Base Refresh for new Characters

[Bernd]

Hey!

When a new character enters the game (like when a new player joins the group or one character died or one player didn't likes his cahracter anymore) does he start with the base refresh the other characters started or with the current base refresh level, like after a major milestone?

Example: The group started at the Submerged level and experienced a major milestone (so the base refresh is now 11). Then one character dies and the player creates a new one. Does he start with a base refresh of 10 or 11?

Thanks in advance!

[Stormraven]

I would generally start them where the others are now.  Why limit the new character?

[Bruce Coulson]

As per Stormraven.  The books mention a point of Refresh is a big advancement, and it's no fun being underpowered compared to the rest of the group when playing.

[TheMouse]

If a PC dies and is replaced, I'd definitely start that player's new PC with as many milestones as the dead PC. It sucks to lose everything you've worked for, after all.

For a new player, I'd start them out a bit behind the experienced PCs. I've had luck with this in other games. I also have this weird feeling that if you're the new player, you should have to at least earn some of your cool toys.

[Bernd]

If a PC dies and is replaced, I'd definitely start that player's new PC with as many milestones as the dead PC. It sucks to lose everything you've worked for, after all.

For a new player, I'd start them out a bit behind the experienced PCs. I've had luck with this in other games. I also have this weird feeling that if you're the new player, you should have to at least earn some of your cool toys.

This sounds reasonable. Thanks.

@all the others: I thought it would be like you said, but wasn't sure. Other Games just start "at level 1" or with half the experience.

[Crion]

I agree with the others on the new players (i.e. starting just behind the current party, but not by much) and the replacement PCs (i.e. due to death or in-game reasons for the character to be removed), but I tend to be a bit more strict with people who treat characters like revolving doors, constantly throwing one off to the side to get a new one with little to no reasoning. For people like that, I'd start them at the base (or penalize them), but wouldn't be against just "bumping" them up if they really make it work.

Then again, I'm a jerk like that :-p

[WillH]

I think it would be a serious dick move to start a new character off at any power level less than the rest of the group.

[JosephKell]

I think it would be a serious dick move to start a new character off at any power level less than the rest of the group.

Ditto.

I've played games where people were awarded individual XP rewards and it is just horrible.  It really only accomplishes two things: (1) encourage players to hog the spotlight to always get their bonus experience and (2) discourage new players to the game (or games in general).

New players just can't reasonably catch up, unless you give them "better" (or more frequent) milestones until they catch up (in which case, why not make it easy on yourself and just start them off at the same level).  New players have to figure out the group dynamic (each group is different), so they get fewer "bonus awards" early on.  And people new to a game need a bit of time to figure out how to use/generate fate points.

In FATE, I would instead treat good roleplaying as "mini-compels" (awarding fate points), so a few of them earn a fate point (or if it actually a self-compel, award the fate point as usual).  It has all the positive aspects of "bonus experience" with none of the drawbacks of long term party inequity (one fate point = do one thing a little better once).

[toturi]

I've played games where people were awarded individual XP rewards and it is just horrible.  It really only accomplishes two things: (1) encourage players to hog the spotlight to always get their bonus experience and (2) discourage new players to the game (or games in general).

Some GMs I have seen actually advocate secret individual XP awards. So for all you know, the XP could have been given for showing up with the pizza.

[CMEast]

I quite like the idea of having the group as a whole nominate a person each session for roleplaying and value - a sort of VIP award. It encourages roleplay whilst still keeping it fair, and it's up to the group who gets it so there'll rarely be any complaints.

[Doc Nova]

I am a big advocate for individual awards to promote better RP.  Having just come from a 2.5 year game of Hollow Earth Expedition, I had the wonderful advantage (as we do in FATE) of having a mechanic separate from XP.  Under the Ubiquity rules it's called style points which are a slightly rarer version of fate points.  It even mentions the Hollow Earth book to give style points out for things like hosting a game, providing snacks, good rp, bringing props, or doing some other extra "thing" (like keeping a game log, drawing relevant pictures of the game, ands forth).  The nice thing about this was I could reward those that went "above and beyond", they could use that reward to perform something better, in-game, but it didn't allow them to get above the other players in terms of base power level or skill.  Fortunately, we have, essentially, an identical mechanic here in FATE.  For my own sanity, especially when trying to "balance" encounters, I have learned it is best for me to keep everyone on the same "level", although I will happily dole out bonus fate points for extra additions to the game, be it cool props, hosting the game at their home, or being crowned "Game Za Lord!"