Slow Advancement Rocks

[Saeviomagy]

I always found that advancement pre-3e was much, much quicker, because every few sessions you'd pull off a "I can't believe we beat that" moment and level basically off of that one thing.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like to level up no faster than every 4 sessions, but no slower than every 6 sessions. And I'm not real insterested in leveling beyond 10th-12th level (in any edition).

Which measn, I guess, that you prefer to change campaigns on a regular basis. Assuming weekly or near-weekly play, by the numbers you give here you'll hit your preferred level cap after about a year or 15 months...which to me is barely enough time to really establish a campaign and setting.

Others have made some obvious (but excellent) points:
- the expected level range across the various editions has increased by about 10 per recent edition (1e = 1-10, 2e = 1-it's hard to say, 3e = 1-20, 4e = 1-30) so even if all other things are equal levelling will be more frequent in 4e than any previous edition.
- particularly in 3e, the party was assumed by design to be all roughly the same level, and it was very hard to break away from this without getting the lower-level types creamed at every turn. (I've no idea if 4e is also like this)

Is there an answer? Depends, I suppose; though one possibility might be a sequence like:
- reduce the powers gained at each level to the point where you're reintroducing the concept of "dead levels"; then
- eliminate the dead levels entirely and renumber the rest to suit (e.g. a 1-30 range might concatenate to 1-15); then
- reduce the powers gained at each level again such that a party of, say, a three-level range can adventure together without the lower-level types being at too much risk; then
- take Pathfinder's idea of slow-medium-fast advance rates and apply it; then
- take the caps off such that if a campaign goes long enough it can carry on beyond the design ceiling (and a DM has options for very high-level opponents).

In other words, make advancement of variable importance in the game - if you're using the fast track, it's important, while if you're on the slow track it's more a side-effect of the game.

And in any case, as another side effect this might get rid of a great deal of "numbers bloat" in other areas as well.

Lanefan

 

[Orius]

I don't think that +1 isn't worthwhile, if it weren't worthwhile, nobody would pursue it. Yet they do. The issue now, at least in 3e, is the multitude of ways to get that +1 and the way they stack to produce much higher bonuses.

I look at it more simply. A +1 in 3e (and I assume 4e) is worth about half what it was in older editions. So not worthless, but not as powerful either. Then again, it balances out somewhat, since weapons at least least in 2e went up to +5 only for swords, everything else capped at +3 on the main random weapon table. A +1 that's worth half as much feels balanced alright when 3e goes up to +5 and 4e up to +6.

Others have made some obvious (but excellent) points:
- the expected level range across the various editions has increased by about 10 per recent edition (1e = 1-10, 2e = 1-it's hard to say, 3e = 1-20, 4e = 1-30) so even if all other things are equal levelling will be more frequent in 4e than any previous edition.

I'd say 2e's ranges was the same as 1e. The rules encouraged retirement a little past name level, even though the levels weren't named any more. The experience tables did go up to 20, but that was something like 10 empty levels for fighters and thieves, since they got nothing past a few hps on those levels. Clerics and wizards got new spells past that though.

I think that's where 3e's 20 levels came into play, the fact that the 2e tables went to 20, but half of them were boring unless you played a caster (didn't the 1e tables go to 23 or some other odd level past 20 though?). By extension, 4e added more balanced epic play and capped the whole thing off at 30.

I've seen the different advancement rates for PF on their SRD, and if I were to play 3e again, I'd likely experiement with the different advancement rates, since I found the default rate to be a bit fast. But I also don't want slow to be glacial either, because as a DM I get tired of using nothing but goblins, kobolds, and gnolls.

I think I'd borrow a page from old-school and at least slow things down past level 10 or so. I've never gotten really high with 3e, so I haven't experienced the problems of running things in the upper teens. By slow things down, I don't mean less XP, I mean a sort of semi-retirement. Have the players have a couple of different groups of PCs of different levels, and switch to a lower level party when another party hits the upper levels. Meanwhile, in campaign, have the upper level character do things like run kingdoms, guilds, work on personal projects that require a lot of time and so on. This would give me more time to prepare high-level stuff for the powerful PCs, and give players the opportunity to experience different options and characters. I'd even try to set up some occasional epic adventuring here and there.

 

[MerricB]

- the expected level range across the various editions has increased by about 10 per recent edition (1e = 1-10, 2e = 1-it's hard to say, 3e = 1-20, 4e = 1-30) so even if all other things are equal levelling will be more frequent in 4e than any previous edition.
- particularly in 3e, the party was assumed by design to be all roughly the same level, and it was very hard to break away from this without getting the lower-level types creamed at every turn. (I've no idea if 4e is also like this)

3E seems to me to be designed as 1-20, but actually worked up until 15 or so.

4E assumes everyone is about the same level. A couple of level's difference shouldn't make *too* much difference, but more than that and it'll begin to show. It has a more gradual power curve than 3E, though, which has the greatest disparity between levels of any D&D edition.

Cheers!

 

[Sylrae]

Six sessions to level is slow for you? How fast were you leveling before and how long are your sessions?

In our games we have been leveling every session or every second session. We play once a week for 4-12 hours. We level a bit too fast.

Monthly gaming is so hard on continuity anyway that I tend to not worry about advancement at all. or, rather, those monthly sessions should be self contained "episodes" where neither "story development" not "mechanical development" matter near as much as what's happening at the table at the time. You could even go so far, I think, as to create the characters in a range of levels and the DM picks the level for the next adventure. they are all "cannon" but the chronology can be mixed up (like the original publication of REH's Conan stories, frex).

This is a cool idea. I was in a 1 per 2wk game that was meant to be continuous. I can never remember all the crap that happened last game. It's frustrating.This model would make 2 per 2 wk or slower games a viable option.

Which means, I guess, that you prefer to change campaigns on a regular basis. Assuming weekly or near-weekly play, by the numbers you give here you'll hit your preferred level cap after about a year or 15 months...which to me is barely enough time to really establish a campaign and setting.

This is a very good point. our games are tied to the university school year. That means a campaign is basically capped at 8 months. It never occurred to me to plan out my campaign to time actual levels with real-time. I approve! I'll be figuring out the level span I want to go for and I'll be adjusting play to cover that span in the 8 months. Thanks Lanefan!

 

[Bullgrit]

Which measn, I guess, that you prefer to change campaigns on a regular basis. Assuming weekly or near-weekly play, by the numbers you give here you'll hit your preferred level cap after about a year or 15 months...which to me is barely enough time to really establish a campaign and setting.

Depends on your definition of "campaign." To me, a campaign is basically a set of PCs doing their thing(s) for an extended time. (For example: a set of PCs going through the Temple of Elemental Evil, then the Giants series, then the Drow series.)

I'd be satisfied with a campaign that lasted a year to a year and a half of regular, weekly play. Those PCs could retire, and then we could play their underlings or children or some such in the same setting.

It's not that I want to stop playing the PC(s) after a year or so, but in my experience, going longer than a year and a half is a rare thing; it can't be planned on. Real life interferes, PCs die off, and/or people want to try other games.

Bullgrit

 

[IronWolf]

I'd be satisfied with a campaign that lasted a year to a year and a half of regular, weekly play. Those PCs could retire, and then we could play their underlings or children or some such in the same setting.

It's not that I want to stop playing the PC(s) after a year or so, but in my experience, going longer than a year and a half is a rare thing; it can't be planned on. Real life interferes, PCs die off, and/or people want to try other games.

This echoes my experience as well, at least in modern day gaming. With all the scheduling issues and reduced time to play as being discussed in other threads it just seems a campaign for my current group is best planned for a one year to one and a half year duration.

It may be that the DM for the campaign needs a break or someone else wants to run or people just want to go with a different campaign. That is the length of campaign that seems to work well with us and able to keep a sustainable energy level too.

 

[Hussar]

Depends on your definition of "campaign." To me, a campaign is basically a set of PCs doing their thing(s) for an extended time. (For example: a set of PCs going through the Temple of Elemental Evil, then the Giants series, then the Drow series.)

I'd be satisfied with a campaign that lasted a year to a year and a half of regular, weekly play. Those PCs could retire, and then we could play their underlings or children or some such in the same setting.

It's not that I want to stop playing the PC(s) after a year or so, but in my experience, going longer than a year and a half is a rare thing; it can't be planned on. Real life interferes, PCs die off, and/or people want to try other games.

Bullgrit

Thirded. I can think of only one or two campaigns (defined by using roughly the same group of people and characters) that actually went into the 18+ month range. I've polled En World on this before and most people seem to fade well before the 24 month mark and the one year mark seems to be probably the peak.

But, for me, honestly, after about a year and a half of a campaign, I'm done. I want something new. Maybe new system, certainly new character. And probably new setting. There's just SO much stuff out there. I couldn't imagine limiting myself to just one setting and one campaign for years on end.

Don't you get bored?

 

[billd91]

Don't you get bored?

Not if the characters and adventures are interesting. We've gone 3-10 years on a number of campaigns.
And if we start to get a little bored, we can take a break with another game for a few months, and then come back.

 

[Hussar]

Not if the characters and adventures are interesting. We've gone 3-10 years on a number of campaigns.
And if we start to get a little bored, we can take a break with another game for a few months, and then come back.

No, hey, totally cool. Wow. I cannot imagine playing the same character for 10 years, no matter how interesting the adventures were. Nor can I imagine trying to come up with stories and scenarios revolving around the same characters for ten years. Gack. Not my cup of tea.