D&D 5E Adventuring Days, XP & Leveling

[Rod Staffwand]

I believe the design goal was to get a 1-20 level campaign in less than 6 months of games (something like 30 'standard' adventuring days). I think the idea was to keep the pace up, rapidly evolve the PCs and the challenges they face, and then wrap it up before players get bored or the group otherwise devolves. Players love new toys to play with.

To me, and everyone I play with, it feels like gaming on fast-forward. I'm a player in a campaign now that started in 2003. We're all around level 13 at this point and the campaign has 5+ years of life left in it. We played for 3 years before we ever made it to a town larger than 300 people or a +1 item showed up. I've got notes on character sheets referring to NPCs and quest goals I don't even remotely remember anymore. A couple of players had kids that were born that first year. Those babies are now teenagers and have started playing themselves.

To me, that's a campaign.

 

[robus]

I think the deeper question still remains, separate from how or why WotC made the choice: Why do you think there's less meaning in a level gained in less time than more time? It's all just arbitrary it seems to me. Something else to consider is how much real time does it take in terms of hours played or sessions completed? In some cases, 1.5 adventuring days could be several sessions. So are you basing this feeling on real time or game time? If it's game time, on what basis are you deciding whether it's the "right" amount of time? It sounds like you haven't quite sorted that out yet.

Well, as I said, I’m switching back to handing out XP and, as DM, i have a certain pacing mind. So I’m trying to match the leveling to the pacing. And I’m finding the expected pacing to be too fast. Simple as that really.

 

[robus]

I believe the design goal was to get a 1-20 level campaign in less than 6 months of games (something like 30 'standard' adventuring days). I think the idea was to keep the pace up, rapidly evolve the PCs and the challenges they face, and then wrap it up before players get bored or the group otherwise devolves. Players love new toys to play with.

To me, and everyone I play with, it feels like gaming on fast-forward. I'm a player in a campaign now that started in 2003. We're all around level 13 at this point and the campaign has 5+ years of life left in it. We played for 3 years before we ever made it to a town larger than 300 people or a +1 item showed up. I've got notes on character sheets referring to NPCs and quest goals I don't even remotely remember anymore. A couple of players had kids that were born that first year. Those babies are now teenagers and have started playing themselves.

To me, that's a campaign.

Wow, i thought we were doing well to be two years in and just made it to 15th level. I think that’s the root of my problem. With milestone leveling we’ve been going in slow motion (no idea what kind of xp they should get) now with XP leveling we would be in ultra fast forward. No wonder I’m feeling a little off balance!

Perhaps i need to just forget about encounter XP and go with a micro-milestone approach?

 

[Hussar]

Really, it all goes back to the polling that WotC did before releasing 3e. Campaigns, and groups really, rarely last more than a year or so. Real life gets in the way and whatnot and there's a kind of up and down curve for how long campaigns and groups last with the majority (and I suspect a very large majority) of the curve hitting around the 12 month mark, dropping down and then slowing climbing up again after that (after all, if you manage to make that 12-18 month hump, you're likely going to be able to go much longer).

So, what should they design the game for? For people who have multi-year campaigns or for the much larger bunch that likely will not see an 18 month campaign? Well, they went for the 12-18 month group so that you didn't have large chunks of the game sitting around gathering dust.

Only problem is, even with faster leveling, it seems like higher level STILL aren't being seen all that much. All the AP's are cashing out at around 10th level now.

If they really want higher level play to be viable, I think they need to start producing some AP's that start at higher level instead of 1st. Only thing is, I'm not sure people will buy it. And around and around the circle goes.

 

[robus]

Really, it all goes back to the polling that WotC did before releasing 3e. Campaigns, and groups really, rarely last more than a year or so. Real life gets in the way and whatnot and there's a kind of up and down curve for how long campaigns and groups last with the majority (and I suspect a very large majority) of the curve hitting around the 12 month mark, dropping down and then slowing climbing up again after that (after all, if you manage to make that 12-18 month hump, you're likely going to be able to go much longer).

So, what should they design the game for? For people who have multi-year campaigns or for the much larger bunch that likely will not see an 18 month campaign? Well, they went for the 12-18 month group so that you didn't have large chunks of the game sitting around gathering dust.

Only problem is, even with faster leveling, it seems like higher level STILL aren't being seen all that much. All the AP's are cashing out at around 10th level now.

If they really want higher level play to be viable, I think they need to start producing some AP's that start at higher level instead of 1st. Only thing is, I'm not sure people will buy it. And around and around the circle goes.

I see. But if groups rarely make it past 15 what’s the need to rush it? There’s no published adventure to cover it and if groups do make it that far they’re probably in for the long haul...?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Think of it this way: It's like using the CR system, but the DM determines the CR after the PC's deal with it. For example, say a group of 5th level PC's go into battle with some monstrosity and it's few minions. The DM has pre-set the base CR of the encounter at CR 6. A tough battle, but not that unwinable. Round one: every single PC "novas" and all the minions die, and the main beastie is down to below half it's HP's. Two rounds later, it's dead. This was hardly a "difficult" encounter! So...the DM gives it a rating of CR 3.

The problem with that sort of system is that it encourages playing like an idiot. The encounter was only easy, in your example, because the characters were acting competently and they expended resources in an efficient manner. If the world incentivizes charging forward without thinking, by making it so that those characters learn more and advance more quickly, then it leads to bizarrely divergent gameplay.

 

[5ekyu]

For tier-2 and tier-3 we use a mostly session based advancement which is meant to level up about every 8 sessions.

Thats usually about the time it takes to complete a significant chapter of our games and it feels good to demarcate the transitions but without necessarily tieing it to specific goals.

Realky see no benefit to having the advancement system drive player/character choices to be any different than their own player/character motivations myself.

Would definitely not base it on how badly they did being worth more. That seems counter to what we look for when gaming.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't understand this discussion. It's not as if the XP police breaks down your door if you hand out less experience than prescribed by the PHB.

The xp per level chart must be one of the least interesting tables in the entire book.

Who cares if WotC wants you to level fast at 2nd level and slow at 12th, or vice versa?

Just hand out xp at the rate you feel is best. Or, even better, skip xp entirely and save yourself some needless book-keeping! [emoji3]

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sadras]

I just have to figure out the math (which I'm doing in a spreadsheet) so that I can roughly figure out how much XP to dish out per encounter.

We zero out character earned XP after every level gain. It does the job to slow it down.
Campaign pacing is variable depending on the campaign.

I guess my issue with the way it currently progresses is I can't imagine much sense of satisfaction with reaching level 20. It doesn't seem like much of a struggle. Level 20 would be just another milepost that goes whizzing by, blink and you miss it.

Bold emphasis mine. Doesn't that depend on the difficulty of the encounters?

 

[robus]

I don't understand this discussion. It's not as if the XP police breaks down your door if you hand out less experience than prescribed by the PHB.

The xp per level chart must be one of the least interesting tables in the entire book.

Who cares if WotC wants you to level fast at 2nd level and slow at 12th, or vice versa?

Just hand out xp at the rate you feel is best. Or, even better, skip xp entirely and save yourself some needless book-keeping! [emoji3]

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Ha, I find this funny coming from you Capn! I’m simply trying understand (and potentially use) the adventuring day, XP and leveling as written. So you’re finally joining the crowd that says who cares what WotC came up with (and what I spent my money on)? A decent DM just fixes it?