How often should PCs level up?

[Sunseeker]

Can't answer because the poll doesn't include the correct answer, namely, "There is no "should" for leveling up."

When you have the XP, you level up. If you an do that in 2 sessions? Kudos! If it takes you five months of games? That's all good too.

There is no and absolutely should be NO expectations of levels after "X" sessions or "hours of game time" or any other ridiculous, meaningless, completely arbitrary count/number when a player becomes "due" a level.

Get the XP. Level up.

Well that's a completely meaningless, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who don't even use xp.

 

[Blue]

I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.

I usually give milestone XP instead of encounter XP. So building political alliances (to advance the story) will often bring more than combat unless that's specifically directed.

I also give out a pool for good RP in sessions outside everything else. I let players reward each other with poker chips. Shares of a pool, so they can't just inflate each other.

 

[Blue]

When I DM, I like low levels to go faster - start people with a taste of weakness so they can appreciate when they go up, but get them to a point where they can enjoy more options and toys as well as allow me a wide range of challenges to throw at them. Part of that is that I cut my teeth on AD&D and AD&D 2nd and remember spending a literal year of weekly 12 hour sessions to get a level once we were in the teens.

Hmm, for my 13th Age game, to translate it to 5e terms, is about 4 levels per RL year, which is about 20ish 3-3.5 hour sessions. So I guess that's 5 sessions per level.

 

[steeldragons]

Well that's a completely meaningless, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who don't even use xp.

Which is a completely meanings, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who "want to level up."

 

[Sunseeker]

Which is a completely meanings, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who "want to level up."

I wager it's not, given that milestones are a well-used way of leveling up.

 

[steeldragons]

I wager it's not, given that milestones are a well-used way of leveling up.

As are XP. With a whole lot more legacy behind them (for people that care about such things).

"Milestones" are used, of course. That is an indisputable statement. Whether or not they are "well-used" (or used well, for that matter), is a matter of preference and personal experience.

So what makes my statement any more "meaningless," "ridiculous" or "arbitrary" than yours?

 

[steeldragons]

I personally find milestones meaningless, ridiculous, and arbitrary. You level up after playing 1 session? 2? This is, of course, achieved simply by having a character in the game...So, why do players even need to show up? Here's my character sheet, tell me when we've "won."

We had 5 sessions! Everybody go up another level! The heroes thwarted the evil overlord! You [or your character] didn't actually DO anything or even have to be there. But just take a level, so we keep everybody advancing together. It's nonsense, completely voids player agency. Anyone concerned with player choices or player knowledge/system mastery or how their PC's impact the game/events in the game world (and any combinations thereof), would want to avoid "milestone" games like the plague, as I see it.

 

[Sunseeker]

As are XP. With a whole lot more legacy behind them (for people that care about such things).

"Milestones" are used, of course. That is an indisputable statement. Whether or not they are "well-used" (or used well, for that matter), is a matter of preference and personal experience.

So what makes my statement any more "meaningless," "ridiculous" or "arbitrary" than yours?

Because you prephased it by assaulting all ideas to the contrary. The fact that you made a secondary, ranty post repeating your assault on those ideas really just demonstrates my point.

I really don't understand why you came in here to do nothing but make combative posts.

 

[steeldragons]

I didn't. The question was "How often should PCs level up."

To that, I responded. My answer, my preference, my opinion on the topic at hand.

I was done in this thread...nothing else, really, to say on the matter.

Until, then, you wanted/decided to take exception to it and assert that your way of playing is somehow "better" or more acceptable than mine. Mine being, to quote you yet again, "a meaningless, ridiculous, [and] arbitrary statement."

So...who came here to be "combative?"

 

[Sunseeker]

I didn't. The question was "How often should PCs level up."

To that, I responded. My answer, my preference, my opinion on the topic at hand.

I was done in this thread...nothing else, really, to say on the matter.

Until, then, you wanted/decided to take exception to it and assert that your way of playing is somehow "better" or more acceptable than mine. Mine being, to quote you yet again, "a meaningless, ridiculous, [and] arbitrary statement."

So...who came here to be "combative?"

I used those words, because they are your words, in case you forgot, emphasis mine:

There is no and absolutely should be NO expectations of levels after "X" sessions or "hours of game time" or any other ridiculous, meaningless, completely arbitrary count/number when a player becomes "due" a level.

Get the XP. Level up.

You could have stated that last part without any commentary on alternative means of leveling, without your clearly biased opinion on those alternatives, indeed without any commentary at all.

If you feel that the only way a character should level is "by getting the XP" then all your post really needed to say was "When they have gained enough XP to level." But as the post below demonstrates, that wasn't your real goal, otherwise the followup post would have been unnecessary. You didn't want to make your sentiments known about how often you think players should level, you wanted to make an attack on how often other other people who hold different opinions than you are wrong.

I personally find milestones meaningless, ridiculous, and arbitrary. You level up after playing 1 session? 2? This is, of course, achieved simply by having a character in the game...So, why do players even need to show up? Here's my character sheet, tell me when we've "won."

We had 5 sessions! Everybody go up another level! The heroes thwarted the evil overlord! You [or your character] didn't actually DO anything or even have to be there. But just take a level, so we keep everybody advancing together. It's nonsense, completely voids player agency. Anyone concerned with player choices or player knowledge/system mastery or how their PC's impact the game/events in the game world (and any combinations thereof), would want to avoid "milestone" games like the plague, as I see it.

If I seem a little personally incensed, I am, because I don't particularly like XP but you don't see me trashing it here, but I have been on the receiving end of people like you for years. XP Master Race types. Who think that they are so right because of history, because of experience in gaming, because *reasons* that it entitles them to berate, deride and denigrate those who do not agree with them.

And no, your signature does not give you a free pass to shitpost. IMO is not a shield from social repercussions. Your goal here is to incite, inflame and insult. It is harassment and little more than pseudo-intellectual trolling.