over a year getting bumped down to 40% of my earned XP just dose not sit rigth
I've had players with characters that died and when they returned the group had earned 50 xp and 200 xp. The first time he got the value the second time it was about 180xp. This was because the 20xp variance was RPing rewards. This player was fine with that because he soon made it up using every chance to RP and gain those xp.
The disparage you talk about seems off. The only way I would allow that would be to offer the reward of greater xp later. If you are new to a character you may plan out the 300xp from creation, which is fine but knowing how a character plays may change your opinion on how to spend the xp. As a GM I would segment the xp over a number of sessions. For example if the invested heavily into mechanics they can't retract it but slowly they can see how their character fits into a group. It would only be over a number of sessions.
From canon think of episode IV. Leia and Han would have more xp than Luke at the beginning as they have had more interesting lives before the film. Luke (between his experiences during the film) gains more xp than Han and Leia and by the end is closer to them in ability.
9 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:If I understand you right, you are making a character for an existing group and you are not getting total XP equal to what the existing characters possess, correct?
If that's the case, then yeah, why should you get automatically bumped up to the group's current XP total??? You didn't earn it or do anything. I understand that some play that way. i.e. your 350xp character dies so you replace it with another 300-350xp character you create from scratch.
I NEVER allow that, and here's why. SWFFG doesn't have the level and power discrepancies other games have. In other games that deal with "levels", a beginning-level character has low hit points, can't hit much, is behind on spells & powers, and can't really do anything compared to the others in the group. In other games you need to bring it somewhat close to the group's "level". In SW FFG, a beginning-level character can come in with YYGG in a skill (or skills) and instantly be among the best in the group. That goes for combat, piloting, social skills, and all others. That might not apply so much for 400, 500+ point characters when we're talking dedication(s) and multiple specializations.
That said, a starting character ALWAYS gets the basic starting XP, regardless (110 Human, etc...). I am not sure what your 40% or 120 means in your questions. But, there is no budging, IMO, on making a new character. As a GM, I also understand that players who spends all starting XP on Attributes are rather plain, so as a general rule I give out an extra 20-30xp to spend after they made a character. If others in the group are hundreds and hundreds of xp higher, then I might go to 40-50xp, no more. As a side note, if a new character is given 75xp or more to begin, a clever person can buy down a tree to Dedication. Hasn't played a second of gameplay and upped an attribute already. That never sat right with me.
To be honest, I have some trouble reconciling your viewpoint with how I play or think of RPGs. Would you mind clarifying some of the "whys" to help me get where you're coming from?
FFG Star Wars games aren't very lethal to PCs, PC death is most often the result of extremely bad luck or a conscious choice, either by the player sacrificing the PC, or the GM "executing" a downed player (this could include getting captured, never to be seen again, or any other reason that the PC exiting the campaign). Why then would you feel the need the force a replacement PC to start at a "rookie" level?
Do you feel that the natural path for campaigns is for PCs to start out at "low level" and always work their way up? Do you feel like it's cheating to start off with bonus xp?
Would you ever, in any game, allow someone playing a fairly grizzled veteran with impressive skills if they had a good character concept to support it? Even if the player was willing to advance at a slower pace, or not at all (or even losing xp as age is slowing the PC down or something)?
Why do you feel that skilled/powerful PCs is something that needs to be "earned"?
Would you feel that if a new player joined a long campaign with same amount of xp on their PC as you have on yours after playing the campaign for a long time would lessen the experience for you? Would you feel that your xp and/or your dedication (or even effort) to the campaign would be devalued? As a GM, do you worry that your players would feel this way?
Do you think it should be an achievement to have a powerful PC? IF so, why?
9 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:SWFFG does n't have the level and power discrepancies other games have.
This is an interesting point, because there's also something else other games do that SWFFG don't, namely increasing rewards as you "level up". 20xp is worth about the same if you only had 100xp previously or even 1000xp.
In D&D-style games on the other hand, if you join an 8th level-party with a 1st level character, assuming you survive, the sheer amount of xp you'll be raking in will send you rocketing up the levels, meaning that in short order, you'll only be a level or two behind, rather than seven.
16 minutes ago, MrTInce said:I've had players with characters that died and when they returned the group had earned 50 xp and 200 xp. The first time he got the value the second time it was about 180xp. This was because the 20xp variance was RPing rewards. This player was fine with that because he soon made it up using every chance to RP and gain those xp.
The disparage you talk about seems off. The only way I would allow that would be to offer the reward of greater xp later. If you are new to a character you may plan out the 300xp from creation, which is fine but knowing how a character plays may change your opinion on how to spend the xp. As a GM I would segment the xp over a number of sessions. For example if the invested heavily into mechanics they can't retract it but slowly they can see how their character fits into a group. It would only be over a number of sessions.
From canon think of episode IV. Leia and Han would have more xp than Luke at the beginning as they have had more interesting lives before the film. Luke (between his experiences during the film) gains more xp than Han and Leia and by the end is closer to them in ability.
huh. I always figured it was because Luke's player was a hardcore culture gamer that sank all his xp into into Knowledge (Moisture farming) and got permission to respec when he realized it wasn't that kind of campaign.
I mean, whatever beef you and the GM is best resolved away from the table anyway. Talk to your fellow players, see if they feel the same about your griences, especially if you feel there is an inequality of play going on. If they feel similarly, then you might have bit more authority to talk on the subject. What I am going to give
What my group does is, that regardless of anything else, new characters start off with at least Knight level, and they might get 100-150 more to match the advanced level of PC we are playing at. At the moment we have characters ranging from 2800xp right down to 500-600 and the system works as long as the players have a very clear idea who they want their character to be. My general experience is newer generalists generally struggle to be meaningful, but specialist characters are just as viable a character as a really experienced character as long as the players are willing to allow the character to make checks and to grow in their field of speciality. It helps if the campaign has ample opportunity to display skills outside of combat prowess. Such as commanding masses of troops, negosations, slicing, stealth and so fourth. The broader pallet of skills the GM encourages, the more diverse and the less the XP difference actually makes, because there would always be an area of speciality that isn't as great as what it could be.
We also expressively prohibited people starting as F&D characters for a time, because every new character seemed to be rolling with it and it was greatly diminishing the dramatic effect that losing a Force Sensitive character was so we decided, at least for a period of time that there would be no more force characters. Anyone we lost now was someone we couldn't easily replace. Of course the next player who lost a character immediately rolled up a Force Exile (Sigh) but at least the intent was there.
11 hours ago, amuller93 said:So this is kinda related to my other post about the snipers from hades ( for some reason i cant say he ll?)
So i need to make a new character for the campaign im in but im only getting about 40% of the XP (120 extra from start) i hade for my other charater and mabye some bonus? (its uncleare) my question is being so far behind the curve is theire any way for me to catch up and be actully useful in the group
Also is this comon for many groups to do this in this star wars rpg?
To take the easy one first. I can't really say if it's common for groups to start players with new characters off at a lower XP level than the rest of the group. Amongst my normal gaming group, one GM does it for his D&D3.5 campaign consistantly. His argument is that he doesn't want a new character to enter the group and completely disrupt the group dynamic, before they've had some games to "find their place within the group". That's based on a couple of bad experiences he's had in the past. Personally it rubs me the wrong way, because when I've experienced it, I've felt like I've been the 3rd wheel until the character's caught up to the rest of the party. But that's d20 and level based games. FFG and level less games have a different dynamic.
If I'm reading you right, you're starting with 120XP vs. the roughly 300XP the party has at this point? In this case I'd say that you'll probably be able to feel it, but depending on how you create your characters, it'll be more or less of an issue. It will also depend on what you specifically run into in the game. If you run some times with very few dice rolls and lots of roleplaying, then it's not going to be much of an issue. But if you roll dice all the time, and have to use a broad spectrum of skills and abilities, and face above average difficulties, then it could be an issue.
Personally I wouldn't start off a player with less XP than the rest of the group, but that's me, and it's partially because I personally HATE playing at beginning levels where I always find that I can't create a character that even remotely matches the character in my head.
As for "catching up" to the other players, that will depend entirely on how your GM awards XP. If you all get the same XP always, you'll never catch up. If the GM awards differentiated amounts of XP based on some factors, then you might catch up at some pace, depending on the details.
My recommendation to you would be to voice your concern on the matter with your GM, but start off at the level he wants you to, and then see how it goes. If it turns out that it's not an issue, then just go with it. If it turns out that it creates problems, either mechanically for the character, or seriously detracts from your enjoyment of the game, then take it up with your GM again, and see if you can't come to some arrangement.
14 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:If I understand you right, you are making a character for an existing group and you are not getting total XP equal to what the existing characters possess, correct?
If that's the case, then yeah, why should you get automatically bumped up to the group's current XP total??? You didn't earn it or do anything. I understand that some play that way. i.e. your 350xp character dies so you replace it with another 300-350xp character you create from scratch.
I NEVER allow that, and here's why. SWFFG doesn't have the level and power discrepancies other games have. In other games that deal with "levels", a beginning-level character has low hit points, can't hit much, is behind on spells & powers, and can't really do anything compared to the others in the group. In other games you need to bring it somewhat close to the group's "level". In SW FFG, a beginning-level character can come in with YYGG in a skill (or skills) and instantly be among the best in the group. That goes for combat, piloting, social skills, and all others. That might not apply so much for 400, 500+ point characters when we're talking dedication(s) and multiple specializations.
That said, a starting character ALWAYS gets the basic starting XP, regardless (110 Human, etc...). I am not sure what your 40% or 120 means in your questions. But, there is no budging, IMO, on making a new character. As a GM, I also understand that players who spends all starting XP on Attributes are rather plain, so as a general rule I give out an extra 20-30xp to spend after they made a character. If others in the group are hundreds and hundreds of xp higher, then I might go to 40-50xp, no more. As a side note, if a new character is given 75xp or more to begin, a clever person can buy down a tree to Dedication. Hasn't played a second of gameplay and upped an attribute already. That never sat right with me.
To each their own, but dang man, that sounds like a miserable group to play in.
While this game doesn't have levels and challenge ratings or what not, XP earned does have an effect. The gap between a new character and one with 500 experience is HUGE. The 500 experience character could have progressed to the bottom of two different class trees while starting a third and also powering up several skills. While the lack of levels doesn't make the new character feel weak by some basic number you can easily compare, that new character is not going to contribute basically at all in the party which is going to make for a very boring and unexciting adventure for the new character. A 350 xp character is going to have progressed to the bottom of 1 tree and specialized heavily. To suddenly throw a brand new character into that mix is going to suck. Seriously, a 350xp medical specialized person is going to be better at repairing a spaceship than a brand new character that is a mechanic. A 350xp character that doesn't even focus in combat is going to throw enough random xp towards combat that they will fight way better than a brand new combat orientated character.
And that is to say nothing for various skills that a person has earned. A 500, or even a 350 xp person is going to have increased base stats, hp, armor, etc. They are going to have all sorts of special skills they can trigger in and out of combat to give themselves advantages. The new player is not going to have any of that.
Beyond all that, think of the encounters they are going to face. As a group increases their experience, a GM has to throw more and more difficult adversaries their way. Those established characters are going to be matched to what they are facing, while the new character won't have anything to really add to the encounters.
On top of all that, think of the other things that the established characters have. They've likely received new gear, weapons, etc. On top of that, they've likely upgraded that gear to be even more effective.
A 350 xp combat character could be throwing 5 yellow attacks with blues, advantages, or lower crit ratings on top of that when you consider how the experience could be spent and how the weapon could be upgraded. Where as that character brand new was throwing 2 yellow, 2 green at best. Those are pretty darn far apart. And that doctor that started with a 3 green attack is likely to have thrown at least a little experience towards weapon skills by 350 xp and is now throwing 2 yellow 1 green with a blue and an advantage making the guy that barely ever contributed to combat before feel like he's superior to the rookie who is combat focused.
To have a gaming environment where all the players can feel like they can contribute equally, they need to be on an equal playing field. To leave a new player, or a new character (due to a death or something), significantly behind the other players is an injustice and creates a less than desirable playing experience. That new player is going to fail more, do less damage, create less cinematic exciting events from advantages and triumphs than other characters. They are going to feel like they are just along for the ride while barely contributing for many sessions before they can invest enough to make them worthwhile. On top of that, they'll feel the need to specialize their character heavily into a niche area to actually make their mark on the group which encourages min/maxing.
If you are playing edge and a new character gets included, it's not about if that character or player has 'earned' that xp. Its about what makes a good play experience. There is no reason that the new character to the edge campaign is some nobody off the street that has no experience. They could be an accomplished criminal with years of experience that is just hooking up with the group. If you're playing a Age of Rebellion campaign and a new player joins the group, it doesn't have to be some fresh recruit that just finished basic training. It could be a trained operative that is being assigned to your task force. Just because that person or player hasn't played a second of gameplay, or contributed previous to the campaign doesn't mean they have to be a dullard that has to play with a handicap. An entire universe of activity exists outside of what your 4 or 5 characters are doing.
When Han or Jyn joined the Rebellion, they weren't brand new character without any experience. They have a lifetime of experiences, they were on par with the other characters in the story. They were able to contribute on an equal level with the people that were already part of the story.
Now, to be fair, you do you. If your group likes this set up, then by all means, make things as difficult and as unforgiving as possible. It takes all kinds to make the world go round. I'm no more right or wrong than you, simply sharing an opinion as you did.
I think there’s a lot of room in the middle that can be looked at.
If a new character enters a campaign - be it a new character for an established player, or someone new joining the game - tossing a little extra XP isn’t a crazy notion. But at the same time, I doubt I’d be inclined to give them the same earned XP as the other characters.
But then, I’m also a proponent of - unless the player actually wants to play a brand-new-to-the-galaxy character - tossing a little extra at the players to reflect that they’ve got some history to them before coming together. Whether that means using knight level creation rules or - as I did once - randomly generating the amount of XP is up to the situation.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said:To be honest, I have some trouble reconciling your viewpoint with how I play or think of RPGs. Would you mind clarifying some of the "whys" to help me get where you're coming from?
FFG Star Wars games aren't very lethal to PCs, PC death is most often the result of extremely bad luck or a conscious choice, either by the player sacrificing the PC, or the GM "executing" a downed player (this could include getting captured, never to be seen again, or any other reason that the PC exiting the campaign). Why then would you feel the need the force a replacement PC to start at a "rookie" level?
We have a veteran group (5) that's played together a long, long time. We like character development. We tried the "start-out-at-high-level" thing once or twice over the years and it felt cheapened and hollow. We tried "mid-level", ....same feeling. Not fun. We played 1-2 adventures and had no attachment to characters who were rather "accomplished" by measurements of advancement. When we had a replacement character (either by death or player decision to stop playing their current character), they started out within reason with respect to the others.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said:Do you feel that the natural path for campaigns is for PCs to start out at "low level" and always work their way up? Do you feel like it's cheating to start off with bonus xp?
I (we) generally start everything at low-levels. Yes, a natural path. Cheating? No. I never said "No" bonus XP. in SW FFG, we usually start with 20 bonus XP after creation. A bunch of bonus XP comes across as unmerited and cheap. Hollow. Empty.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said: Would you ever, in any game, allow someone playing a fairly grizzled veteran with impressive skills if they had a good character concept to support it? Even if the player was willing to advance at a slower pace, or not at all (or even losing xp as age is slowing the PC down or something)?
I'd never be for gimping a character is such a way. If it's fine with them playing a veteran and they want to play it, then fine. It's all about people being able to play. I just don't accept that playing a character with less experience is in some way making them feel bored or useless, as some have said.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said: Why do you feel that skilled/powerful PCs is something that needs to be "earned"?
Yes. Otherwise, why advance? Why not just come every week (or so) with as much experience as your heart desires and play whatever you want? Also, what does it say to current players? I suppose if each new character got the same 400xp, then why not show up each week with a different "new" character? One week, a Slicer. Another week, a marauder. Yes, our group sees it as earned. Something invested over time. It's just our way. To each their own, though.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said:Would you feel that if a new player joined a long campaign with same amount of xp on their PC as you have on yours after playing the campaign for a long time would lessen the experience for you? Would you feel that your xp and/or your dedication (or even effort) to the campaign would be devalued? As a GM, do you worry that your players would feel this way?
Do you think it should be an achievement to have a powerful PC? IF so, why?
Yes. It lessens the experience for me (and others I play with, mostly). Even more so if I have a regret over the build choice, career choice, or anything else. If that person gets a "re-do", then why not me? Why not everyone? Let me switch that 125xp I put into that useless Piloting Career and put it into Marauder so I am more optimized.
All in all, an RPG is just stuff on paper (or digital). You can just "give" yourself as much XP as you want. Our group has gamed since the mid-late '90's. We did WEG d6, SAGA, and now FFG. Characters that lasted mean a lot to us. We're very nostalgic, often bringing up the exploits of past characters. Can I just sit down and create an 800xp FFG character from scratch? Sure. I've seen the LFG's where the group begins with 1,000xp characters. We simply have no desire to create powerful characters with no history to them.
12 hours ago, penpenpen said:This is an interesting point, because there's also something else other games do that SWFFG don't, namely increasing rewards as you "level up". 20xp is worth about the same if you only had 100xp previously or even 1000xp.
In D&D-style games on the other hand, if you join an 8th level-party with a 1st level character, assuming you survive, the sheer amount of xp you'll be raking in will send you rocketing up the levels, meaning that in short order, you'll only be a level or two behind, rather than seven.
Been there, did that. Again, the 'cheapened' feeling came into play and that character who advanced 2-3 levels at a time (in that manor). Over the years, we came to realize that starting at 3rd or 5th level was a good compromise in D&D. Whatever the judgment call is to get people involved and feel useful. I feel that the discrepancy is FAR FAR less in FFG. Starting off with YYGG and a few Talents isn't so shabby.
{{EDIT}} D&D also has Resurrection and Raise Dead.
I think that this can be a sore subject for groups, every player at the table has their own expectation of various game components, as a GM, being a player themselves, you want to make it known at the start of the campaign what happens when a PC needs to be replaced and what happens when a new player joins and requires a character. Now whether this is determined by all the players forming of the campaign or just the GM, it should be clear these are the guidelines. The so called house rules.
As a gamer for a long time, I've seen many groups fall apart for the most often occurring situations; improper communication and clearly set expectations. In my early days, some GM's had this feeling they owned the game or the campaign, much of this established by early RPGs, with all kinds of other caveats too. Those kind of GM's are still common unfortunately, role-playing games have come a long way, some in fact have recommendations of what to do when either of the two above situations occur. If these guidelines haven't been set, I'd ask the group what they feel should be the guideline for PC death and replacement and new player's character building guidelines. A good GM player will listen to what the players on the other side of the table have to say.
Now onto your discourse of having less XP with your replacement PC than you had earned with your previous PC. This game is a lot more forgiving than other games for lower XP characters, mentioned above by many players. In some of the games I run, depending on the system, I'm pretty lenient allowing the player's replacement PC to be built with the same amount at the former PC. In a few they start with "0" XP, often I start them at half the amount or 20 to 25% less.
I do have a few exceptions i use though;
A player who was properly role-playing their PC, but died heroically (and I ask those around the table beside the player who's PC died, they provide reasons and vote) will be allowed to have full XP, even for the current session. More often then not, the vote is pretty unanimous.
A player who's PC dies, but not heroically, say in a ruthless die roll (Like the time I rolled 3 Triumphs (total 4 success), along with 4 advantages with, With two failures, 2 disadvantages 3 Yellow, 1 Green, 2 Blue against a PC with a difficulty die pool of 1 Red, 2 purple & 2 black. So after the two advantage bumps from equipment, 4 advantages after 2 disadvantage reduction I vaporized a droid PC in one hit with a 91 initial critical roll plus the weapons viscous 3, the extra 20% from two Triumphs and 1 purchased crit from advantages. 151 exactly.) So, in the case of just bad luck, if it was entertaining for the table, the PC would have 75% of their former XP and 25% less awarded from the current session XP and gains a special perk off a random table die roll for the new PC, they just don't know what it is...
Now a PC killed because a player does something truly stupid with their PC, i.e. steps in front of the bazooka, insults the king, tries to go straight when only left and right are options, or the classic player failure, failing to back down because they are a PC and have a chip on their shoulder. They will start 50% less current XP, but the PC is awarded for the session XP normally.
Killbox scenarios don't occur in my games very often, just when a PC gains certain notoriety or organically player's PCs cross the wrong line, such as PCs failure to notice the trap or bite off more than they can chew or an NPC feels slighted and wants to humble the PCs. PC deaths here would be even up, no session XP.
As another player at the table you should be able to express your concerns and expectations about this XP reduction, as thats your concern. The advice by everyone here offer some really good ideas, some are more extreme, but as a player what is your expectation when you come to play a game with this group. I'm almost 50 and I don't have time for fiddle faddle, but I'm an adult who will express my expectations to my GMs and the other players. My players expect the same and the horrors I can tell you of running RPGA games for 20+ years at cons versus home games and the nightmares they provide in different ways is like sleepwalking in the Dreamlands...Cthulhu Fhtagn!
DurosSpacer,
I like your replies to those questions. Our level based games are typically, if you kick the bucket, however it happened and depending on the current average level, replacement PCs usually are 1 to 2 levels below, below 5 level, often they might be 1st or 2nd level.
Are fellow players realize our PCs have to pick-up the slack or provide the new party member a little protection or support. We often use character tree's similar to what 2nd edition AD&D Dark Sun campaign rules suggested. Thus the new character has some form of connection to the remaining active/inactive party members.
1 - Fire the GM and find another. Regardless of other discussion it DOES sound like he has it in for you; he killed your character cheaply and now is restricting your ability to play on the same field as whatever he is going to throw at the rest of the party.
2 -Talk to the other players prior to start of the next game. If they agree with you then talk to the GM prior to game start, if that discussion fails to yield results get up and leave. You don't need that kind of negativity.
3 - IF the GM is willing to work with you maybe you can come up with a concept and back-story that will blow him away.
Contrary to other statements 100-150 XP of difference can be VERY significant with Access to the right Talents...that's potentially a Dedication and some significant skill bumps. So definitely worth at least a discussion with the GM.
Interesting answers! Don't take the way I phrased the questions as criticism or me putting words in your mouth. If it came across that way, I apologize, that was unintentional. I'm aiming for "direct", not "confrontational".
8 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:We have a veteran group (5) that's played together a long, long time. We like character development. We tried the "start-out-at-high-level" thing once or twice over the years and it felt cheapened and hollow.
Don't get me wrong I love it it when character development ties into the game mechanics and vice versa , but that means that many games' assumption that you should start out playing a rank amateur (I think D&D is one of the worst culprits here as even the most powerful lvl1 character is pretty much a wet noodle compared to one with just another level or two of advancement). If I want to start as an amateur, or the GM's campaign dictates that I should, that's fine. If I'm to join a seasoned group, I wouldn't want to always be relegated to playing the new meat that gets to stand and look at the veterans in awe, particularly if there's no chance I will ever catch up. Playing the new guy/girl can be challenging enough even if you start out on par with them competence-wise. I mean, just the idea of playing someone who steps into a fallen comrade's shoes is a goldmine for character development, and not necessarily the kind that would be reflected in stat increases.
Also, if I do play the new meat, it's pretty likely that there will be some kind of mentor-student dynamic ( "watch and learn, kid!" ) where an accelerated progression would be highly justified.
8 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:A bunch of bonus XP comes across as unmerited and cheap. Hollow. Empty.
I'm sorry, I don't really get this at all. I can't even say that I think you're wrong because this attitude towards xp is more or less incomprehensible to me. Which is of course why I find this exchange of ideas so interesting.
To me, xp is more or less simply a measure to simulate character competence. Sure getting some xp at the end of the session to fill out spec trees is fun, but it's "bonus fun" so to speak, and not part of the fun of rpgs for me. If you understand my meaning.
9 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:I'd never be for gimping a character is such a way. If it's fine with them playing a veteran and they want to play it, then fine. It's all about people being able to play.
I'd love for you elaborate on this, because I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
By "gimping a character", do you mean that you would never gimp your own character that way, or force such a gimping on any of your player's characters?
To elaborate myself, I never meant that reduced or negative xp should be forced upon a player, rather being part of an understanding between player and GM beforehand (ideally, all the players). Something like "You may start out with more XP from the start, but as you're going to be a bit of a mentor/role-model/inspiring rival to the other PCs they're going to earn a bit more xp (or you will earn less, it's relative anyway) until they catch up." or even "You may start as the old grizzled veteran/mentor that will help keep them going through early tough encounters, making you awesome in the early part of the campaign but will earn none, or even negative xp, with the understanding that you will likely be surpassed by the others at some point in the campaign, with the idea that this character will take backseat as support after that point in the campaign (if he/she hasn't run into a
mentor occupational hazard
already at that point
).
9 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:Yes. Otherwise, why advance? Why not just come every week (or so) with as much experience as your heart desires and play whatever you want? Also, what does it say to current players? I suppose if each new character got the same 400xp, then why not show up each week with a different "new" character? One week, a Slicer. Another week, a marauder. Yes, our group sees it as earned. Something invested over time. It's just our way. To each their own, though.
I realize I might be in the minority, but as for the people I play with, I would be fine with handing out sheets and telling them to fill out whatever numbers they'd like, and what would fit whatever character they had in mind. And they would come right back and ask what xp level would fit my campaign. And then they'd have fun with the constraints.
As for bringing a new a character, mechanics-wise, I'd be fine with this. Most of the time though, my campaigns are heavily involved with the PCs backstories, and they're rarely an interchangeable party of adventurers, so there would be consequences story-wise we'd need to work out. But if a player realized they weren't having fun with the build they had, or realized there was a build that fitted their idea of the character better ("I realized Droid Specialist is better fit than Outlaw tech"), I'm for the most part fine with letting them do a complete respec from the ground up. Some would argue that this would be open to abuse, and they'd be right. But I don't have players that would do that at my table. Not because such behavior is strictly banned, but because we wouldn't be looking for the same thing in a game and wouldn't have much fun together. They tend to weed themselves out of my player pool pretty quickly. I might be lucky like that.
9 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:Yes. It les sens the experience for me (and others I play with, mostly). Even more so if I have a regret over the build choice, career choice, or anything else. If that person gets a "re-do", then why not me? Why not everyone? Let me switch that 125xp I put into that useless Piloting Career and put it into Marauder so I am more optimized.
Well, why indeed not you? Why indeed not everyone? Why should you be saddled with prior bad decisions if it makes it less fun for you? Personally, I feel like that spur of-the-moment out-of-spec skill rank I took when because we desperately needed it often adds to the character, particularly if it ties in to the character's or the campaign's history ( "remember when our slicer had caught a few blaster bolts and our doctor had to slice that computer core with just a datapad and a scalpel?" ) (this is also why I allow players to spend saved XP mid-session), but if such a decision only turns out to be a mistake or wasted xp, then why stick with it? Again, would this be open to abuse? Yeah, I guess, but as a GM you can always put your foot down and make judgement calls for what is within reason, but if it would ever come to this at my table, it would be a GM suggestion rather than a ruling. It also helps that questions regarding stat changes are usually phrased (to the entire table) in ways like " Would it bother anyone if I swapped these two ranks in computer i never use for something else?" . So, pretty much anything goes unless it ruins the fun for someone else at the table. And if it only ruins the fun for you because they can and you can't, the simple solution is that you can too. Then again, when push comes to shove, do you really want to get rid of that pilot career? Would the character you know and love be the same without it? Would trading it for a more specialized build make it a more fun character to play? Do we pick character's skill sets only because what they're good at? Aren't their flaws just as interesting? Also, speaking as a GM, if a PC has picked the pilot spec I interpret that as the player saying "I want to pilot a ship", and then it's my d*mn duty to make sure the opportunity arises to do so.
On a sidenote, you could make an interesting experiment with the grizzled veteran idea I mentioned earlier and respeccing. Let the PCs start the campaign with a lot of xp, but earn no new ones, rather letting them "move" or "refund" a set number of xp around each session, because learning new skills means you don't have time to keep your old ones up. Basically mechanical advancement is sideways rather than upward. Or you can just combine it with the regular system if you want a more structured system for respeccing. Should work well in instances where the GM feels like the PCs are getting too powerful too quickly and want to slow down progression a bit, but still want to give them XP to play with. For many groups that like to buy talents and stuff every session, 5-10xp can feel tortuously slow, but if you in addition can "refund" a talent or skill rank you don't want, this might be mitigated. This means character progression not only goes upwards, but also sideways (or even downwards, depending on how you look at it). Could also be worked into character history ( "What do you mean you can't do it, Doc? I remember when you sliced a computer core with a scalpel!" "That was years ago!" ).
10 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:All in all, an RPG is just stuff on paper (or digital). You can just "give" yourself as much XP as you want. Our group has gamed since the mid-late '90's. We did WEG d6, SAGA, and now FFG. Characters that lasted mean a lot to us. We're very nostalgic, often bringing up the exploits of past characters. Can I just sit down and create an 800xp FFG character from scratch? Sure. I've seen the LFG's where the group begins with 1,000xp characters. We simply have no desire to create powerful characters with no history to them.
Of course characters that last become meaningful, but isn't it the history that does it, rather than the XP level? Sure, a new 800xp character doesn't feel as special as character with 800 "earned" xp, but a new baseline character wont feel that special either. And I agree that powerful characters, old or new should have a history, just like a new "rookie" character should have a background. With a 19-year old farm boy you can get away with a line or two of backstory, while a "new" 800xp character generally needs a bit more work put in. On the other hand, RPGs are all about making stuff up, so it's fine to basically just establish "war veteran" as the backstory and then start filling in the blanks as the campaign progresses. Sure, making up an old war story about the Mimban campaign on the fly won't carry the same weight as couple of "old" PCs exchanging a knowing glance and going "At least it's not as bad as Cholganna.", but then again, nothing is.
11 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:Been there, did that. Again, the 'cheapened' feeling came into play and that character who advanced 2-3 levels at a time (in that manor). Over the years, we came to realize that starting at 3rd or 5th level was a good compromise in D&D. Whatever the judgment call is to get people involved and feel useful. I feel that the discrepancy is FAR FAR less in FFG. Starting off with YYGG and a few Talents isn't so shabby.
Well, my point is, that higher level PCs earn more xp, and need more xp, so regardless of how close or far behind you start, you are catching up. You don't in FFG if you're getting the same amount of XP.
11 hours ago, DurosSpacer said:D&D also has Resurrection and Raise Dead.
Good point. I'm not too familiar with 5ed, but as I recall from the others once you actually got access to stuff like that, the chances of dying were comparatively small, unless you TPK'ed and then there wasn't anyone around to raise you. Also, wasn't there a level drain penalty? Anyway, I'd hardly recommend D&D as a good design for anything I want to play. I had fun with 4ed as a quasi-board game, but while 5ed's choice to get back to more RPGing roots is commendable it only highlighted (to me) that som many other games does that aspect so much better.
I'm not riffing on your playstyle, if you've found what works with your group, that's great. I'm just not sure why, if I wanted to join in, I wouldn't be allowed to play a character that was as capable as the other PCs if I had a concept to justify it. To some extent, I get it, when your PC becomes powerful, you want them to be special, and new PCs might diminish that, particularly in a comparatively small world with huge power discrepancies, like D&D, it can perhaps be jarring when another lvl20 warrior shows up that no one's ever heard of before (on the other hand lvl20 parties never seem to run out of enemies, so maybe they're not
that
uncommon
). But Star Wars is huge and fairly low-level as individuals go. Sure if the established group already has a pilot guy that's established as one of the best in the galaxy and I come in with my new, equal-xp but more optimized build that just leaves him in the dust, that might suck. But that would be because I was being a
Richard
and caring about the established group/campaign and nothing having to with xp.
And speaking of death penalties, (no longer addressing you specifically @DurosSpacer ), there seems to be a widespread idea that xp is something a player earns by showing up to the session (which I don't agree with, at all, but let's not get into that right now), yet still think if a PC dies, a new character should be set at a lower level. This confuses me. If the PC doesn't get xp if the player doesn't show up, fine, then it's a player reward. But why would you then subtract xp from the player if the PC dies? Do you need to encourage your players to keep their PCs alive?
11 hours ago, doktor grym said:A player who was properly role-playing their PC, but died heroically (and I ask those around the table beside the player who's PC died, they provide reasons and vote) will be allowed to have full XP, even for the current session. More often then not, the vote is pretty unanimous.
This is good reasoning, but I'd scratch "heroically" as an requirement. If someone who has played a pathetic coward all campaign dies on his knees begging for his life and offering his grandmother/eternal service/favors of a "personal" nature in return for being spared and generally debases himself in a way in line with the character he's portraying (or not, someone playing a brave cocky warrior all campaign completely breaking down when push comes to shove is even
better
), that's generally more interesting roleplay than being than the standard fearless, defiant to the end hero (not that a combination can't be great too).
As for voting, I like the idea of group consensus but I think this is better achieved by an informal discussion or the GM knowing his players, and the players trusting their GM. Voting whether someone was "good enough" really rubs me the wrong way. In the end, it's a moot point at my table as the concept of a "death penalty" is somewhat alien to me.
11 hours ago, doktor grym said:A player who's PC dies, but not heroically, say in a ruthless die roll (Like the time I rolled 3 Triumphs (total 4 success), along with 4 advantages with, With two failures, 2 disadvantages 3 Yellow, 1 Green, 2 Blue against a PC with a difficulty die pool of 1 Red, 2 purple & 2 black. So after the two advantage bumps from equipment, 4 advantages after 2 disadvantage redu ction I vaporized a droid PC in one hit with a 91 initial critical roll plus the weapons viscous 3, the extra 20% from two Triumphs and 1 purchased crit from advantages. 151 exactly.) So, in the case of just bad luck, if it was entertaining for the table, the PC would have 75% of their former XP and 25% less awarded from the current session XP and gains a special perk off a random table die roll for the new PC, they just don't know what it is...
Why punish players at all for having bad luck?
11 hours ago, doktor grym said:Now a PC killed because a player does something truly stupid with their PC, i.e. steps in front of the bazooka, insults the king, tries to go straight when only left and right are options, or the classic player failure, failing to back down because they are a PC and have a chip on their shoulder. They will start 50% less current XP, but the PC is awarded for the session XP normally.
If you feel you need to teach your players not to be stupid, why use mechanics and not simply talk to them? And if a player still continuously keeps headbutting rockets, flipping of rulers etc, ruining the fun for the rest of the table... why are they at your table?
Oh well, I've spent way too much time on this post already so I'll try to sum up.
Something else to consider as an addendum to my previous comment; is it fair to the ongoing players to have to carry a new Character whose half their Xp level?
While there could be some fun story elements involved, but it does take something away from what the other PC's could be doing instead of having to keep an eye on the new PC.
To be fair its probably not that big of a deal to consider, but something.