Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[Micah Sweet]

Except that other than combat (which gives each creature an XP amount)... any actions or quests or things that the PCs do or complete gains XP completely determined and at the whim of the DM. So even "non-milestone" XP is still pretty much "milestone XP" because the DM chooses how much XP to give for each thing. If the DM wants Level 1 to last six sessions, then the XP they'll assign to each quest in that time will be just small enough that it'll probably take six sessions to get there.

Then put rules in place for how much one gets for what, or find rules that already do that (several versions of D&D and D&D-adjacent games have such) and follow them. Geez! If you're just going to re-define things so they suit your narrative, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You bought what was printed within the pages of the book, not for the numbers on the outside that estimate the power levels of the characters doing it.

If the adventure as written is not worth $50 to you, then return it.

Proverb or not, it's reasonable for the words on a books cover to reflect what's in the book. Thinking otherwise is to me excusing poor design, or at least poor advertising.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, which is why there needs to be a lot more "meat" to those first few levels.

What you point out here is nothing more than a design flaw in 5e that, while getting play to the "sweet spot" faster, really does mess with believable worldbuilding in the process. It's kind of a carry-over from 4e which (in a different form of poor-for-worldbuilding design) had its PCs start with nearly-3rd-level abilities right from the hop and left a huge gap between commoner and 1st-level PC.

I mean, I've no problem with there being lots of 0th and 1st and even 2nd level types in the setting provided the progression is reasonably consistent - soldiers, street thieves, etc. who have built up over some years a degree of experience that adventurers tend to get in a few weeks - and my take is that anyone in the setting can earn xp if they try to. It's just that most either don't try (a typical baker or farmer), or don't realize they're very slowly earning xp as they go along (cloistered cleric, street thief, etc.).

It's a flaw from our perspective, but to be fair it does seem pretty clear to be the intended design. If it hurts worldbuilding, well, maybe that's just not that high a priority for the modern WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why is the camera focused on them?

Because there are players controlling their actions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have not, but I also reject the comparison. A D&D campaign isn’t comparable to a golf tournament. The camera is on the party because they’re special and doing the cool things. They’re adventurers. 90% of NPCs are commoners with jobs. Maybe the PCs are just uniquely skilled, or there could be some prophecy that says their special, or they have some supernatural reason for being more powerful than the average peasant. But the game happens because the party stands out amongst a sea of ordinary people. If anyone could level up by killing creatures, butchers and serial killers would be pretty high level.

You're welcome to feel that way and to use that philosophy at your table. Not me. Agree to disagree.

 

[mamba]

But why is the camera focused on them?

I never understood that question / argument. It is focused on them because they are the PCs, not because they are special. Just like ‘your camera’ is focused on you without you being special (generic you), it’s just recording what you are doing

 

[tetrasodium]

This thread does a great job of showing why d&d needs to dial back on the advancement acceleration. I'd say that it's long past time for an option like "slow advancement" experience per level chart, but this thread nicely shows how it needs a "slow" and "normal" pace to accompany the "extremely fast" one it has standard.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because there are players controlling their actions.

But why are the players controlling them? Why are adventurers/heroes the ones that are focused on? Why is the game adventurers going into dungeons to kill monsters and take their stuff? Why aren’t the PCs playing farmers, or blacksmiths, or reigning monarchs? Why is it considered bad form in the hobby to make a character that doesn’t want to adventure and resists every quest?

The characters in the party can’t just be anyone. They specifically need a reason for adventuring. If the camera was focused on just any random person in the D&D world, it wouldn’t work as a D&D game.

 

[Lanefan]

I have not, but I also reject the comparison. A D&D campaign isn’t comparable to a golf tournament. The camera is on the party because they’re special and doing the cool things. They’re adventurers. 90% of NPCs are commoners with jobs. Maybe the PCs are just uniquely skilled, or there could be some prophecy that says their special, or they have some supernatural reason for being more powerful than the average peasant. But the game happens because the party stands out amongst a sea of ordinary people.

The game happens because we focus on this particular party. My default (and, I think, the game's default assumption) is that they're not the only adventurers in the setting; there's other adventurers out there doing things and gaining levels, and people can gain levels more slowly without adventuring (thus explaining levelled NPCs).

If anyone could level up by killing creatures, butchers and serial killers would be pretty high level.

In a set-up like default 5e where the early levels come thick and fast, yes; over the years these people maybe would gain some levels in a simple "class" such as fighter or assassin. (one could argue "serial killer" is close enough to an adventuring profession to be considered an adventurer anyway).

A better example is the military "lifer" or long-time street thief. To me, these people should be slowly gaining levels as they go along - a street thief who's been at it for 20 years is highly likely to be more adept at it than someone just starting out and could immediately apply at least some of that learning as an adventurer if so desired. Thus, if a party of PCs wants to recruit a Thief the 6th-level Thief they pick up might have earned all those levels as a street thief and never have done any field adventuring at all.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I always go with: Commoners are 0 Level no class characters.

Most backgrounds mention that your character has some sort of experience. You're a soldier. You saved your village. You've had schooling.

You aren't a fresh daisy.

The PC's are special.

I also like that most NPC's never get about 10. And 10 is like head of the church of the god you follow. Or the master of the wizards school. 11+ is for the truly exceptional. There may be a handful 20th level Wizard or Fighter or whatever out there in the whole world.

By the by, I've always liked the idea that a god has just one paladin running around at any given time. Like Buffy.