Long Adventures and Levelling. etc.?

[Ahnehnois]

This is what I mean by overthinking.

Clearly you've never played with engineers.

The value (as does any number on a character sheet) means something. It tells you something about that character. One number may be very abstract; it may aggregate a variety of factors, but it reflects something tangible in that character's reality. And when it changes, something about that character changes. One doesn't have to think a whole lot to reach this conclusion.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've put this thread up because I'd be very interested in whether this is a problem for other people. Is it? How do you rationalise this? What interesting houserules or alternative ways in handling it are there?

Much more than the problem of levelling up multiple times in the middle of an adventure, I have the problem of characters reaching the top level in too short time because of that.

For the first problem, it is enough for me to just think their next-level abilities were nearly ready but not quite, until at some point they managed to "unlocked" them. It may not feel right in all campaigns, but it's not that bad.

But the second problem really has no solution... unfortunately the game has only so many levels, so if your PCs start at 20 years old and before the end of the year they reach the last level of the game, then it is a huge blow to my suspension of disbelief, to think that all the rest of the world is so inept that it just watches them them gain 20 or 30 levels in a year, while NPCs, BBEG and monsters just stay about the same. You have the ol' Wizard who is 20th level when the PCs were 1st level, and they looked at him in awe... wow it must have taken all his life to get there... and then it invariably takes the PCs a year or two to catch him up

Many years ago I actually suggested in a thread on these forums that there could be (as a house rule) an age requirement for levels, but that would actually work against the players in many other campaigns.

So overall there's nothing you can do that can work for everyone. In my games, I usually don't get to run such long campaigns that I can plan long story arcs or adventures that spans months of gaming time, but OTOH this means I can afford not to worry much about this problem, since I end up typically running a series of short adventures with possibly a couple of background stories that develop slowly. This means downtime is easy to slip in.

In general, my absolute favourite adventures are not those combat-heavy parties with 20 fights in 24 hours, 7 days straight (in which case I'd just suggest to either (a) embrace playing it like a video game, this is not so far from what Gygax had in mind in the early years anyway, or (b) don't be afraid of dropping the XP down to 10%). My favourite is a LotR-type saga with many plots ongoing and laaaarge delays between "interesting days".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Much more than the problem of levelling up multiple times in the middle of an adventure, I have the problem of characters reaching the top level in too short time because of that.

A valid concern. This leads me to some fairly common-sense conclusions. One, rational actors in a D&D world probably would prefer to avoid fights. Two, those that don't often die, making the advancement of characters Darwinian. Three, adventurers probably have adventurous but short careers, much like professional athletes.

Clearly, most adventurers should not reach 20th (or even 10th) level.

 

[Luce]

First, on the meta level different editions have different implied rates of advancement. For example, 2e DMG recommends 4-6 adventures to level up (and judging from my experience with Dungeon magazine that is accurate estimate). Put in another way a 12 part adventure path will gain you 2 may be 3 levels. 3e DMG estimates a level to take 13.33 [level equivalent] encounters. The adventures in Dungeon from the period we pretty much 1:1 level to adventure ratio.
Second, characters rarely fight 24/7. There is walking from place to place, cooking, cleaning, nightwatch. In other words even when on the field there should be plenty of time to sneak in some self training.
The wizard reads his book while riding or eating, or before bed. The fighter do some shadow swordplay or tries to imitate something he had seen. The rogue reads anatomy and opens locks blindfolded. The cleric mediates on chosen sections of his holly book(s) etc. Even when you an a hurry a two day ride is a two day ride.
Third, survival is great motivator. If not being able to do a feature extraction via kernel in your math class was detrimental to your health I would think one would try harder. Being in the field ricking body and soul can result in some very rapid improvement for the ones that survive long enough.
As an aside, experience itself is sometimes defined as facing a [perceived] danger. E. g "Three kobolds" shop scenario. The characters see 3 kobolds on the side of the road selling obviously stolen goods, the blood stains being a dead giveaway. One player wants to pick a fight stating that 3 kobolds are no real danger. A wiser companion counters :"We only see 3. There are probably more around. How did you think they got their merchandise in the first place?" The lesson being that facing an obvious inferior opponents should not earn XP, now if there is the chance that there are hidden enemies (whether it is true or not) should probably be worth some experience. [the term originates from one of the "Song and Swords" novels]

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Are the rules for training times perhaps indicative of the old mode of playing: a rather large group of players, not all of which attend any single session?

In this mode you'd end a session outside of the dungeon, so that next weeks's group can have its adeventure regardless of the players showing up. So if you spend three weeks of training you just not that this character won't be available for as much sessions.

And, as [MENTION=29760]Luce[/MENTION] noted, levelling up occured only rarely. It was no problem to rule levelling up being only possible between adventures.

Up to 2e I employed the following house rule: to level uip you had to find a teacher with at least your desired level. This teacher would train you on a weekly basis. After each week of training you were allowed to roll an attribute check for your character's prime attribute minus the desired level plus the number of weeks spent in training. Each week of training costs the fixed sum of 500 (?) gp. A teacher could only train you for a number of weeks equal to your difference in levels. So a teacher one level higher than your character could train you, but only for one week. If you missed the attribute check, he could no longer help you; you had to find another teacher.

The uncertain training times posed no problem because of the fact that training occured between adventures only. The goal of this system, which it achieved very well, was mainly to bleed money of the group.

 

[Umbran]

Clearly you've never played with engineers.

No. I just play with engineers who understand relative sizes.

The value (as does any number on a character sheet) means something. It tells you something about that character.

That's true. But, the incremental change is *SMALL*. The change in who the character is because of that is *SMALL*. I can see folks having an issue with having developed, say, the abilities of a whole other class (say, via multiclassing) to be problematic to swallow. But we fall back again to being able to hand-wave so many things that aren't quite right that are so much larger, and this is a hangup?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But we fall back again to being able to hand-wave so many things that aren't quite right that are so much larger, and this is a hangup?

Saying "it happens sometime during your break" is handwaving it. It's just doing so in a way that makes suspension of disbelief easier.

 

[Gomer212]

I'll start out by saying that this is exactly why I'm not a fan of most single "epic" campaigns that span from level 1 to around 30. I hate games which transform characters from commoners to immortals in 6 months. Not only is it unrealistic, but you are missing out on excellent character development opportunity.

To me, 30th level is nothing short of a lifetime achievement, representing many years of work and dedication. When I DM, I break the characters careers down into several "mini-campaigns" which will span the distance of around 3-6 XP levels and take somewhere from a month to a year to complete.

Once the campaign wraps up (and providing the characters survive) everyone cheers and the characters decide where to go next. I follow the game with 3-5 years of "downtime" where the characters can live however they want. They basically write a background for themselves. Some go off and marry NPCs from last adventure, buy houses, start families, find work, or whatever.

Suddenly, evil strikes again (or whatever the hook for the next campaign) and the group is reunited again for the first time in years. They laugh and share tales about how they have been living their lives. They tell stories about the good times they've shared then chuckle as they claim to be "getting too old for this sort of thing". Then the campaign starts and they go bash heads again, gaining more levels.

For individual levels, I only allow them to take effect after a typical 8 hour rest. The character awakes and is ever so slightly stronger, smarter or healthier.....or the mage decides this is the day he's finally going to try that new spell.

For a character to hit 30th level in my games takes about 60 years. The humans and half-orcs will be old and gray, while the elves have hardly aged. The characters will have lived lives outside of just the dungeon. They have grown old with their wives and watched their children become the next generation of adventurers. They have made friends and thwarted many enemies. They have lived complete lives.

If you define character advancement simply as an increase in numbers, you are missing out on some of the best aspects of the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's true. But, the incremental change is *SMALL*.

Also, this struck me. 5% isn't that small. In baseball, for example, 50 points off of one's batting average is the difference between being an all-star and a mediocre player. If someone gets 5% better at swinging a club at orcs' heads, that isn't much different. And whenever a baseball player does have that kind of jump in performance over a short timeframe, steroids are suspected, because people don't naturally get that much better at something overnight.

This is also why E6 and the like are popular; d20 only feels "realistic" up through a few such 5% increments. Not to mention that leveling up can cause much bigger changes that that.