I've been impressed by our DCC GM who has stuck to his guns about Players who lose characters starting up as lvl zeros... and darned if it doesn't make the whole affair a lot more interesting and fun.
So our current group, deep in a weirdo science dungeon full of batmen and flying skulls, is a mix of levels going up from zero to 3rd (which is like 5th/6th in regular D&D). As we lose PCs we keep finding various prisoners of the batmen to free and join our cause.
The XP is a bit higher from the heightened danger so the lowbies lvl up faster... but die a lot easier as well. The lvl 3s can't carry the group through on their own so everyone has to fight... which has moved us to be a lot more creative in how we've approached fights, just charging in screaming won't work.
So yeah, I'm sold on mixed lvl games being more interesting than finely tuned balance between PCs.

Quote from: jhkim;840541Some people felt that this was opposed to the "game" aspect of RPGs, but I don't think that's true.  In competitive sports or games, no one gets a head start because of experience.  More experienced soccer players or chess players do better solely because the player actually has more skill - not because they have more points accumulated from previous games. In both, everyone has the same level - it's a "level of play" for the group, rather than an individual "experience level".

As competitive sports-people improve their playing ability they're given more resources to try to ensure they realize their potential: better coaching, better sports medicine, better equipment, more time to devote to their craft, etc. This seems analogous to giving the better players better characters in an RPG.

QuoteThe question in my mind is, what is gained by having some players be at different levels?  What's the individual XP supposed to motivate?

When the consequences of poor play decisions really hurt (e.g. start again at first level) player turtling can become a serious problem. My players used to argue about which character should mess with a new magic item/weird thing until they decided amongst themselves that whoever messed with it first gets to keep it if it turns out to be valuable.

I don't think individual combat XP is necessary in classic D&D, because your combat role is so obvious given your class. It's easy to call out a player for turtling, e.g. a fighter hanging back with a sling. But in a classless game, or a D&D edition/variant with sloppier class design, I would definitely consider individual XP to try to balance reward with risk.

Quote from: Simlasa;841136I've been impressed by our DCC GM who has stuck to his guns about Players who lose characters starting up as lvl zeros... and darned if it doesn't make the whole affair a lot more interesting and fun.
So our current group, deep in a weirdo science dungeon full of batmen and flying skulls, is a mix of levels going up from zero to 3rd (which is like 5th/6th in regular D&D). As we lose PCs we keep finding various prisoners of the batmen to free and join our cause.
The XP is a bit higher from the heightened danger so the lowbies lvl up faster... but die a lot easier as well. The lvl 3s can't carry the group through on their own so everyone has to fight... which has moved us to be a lot more creative in how we've approached fights, just charging in screaming won't work.
So yeah, I'm sold on mixed lvl games being more interesting than finely tuned balance between PCs.

I cannot tell you how many games I have run that have ended up with this feel.  
Very good description...

I couldn't care about awarding XP. I talk to the group about what is realistic for the length of the campaign and then decide what level I want the PCs to start and what makes sense for PC's level at the end. Then I base the level progression on how many adventures happen between levels. AKA, do you gain a level after each adventure, 2 adventures or 3 adventures? That's a tally I can deal with.

Regarding OD&D, I rarely start campaigns below 3rd level.

I don't have interest in running campaigns that piddle out. I'd rather know we are going 10 sessions and commit to making that happen. If it works, great we can go for another 10, but that's doubtful. Maybe its a LA thing, but gaming group cohesion is rare.

As for individual rewards, I have never seen that go well. If you show up, your earn a tally mark XP and whatever goodies happen in game. If you don't show, you don't get the tally mark and miss out on the adventure. If you die, you get a tally mark XP for your new PC.

As for mixed level parties, that works for me in most RPGs.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840802In my seven years of WHFB/WH40 gaming (not counting my current Necromunda revival) I never encountered multiple players on a side or even the suggestion of it despite how obvious the idea is (especially for teaching).

Are your 7 years of play recent? AKA, post 2000?

I played WHFB and 40k in the 80s and team vs. team play was common among our club in the SF Bay Area. You occassionally saw writeups in White Dwarf in the 80s and 90s for mega-battles too, but I noticed the 2000s pushed Warhammer as a competitive 1 vs. 1 tourney style play.

My fav memories of 40k were massive convention battles where Space Marines & Eldar teamed up against Orcs & Chaos on giant tables. Each player brought in 1000 points of painted whatever and initiative went back and forth so it wasn't all one side move while other side waited.

Quote from: Spinachcat;841152I don't have interest in running campaigns that piddle out. I'd rather know we are going 10 sessions and commit to making that happen. If it works, great we can go for another 10, but that's doubtful. Maybe its a LA thing, but gaming group cohesion is rare.

I've no idea if the area is a factor. But this style of intentionally short commitment gaming is very different than my experience. Given your situation, I can see why you look at it the way you do though.

QuoteAs for individual rewards, I have never seen that go well.

In over 40 years of gaming I've never done it any other way. It hasn't been a problem. Maybe it's an age thing? Or different social circles?

The closest to group awards was probably our 1990s FASA Star Trek campaign. It didn't have group experience; it basically had no experience at all. The only time a character improved was when they went off to some 6 month course at the academy e.g. Command School or Fleet Tactics. Obviously that was individualized. Only the character who left the ship to do that got the improvement. Most characters didn't leave the ship so most didn't improve at all. It worked fine.

Quote from: Bren;841188I've no idea if the area is a factor. But this style of intentionally short commitment gaming is very different than my experience.

I think area is a big factor. I didn't have these issues in the SF Bay Area where I found gaming groups far more stable. LA is a very transient culture in so many ways.

But instead of fighting the tide, I have adapted using "mini-campaigns" which seem to have better results, especially for me because I want a beginning / middle / end resolution to at least one major plotline before the group implodes!

For a couple years, I ran "convention campaigns" where I ran 16-20 hours of a mini-campaign over 2-3 days. I had packed tables with gamers who told similar stories about who just as they got really into the home campaign, the group would melt and vanish.  
 

Quote from: Bren;841188In over 40 years of gaming I've never done it any other way. It hasn't been a problem. Maybe it's an age thing? Or different social circles?

I personally like individual XP rewards...but I've only got bad memories from when I used them. Somebody always got butthurt and I do whatever I can to avoid drama at the game table.

Hell, I've had enough issues with one player getting a cool magic item and someone else at the table pouting...not a pimpled teen, but a 40 year old with a master's degree. I gotta say 4e did make my life easier in that regard.

Quote from: Spinachcat;841215Hell, I've had enough issues with one player getting a cool magic item and someone else at the table pouting...not a pimpled teen, but a 40 year old with a master's degree. I gotta say 4e did make my life easier in that regard.

Fucking shit, I'd quit the hobby.

Quote from: Old Geezer;841219Fucking shit, I'd quit the hobby.

You?!? Are you getting fucking feeble in your dotage. In the old days (like say last year) you'd have just killed them and taken their stuff.

Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) has no general "experience" rule at all. Nonetheless, figures certainly have experiences that change them, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. These are particular to individuals, because that's what makes them individuals in the first place.

This assumption, which I have always taken for granted, has a "game" aspect but mainly it's just common sense from life. Different people make different choices and encounter different phenomena, and as a consequence become very different people even if they were genetically identical twins. It's part of natural role-playing that the role is in a world with at least that much similarity to the one we know.

If you're against the keen student becoming more skilled than the lazy one, what then of the otherwise reckless vs. prudent, and the myriad of other variations in outcome? If Alex eats poison, must Barbara get sick? If Susan climbs a tree and finds a ring in a magic egg, must magic rings suddenly appear in the pockets of Thomas and Jane?

It occurs to me that in some games these days, the choices players make really are of trivial significance compared with the stats getting run through a mechanical process while the players are just along for the ride. If that's what people are into, then I can understand a "Harrison Bergeron" kind of attitude.

Quote from: Bren;841244You?!? Are you getting fucking feeble in your dotage. In the old days (like say last year) you'd have just killed them and taken their stuff.

People have shit stuff nowadays.  Unless it's model train stuff.

Slightly more seriously, with over 500 model freight car kits to assemble, my tolerance for wasting time has pretty much vanished.  If I'm not having as much fun as building freight car kits is, I'm out.

Quote from: Phillip;841276If you're against the keen student becoming more skilled than the lazy one, what then of the otherwise reckless vs. prudent, and the myriad of other variations in outcome?

I honestly couldn't care anymore. I left the teaching profession for a reason. I am not DM Daddy trying to instill work ethics into my players.

I always let my players know the score with me: deadly games with high reward. I run dangerous worlds with dangerous foes and shove PCs in the middle of the mosh pit, but the rewards are high and advancement is swift for those who survive. Those who die come back swinging with a new PC as fast as I can rationalize their immersion.

Quote from: Phillip;841276If Alex eats poison, must Barbara get sick?

Barbara's player would probably throw a mega hissy fit, but damn that would be an interesting magical poison!

I am going to use that!!!

Quote from: Phillip;841276If Susan climbs a tree and finds a ring in a magic egg, must magic rings suddenly appear in the pockets of Thomas and Jane?

Why not? It's a fantasy game.

Again, I am going to use that!!!

My D&D parties are almost always multi-level.  When a PC dies, you start again from 1st level (or 0 level, if its one of those games).

Quote from: RPGPundit;841862My D&D parties are almost always multi-level.  When a PC dies, you start again from 1st level (or 0 level, if its one of those games).

I do that with my d20, usually.

my main skill based system, the new character starts with an EXP pool 10% less than the weakest PC.

Giving out XP equally to everyone promotes teacup ride players. The players just sit at the same tavern street corner, waiting to be told how great their characters are in encounters that come to them.