Starting points for rookies in established campaign

[hooligan x]

I have a weekly game that has run for almost two years. As you can imagine, my players have racked up a metric buttload of xp. Now I have two new players joining this week and I am wondering if it is fair to start them at 350 as the old timers did so many months ago, knowing they'll have problems keeping up? On the other hand, is it fair to my veterans to have some punk get 2 years of xp with out all the work and pizza slice bribes?

I have well established villians who also have two years of xp and may shellack the newbies unless I pull punches. Also, both newbies are new to Hero and will have enough trouble figuring out what a DCV is.

[Doppler]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

My suggestion is to start them with 350 but then award them proportionately more experience- perhaps even twice as much- per game session. That way, they can understand where the old timers "came from" XP wise, and also see their characters grow organically. After a few months, everyone will be close together. Until then, it's acceptable to pull punches, as it were. Just so long as your villains have a good ing-game reason to do so! And that's the hard part.

[Vanguard]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I would start them at about 50 points to 75 points below the lowest point total of your current players.

 

Think about it. If you start them at 350, anything you use to challenge the old timers will more then likely turn the newbies into little costume colored smears on the ground.

 

Also, there would be no way in hades that the 350 players could hope to hold a candle to the old timer characters and that could lead to frustration as they sit there and watch the vets kick arse and take names while they bring them towels and coffee.

 

Even giving them double the xp won't fix the problem. One of my old gamemasters tried that and it didn't go over to well.

 

Your veteran players shouldn't, honestly, have a problem with them starting at nearly the same level as they do since that's a tried and true method of roleplaying games around.

 

Just my 2 cp.

[geekvoid]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

This happened with my gaming group not all that long ago. If I remember correctly, the GM had them make the character at the caqmpaign standard which I want to say was 300 points. After that was done, he gave them half the average XP of the existing characters and let them spend it however they wanted, tho he did make some suggestions. Once they started playing, they got the same amount of XP as everyone else, unless they did something particularly outstanding or made some highly entertaing comments about the other players that made said GM laugh and spew Mt Dew across the table...

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

This happened with my gaming group not all that long ago. If I remember correctly' date=' the GM had them make the character at the caqmpaign standard which I want to say was 300 points. After that was done, he gave them half the average XP of the existing characters and let them spend it however they wanted, tho he did make some suggestions.[/quote']I like this approach, as it allows the new players to see the effects of XP on a character's development. Some of the commentary in previous HERO revisions said something about "There's a difference between a character built on 350 points and a character built on 250 points plus 100 points experience. The 350-pt character will likely have a larger attack, but the 250+100 character will have a broader range of capabilities, and will likely be more fun to play."

Once they started playing' date=' they got the same amount of XP as everyone else, unless they did something particularly outstanding or made some highly entertaing comments about the other players that made said GM laugh and spew Mt Dew across the table...[/quote']"Whoa! 3-foot Dew spew! 2 extra bonus XP for you - one for the base spew and one for distance!"

[Netzilla]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

In our campaign, we've had this come up a few times. Our long-time characters are currently sitting around 470 total points or so (starting from 350). The way we handle it is that the new character starts at 350. Then, they get 30ep per session until they've caught up with the rest of the group. At that point, they gain ep as normal.

 

Fortunately, by the way we've spent ep, our veterans aren't hugely more powerful than when they started. Rather, they're more flexible. I think the average CV has gone up maybe one or two points and the average DC probably not much more than 3 or 4.

[CBikle]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I'd also start 'em around 50-75 pts. lower than the character, in game, with the lowest XP.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

It's a definite judgement call. Certainly, if they start at 350, they will be lower powered, and opposition of "equal power" to established characters will be "more powerful" to the new characters, so their xp should be greater.

 

A lot depends where your existing players spent their xp. Did it go to new abilities, enhancing their versatility? If so, new characters may be less versatile, but still competetive. Did it go to augmenting current abilities, such that the new players will start with (say) OCV's of 9, DCV's of 8, defenses of 20-25 and 12DC attacks, while the established characters have OCV's of 13, DCV's of 10, defenses of 30-35 and 15+DC attacks? In that case, the new characters will clearly be way behind on the power curve, and likely ineffectual.

 

A few possibilities if starting at 350 isn't viable and you don't consider the "free" xp desirable:

 

(a) They start at 350 in a different campaign , perhaps with some NPC heroes, and get to "grow" until they can compete with the big players. [Not an ideal solution as it may mean the existing campaign going on hiatus)

 

( Broaden the opposition so the enemy has some less experienced members as well (not ideal as it kind of locks in who fights whom, but the Avengers have the same issue when Thor and Falcon fly in side by side).

 

© To deal with the "350 + 100" vs "450 at the outset" issue, require them to design the characters at 350 points, then gradually add points. Experienced players can do this, but rookies would have difficulty (compounded by the existing issue of character creation for newbies).

 

And if you do give them "st6arting xp", give them some history - what have they done to earn that xp? Have they (like existing cyaracters likely have) accumulated some 0 point disadvantages in the course of those adventures?

 

Talk this over with the players. Maybe you're worried they'll be upset the newbies got "free xp" and thyey're worried they'll be saddled with rookies their characters need to cover for - ie they'd rather you handed out some xp.

 

By the way, do the existing characters have significant differences in xp (implying newbies with lower totals may not be as big a deal) or is their xp all equal (ie we award the same xp to everyone, so it's also "free" after a fashion).

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I am a radical GM. Since the Game is supposed to mirror as much as possible the source material I say give the new players as many points to build their characters on as the average experienced member. To me this represents those new and powerful characters such as Rogue (remember when she was *not* an X-man), Cable, Aztek, and many many others.

 

 

I would ask that the players choose concepts that are more difficult to pull off at lower levels such as true robots (all that LS is expensive), Shapeshifters (more ODO less Beast Boy), and aliens (you can get pretty weird aliens, and alien mentalists need to buy that pesky +10 Adder or lots of PSLs). That way the so called *free experience* is conveniently shoved into things that are far more expensive than they have a right to be and thus mitigates the press for maximum OCV/DCV and DCs in the advanced starting character.

 

Hawksmoor

[geekvoid]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

I like this approach' date=' as it allows the new players to see the effects of XP on a character's development. Some of the commentary in previous HERO revisions said something about "There's a difference between a character built on 350 points and a character built on 250 points plus 100 points experience. The 350-pt character will likely have a larger attack, but the 250+100 character will have a broader range of capabilities, and will likely be more fun to play."
"Whoa! 3-foot Dew spew! 2 extra bonus XP for you - one for the base spew and one for distance!"

[/quote']The campaign went through a couple of revisions, to be honest. I wasn't around for the first incarnation, but my character was built on 150 base, 100 disads. Then after a number of months, the focus changed, and the GM upped the power level and gave us carte blanche to tweak our PCs to our hearts content. We went with that for awhile, with old players dropping out and new ones coming in. The new players went wild with cool powers and toys and such. I, on the other hand, kept the power mostly low, used foci for my main character and spent well over 100 pt on background skills. She's may not be able to consistently match the other PCs for power level and effect, but they'd be in serious trouble without her, as she's the teams doctor, tinkerer, gadgeteer...well, all around geek, really. Since tech in general is hard to come by, the more powerful guys with the big guns and the cyberware realize she's useful to have around. That, and she IS more than capable of handling herself in a fight.As for the Dew Spew, I'm thinking you've seen our gaming sessions! Without the sound, hopefully, as we can be brutal when we get started with the harassment...

[Kirby]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I have a weekly game that has run for almost two years. As you can imagine, my players have racked up a metric buttload of xp. Now I have two new players joining this week and I am wondering if it is fair to start them at 350 as the old timers did so many months ago, knowing they'll have problems keeping up? On the other hand, is it fair to my veterans to have some punk get 2 years of xp with out all the work and pizza slice bribes?

I have well established villians who also have two years of xp and may shellack the newbies unless I pull punches. Also, both newbies are new to Hero and will have enough trouble figuring out what a DCV is.

My suggestion on what to do will depend on how much is "a metric buttload of xp." I've played in campaigns where, after two to three years, we only had 65 xp. I've also been in one where I was given 3 xp on the first game day! (A to me after my previous campaigns.) So, if you could provide that info, it would be helpful. Of course, if you already like the suggestions offered, then, well, you know, be that way.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

While all the advice above is valid and practical, I'm going to suggest a different approach: if the characters are meant to be beginning heroes, build them as beginning heroes. It's quite common in the comics to see glorified acrobats fighting alongside living gods.

 

"But the opposition won't be balanced for veterans and newbies!" you may decry. True enough, purely in a straightup fight. However, it isn't always necessary that a character be able to take on every opponent in a straightup fight. The key is to make sure that every character has "niche protection," i.e. has some ability or focus that's unique and sets him apart from his teammates; and that you as GM give each character "spotlight time," where their unique skills are brought into play or their issues are highlighted.

 

'Fraid I don't have time to go into this more now; but Champs vet Theron Bretz discusses these concepts in his article from Digital Hero #3, "Pointless Champions," which is overall quite thought-provoking. You can read an extended excerpt from that article here.

[hooligan x]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Thanks for the advice. What I've decided to do is start them at the original base points and award double xp with the limitation that half goes toward skills or concept-heavy powers. My campaign also has a 'If you havent used it in game yet, you can drop it and realocate the points' rule. I've also assigned veteran players as design buddies to help them spend the xp.

[fbdaury]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I am a radical GM. Since the Game is supposed to mirror as much as possible the source material I say give the new players as many points to build their characters on as the average experienced member. To me this represents those new and powerful characters such as Rogue (remember when she was *not* an X-man), Cable, Aztek, and many many others.

 

 

I would ask that the players choose concepts that are more difficult to pull off at lower levels such as true robots (all that LS is expensive), Shapeshifters (more ODO less Beast Boy), and aliens (you can get pretty weird aliens, and alien mentalists need to buy that pesky +10 Adder or lots of PSLs). That way the so called *free experience* is conveniently shoved into things that are far more expensive than they have a right to be and thus mitigates the press for maximum OCV/DCV and DCs in the advanced starting character.

 

Hawksmoor

 

Yes, but the source material is also rife with those of low point rookies joining established team, and IMNSHO, this works better- look at Jolt or Kitty Pryde or Jubilee- definately did not start at the same point level as their teammates.

 

Either way works, it ultimately comes down to player and GM comfort really.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Yes, but the source material is also rife with those of low point rookies joining established team, and IMNSHO, this works better- look at Jolt or Kitty Pryde or Jubilee- definately did not start at the same point level as their teammates.

 

Either way works, it ultimately comes down to player and GM comfort really.

 

Comfort... and happiness. Is it really that fun to _have_ to be the sidekick? I don't mean be the sidekick if you want to, I mean the GM telling you that you are the sidekick/designated damsel in distress, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

 

I mean, if they don't want to be the sidekick, then DON'T MAKE THEM!

 

If they do, then shui.

[Mike W]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I just picked up a campaign with two established characters and two newbies. The older characters had progressed from 375 up to 430-440 range so I started the new guys at 400 - which gave them about half of the experience of the older players. One thing to be careful about(which happened in my game) - if the old team has put points into things like a group base, radios, and vehicles, your newbies may find themselves paying the first month or so of experience just "joining the team" (i.e. - donating for the base, buying a radio to fit everyone else's, etc). This may require you awarding some assigned experience to defray the cost. If you can arrange it so that the old characters get some other assigned award at the same time it might go over easier.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

In the Sentinels campaign, at first, we did "new characters start at 750." However, since all of the original characters have since exceeded 800 ( sometimes by a fairly hefty margin ), new characters are now being started at/upgraded to 800.

[nexus]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I ususally give new characters in an experienced campaign the lowest amount of experience the older characters have accumlated. It maintains that some of the characters are more experienced for their players, but doesn't shaft newbies because they didn't know join sooner.

[Kristopher]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Assuming that point totals are an objective measure of a character's overall competence and/or power, why would a team consisting of five typical 500-point characters take on the typical 350-point or 300-point character as a new member, in most cases?

 

"Sorry, kid, but we can't risk you getting wiped out by the kind of thing we face on a regular basis. You've got potential, though. Go work with one of the city-level teams for a while, and after a few years we might reconsider."

[nexus]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

That's a very good point Kristopher that I haven't seen addressed before.

 

Repped.

[Kirby]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

A possibility to consider is that there might not be anything wrong with a variance of points. Looking at the Justice League, Wonder Woman is dang powerful, but she's no Superman. Batman is not present because of his physical strength, but because of his mind. And when Blue Beetle and Booster Gold are in it, they're more of the 250-350 point characters compared to Batman's near 1,000 point. Green Lanterns just vary. Hal Jordan may be 1,000 points while Gnort is *maybe* 250 (okay, he was a joke) though Guy Gardner and Kyle would be good 350+ characters.

 

I know it would suck coming in as low man on the totem pole, but not every superhero has to be the same point level. Though, the GM could rule that a "learning curve" could be put in place if it is roleplayed well. Perhaps the first real-life year of gaming, the newbies get their XP doubled and then they gain XP as normal. I learned a lot in my four years of J.R.O.T.C., but that was nothing compared to the speed I learned in OSUT when I went into the Army. And for all I learned in OSUT, I kept learning, though not at such a rigorous pace and did well. I wasn't at the same level as the E-4's and above, but I was still a part of the team, as opposed to being apart from the team.

 

Just food for thought.

[Wolven]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

I say start them at the points the other characters started at. I joined a game a year and a half ago that had been going for over 5 years. The other characters had racked up over 200 exp. But I liked the challenge. In our group you are always welcome to make a new character, but you have to start at the 350 point level. But then again I like a challenge.

[Mike W]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Part of it depends on character concept too. You can make some nasty 350 point bricks or martial artists that can easily keep up with higher point characters. A good idea and some careful building can make for some scary "low point" characters. After all, +60 STR, 20/20 Armor, and +30 CON can be had for 120 points if you make them an EC. That's only about 1/3 of the points a starting character would have to spend.

[David Blue]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Having been that newcomer/rookie/wimp, repeatedly . . .

 

I think the BIG thing for the GM is to decide what your solution to a late-joining player is going to be, then make sure that the new player and all your experienced players are with your program, then stick with your solution, whatever it is.

 

If you give the new player only enough points to be a sidekick, make sure you know what you will do with a sidekick, and that the player knows that too and can wait for their programmed good bits during the long periods of play that will be frustrating. (E.g. the long fights where after the first action or two the new player's character will be "resting" face down in the dust.) And the GM had to deliver on those good bits.

 

And you need a experienced player with an experienced character who positively wants to do this. Personally, I love playing a wanted sidekick, but playing Incrediboy for session after session after session does not rock.

 

Experienced characters are superior to new characters not only in power but also and mainly in flexibility. If your bit is a skill, and another player character with far superior characteristics and levels buys it (perhaps he had intended to anyway), you just became Superfluous Boy. This is even more true with powers: very experienced characters are likely to have been rebuilt in ways that make the best use of their points, so a tweak of a gadget or a couple of points in a new ultra-slot (with limitations) has the same effect. It is big help if the GM plans things out with all the players, not just those most obviously involved. The more players you already have, the truer this will be.

 

The small thing for the GM is: do not give players "patents" on point-optimising ideas. If Joe owns the focus thing, and Jim owns activation rolls, and so on, a latecomer comes in and essentially builds a plain vanilla character, with active points being not far above real points, everything else being staked out. I once did this in a game with 200 starting points, no freebies for newbies, no limits on active point totals, no damage/def/etc. limits, and experienced players with about 100ep, tweaked to 500-700 active points. It was - memorable. In that setup, the big characters grow far faster with experience than the plain-Jane latecomer wimps do. The longer you play, the more you fall behind.

 

Another hint: take the inexperience of the player and the probable non-optimisation of their character into account in balancing fights. An inexperienced player with their non-optimised rookie character can be far, far weaker than a "weak" villain" built on fewer points.

 

Finally for the GM, if you're going to do V.O.I.C.E. or an Apocalypse style adventure where the idea is that "none but the strong will survive!", you may want to consider holding off the introduction of wimps till afterwards. True, the stronger characters can protect Supernumerary Lass during the crisis but nobody is likely to have much fun doing that, and the bonding dynamic that pulls together heroes as a team in time of crisis will tend strongly to define those who aren't effectively contributing to the team as not part of it.

[David Blue]

Re: Starting points for rookies in established campaign

 

Having been that newcomer/rookie/wimp, repeatedly . . .

 

I think the BIG thing for the GM is to decide what your solution to a late-joining player is going to be, then make sure that the new player and all your experienced players are with your program, then stick with your solution, whatever it is.

 

If you give the new player only enough points to be a sidekick, make sure you know what you will do with a sidekick, and that the player knows that too and can wait for their programmed good bits during the long periods of play that will be frustrating. (E.g. the long fights where after the first action or two the new player's character will be "resting" face down in the dust.) And the GM had to deliver on those good bits.

 

And you need a experienced player with an experienced character who positively wants to do this. Personally, I love playing a wanted sidekick, but playing Incrediboy for session after session after session does not rock.

 

Experienced characters are superior to new characters not only in power but also and mainly in flexibility. If your bit is a skill, and another player character with far superior characteristics and levels buys it (perhaps he had intended to anyway), you just became Superfluous Boy. This is even more true with powers: very experienced characters are likely to have been rebuilt in ways that make the best use of their points, so a tweak of a gadget or a couple of points in a new ultra-slot (with limitations) has the same effect. It is big help if the GM plans things out with all the players, not just those most obviously involved. The more players you already have, the truer this will be.

 

The small thing for the GM is: do not give players "patents" on point-optimising ideas. If Joe owns the focus thing, and Jim owns activation rolls, and so on, a latecomer comes in and essentially builds a plain vanilla character, with active points being not far above real points, everything else being staked out. I once did this in a game with 200 starting points, no freebies for newbies, no limits on active point totals, no damage/def/etc. limits, and experienced players with about 100ep, tweaked to 500-700 active points. It was - memorable. In that setup, the big characters grow far faster with experience than the plain-Jane latecomer wimps do. The longer you play, the more you fall behind.

 

Another hint: take the inexperience of the player and the probable non-optimisation of their character into account in balancing fights. An inexperienced player with their non-optimised rookie character can be far, far weaker than a "weak" villain built on fewer points.

 

Finally for the GM, if you're going to do V.O.I.C.E. or an Apocalypse style adventure where the idea is that "none but the strong will survive!", you may want to consider holding off the introduction of wimps till afterwards. True, the stronger characters can protect Supernumerary Lass during the crisis but nobody is likely to have much fun doing that, and the bonding dynamic that pulls together heroes as a team in time of crisis will tend to strongly define those who aren't effectively contributing to the team as not part of it.