D&D 5E (2024) GMs: How long should it usually take to go from level 1 to 4?

[EzekielRaiden]

I use XP as well, I guess it's just odd that choosing rough session numbers means you don't use XP? Or choosing XP means that ... you don't have a rough estimate for how many sessions it takes to get to 4.

My notion, at least when I formulated the answer, was that the number of sessions is 100% completely irrelevant for someone who gives that answer. The one, and only, consideration--for someone who gives that answer--is the XP total, and nothing else about how the XP was acquired matters. If it took 1000 sessions to reach 2700 XP, then it took 1000 sessions. If it takes 1 session to reach 2700 XP, then it takes 1 session. An estimate of "number of sessions" would be unimportant at best and outright unhelpful at worst, because sessions do not give any form of consistent XP; one session might give none at all, and the next might give more than a thousand, and then the next might give only 100, and then the next might give 600, etc.

It's not that you don't know the number of sessions. It's that the number of sessions is irrelevant.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I may take about 6 sessions.

1st Level= 0 session
2nd Level = 1 session
3rd Level = 2-3 sessions
4th Level = 2-3 sessions

 

[Marc17]

I'd say till they get the XP, but doesn't describe what is really going on dealing with the campaign. The current games I have and plan on running involve a lot of interaction. It will take a few games just to meet and interact with the important NPCs before they even really figure out what they want to do. Last two ongoing games I ran or was in lasted around 5 years each. I doubt we'd advance as fast as most people here regardless.

 

[TwoSix]

I am given to understand that a typical session for nearly all people who play is no more than 5 hours and no less than 2 hours, typically 3-4, with some wiggle room (e.g. if you end on a nice note at 3:45, you're not going to force 15 more minutes of play; if you are 90% done with a combat everyone is enjoying at 4:00, you might let it ride for another 5-15 minutes to see if you can get the thing wrapped up.)

All of my in-person tables average around 3-3.5 hours per session, no matter who's DMing.

I don't normally start at 1, but when it has happened, it's usually one session to get to 2, 2 sessions to get to 3, and then we hit our normal pace of about 3-4 sessions per level.

 

[Charlaquin]

My notion, at least when I formulated the answer, was that the number of sessions is 100% completely irrelevant for someone who gives that answer. The one, and only, consideration--for someone who gives that answer--is the XP total, and nothing else about how the XP was acquired matters. If it took 1000 sessions to reach 2700 XP, then it took 1000 sessions. If it takes 1 session to reach 2700 XP, then it takes 1 session. An estimate of "number of sessions" would be unimportant at best and outright unhelpful at worst, because sessions do not give any form of consistent XP; one session might give none at all, and the next might give more than a thousand, and then the next might give only 100, and then the next might give 600, etc.

It's not that you don't know the number of sessions. It's that the number of sessions is irrelevant.

The value of XP is that it provides players (and the DM) with a visible progress bar, showing them how close they are to leveling up. This is both viscerally psychologically satisfying, and a good barometer for the pacing of the action. If you have a target number of sessions in mind, and the players are well behind schedule to earn enough XP in your target number of sessions, you know you should probably include more XP opportunities and/or drive the pace of the action faster. If they’re gaining XP way more rapidly than expected and on track to level well before your target number of sessions, you know you have room to slow things down, maybe have some lower-key sessions. It also helps draw a connection between the players’ actions and their character advancement. Players get to see that their actions bring them measurably closer to leveling up, rather than just leveling up when the DM says to.

 

[aco175]

The bookkeeping of xp is about as fun as tracking ammo, water skins, and food supplies of old school D&D. Milestone and never looked back.

Goes along with the edition doing away with classes needing different amounts of XP and no level drain to unbalance things. When everyone is the same and stays the same there is not need to track it individually, so milestone just makes sense.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am a milestone DM and do not have a set formula or knowledge of how many sessions it will take to level up... because everything can change based upon how much the players end up roleplaying. Especially in the early game sessions when we are setting up the campaign scenario, getting the characters all together as a group, and then the party finding their initial quest / story thread.

Numbers-wise the game has been set up that if using XP and starting right in on a combat or two in your very first session... you will probably be able to dish out the 1500 XP (assuming 5 PCs needing 300 XP each) quite easily. An Ogre, an Owlbear, a bunch of goblin types, and then the requisite "Quest XP" and you're done. Move onto Level 2 and you're good to go.

But if that first session involves the DM and each of the five players all individually roleplaying where their PCs are starting from just to arrive at the city where the party formation is taking place... 20 minutes per PC means more than an hour and a half in that first session and you only now have just created the party. Then the party has X amount of time to speak to each other and roleplay and start finding who they all are as characters and their interactions amongst each other. And maybe the group might meet the person who is going to be that first quest-giver and receive their initial job, but who knows if they actually start working on it that first session? Then the second session a week later picks up where they left off... a good amount of time at the start of the session is the characters interacting with each other again to remind themselves all of who they are and what their quirks are individually and with each other. And then they start in on their initial quest. But when does that initial combat for that first quest appear? And how strong are the enemies the group is going to be facing XP-wise? Are they strong enough to make me believe they should level up right after it? Or do I feel like they at least need to make some progress in that initial quest before I decide they've hit a milestone to warrant it?

If we look at something as simple as Lost Mines of Phandelver (using the version given out for free on DDB)... the adventure starts with the party already on the road heading towards Phandalin when they come upon the dead horses in the road, explore the area, and then get attacked by four goblins worth 50 XP each (but let's make it 5 goblins because I've been using 5 PCs as my example). After the fight there's then all the RP as the group loots the bodies, decides what to do with their wagon and the bodies of the dead horses, and then hikes into the woods heading to the Cragmaw hideout. They make their way past two goblins traps and then arrive at Cragmaw where the module grants the party 75 XP each as quest XP and completes a story milestone. So XP-wise they haven't actually earned enough to level to 2 (having only earned 125 XP out of 300), but milestone-wise they come out ahead of the game. The question though is how many sessions did this take to reach this point? How much RP was spent back at the beginning of the adventure? Did we just start in media res already on the road like the adventure sets up, or did we actually go through all the roleplay of gathering the party members together and introducing them all in Neverwinter and then finding Gundren Rockseeker to get the quest from him, and then finally starting off on the road heading south? All that could change just how far along we get and thus how many session it takes to finally get up to Cragmaw Hideout and in theory earn that story milestone. Maybe one session... maybe 2... maybe 3 (depending on the amount of character development and dithering the players go through, plus how many hours each session actually runs.) All that to just reach 125 XP gained (if we use the adventure's distribution) or a story milestone (if we use the adventure's breakpoint.) Which means that some DMs who use XP won't even level the party up then yet because they still haven't earned 300 XP per PC... and some milestone DMs mind thinking just arriving at Cragmaw isn't enough of a story break and will wait until the Hideout is completely cleared before awarding the milestone and the level up to 2. And who knows how many session it could take to complete the Hideout as well.

Thus to my mind there are way too many variables to really determine any set pattern as to what is standard or proper leveling speed and how many sessions it might take... even when it comes to finding the breakpoints in the adventure to set my milestones.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The value of XP is that it provides players (and the DM) with a visible progress bar, showing them how close they are to leveling up. This is both viscerally psychologically satisfying, and a good barometer for the pacing of the action. If you have a target number of sessions in mind, and the players are well behind schedule to earn enough XP in your target number of sessions, you know you should probably include more XP opportunities and/or drive the pace of the action faster. If they’re gaining XP way more rapidly than expected and on track to level well before your target number of sessions, you know you have room to slow things down, maybe have some lower-key sessions. It also helps draw a connection between the players’ actions and their character advancement. Players get to see that their actions bring them measurably closer to leveling up, rather than just leveling up when the DM says to.

But by the same token... if the DM is using story milestones rather than XP... players still get a "progress bar" of sorts because they know what their quest is that they are on and can usually determine just how far along they are in getting closer to the end of it. And depending on the import of said quest... they will get an idea of whether the quest would be a "story" in and of itself, or whether it is just one part of a larger plotline (and one more likely to be considered a milestone.) So players in a milestone game do not have as precise a measurement as those who play under XP (your point being a good one), but they also aren't completely in the dark about it either. They also can see their actions bringing them closer to leveling up. "Finish the job, gain a level" as it were.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The value of XP is that it provides players (and the DM) with a visible progress bar, showing them how close they are to leveling up. This is both viscerally psychologically satisfying, and a good barometer for the pacing of the action. If you have a target number of sessions in mind, and the players are well behind schedule to earn enough XP in your target number of sessions, you know you should probably include more XP opportunities and/or drive the pace of the action faster. If they’re gaining XP way more rapidly than expected and on track to level well before your target number of sessions, you know you have room to slow things down, maybe have some lower-key sessions. It also helps draw a connection between the players’ actions and their character advancement. Players get to see that their actions bring them measurably closer to leveling up, rather than just leveling up when the DM says to.

This would seem, to me, to be just a more robust, detailed way of saying what I had said.

But perhaps I should present that as a question:

If you realized, on session 3, that your players have simply moved in different directions and speeds compared to your expectations, would you truly try to dump just a metric buttload of XP on them solely in order to ensure that you did, in fact, get them to level (whatever) by the end of session 4? Or would you only do something like this if you realized that--say--they still weren't level 4 after 8 or 10 (or whatever, pick any large-ish number) sessions had already elapsed?

Because what you said made me think you were entirely in the latter camp. Only paying attention to session count if it has become an actual problem, and otherwise...not caring, because XP total is what does this thing, not session-time elapsed. If I have misunderstood that, I apologize.

 

[Meech17]

I voted for 5-6, but was considering the "When I say so" option.

It seems like a lot of folks here share, or have similar mentalities to my own.

I like to consider my campaign as happening in "Chunks" or "Episodes". I'm kind of hoping it pans out like Diablo 2, honestly. A set of quests, all under interconnected into Acts that will eventually play out into one full campaign.

Level 1->2 after the first session.
-Level 1 is just so, limited. It seems like characters were almost meant to start at level 3, and it seems like it's popular for games to start there. Just from a tradition standpoint, and also the fact that my current group were mostly new players I wanted to start at 1. One simple quest with a few ability checks, and few combat encounters let the players learn the game, and the basics of their characters.

Level 2->3 after the third session.
-We get a little deeper. Each player gets a new ability or some spells or something and their characters are a little deeper. The players do two more small quests, each lasting a single session. One was more combat focused, the other was more role-play/puzzle solving.

Level 3->4 after the sixth session.
-The players now have more abilities, including picking subclasses and stuff. Their characters are now kind of fully into their class roles. For my group this was actually 4 more sessions instead of 3, but I underestimated my players stamina. I planned these adventures out to be another single session adventure, and then it was supposed to be a slightly more robust 2-session adventure/quest which ended up taking 3. So my goal was to hit 4 after six sessions but it ended up being 7. I was setting the pace based off my memories of playing as a teenager/young adult in marathon sessions, and now my group of 30-somethings really start to fall off at the 4 hour mark and we really can't push it past that. What can you do?

We've been on hiatus for about a year now unfortunately, but I think when we get back into it, they'll all be level 4 and I'm hoping to run them through their longest quest yet. Probably 4-6 sessions, This is also where I'm kind of considering the end point for Act 1. The tone of the game is going to shift a little. The stakes will get a little higher. Hopefully they'll begin to see the fruits (Or whatever the opposite of fruits is for a bad outcome) of their previous efforts. I imagine we'll hit level 5 as we enter into Act 2.