Does it really matter how fast your characters level up?

[Plane Sailing]

I think the 1e paradigm where 9th level PCs were retiring from dungeon-crawling to develop baronies, thieves' guilds, wizard schools, temples etc actually worked far, far better than 3e's attempt at Diablo-style endless dungeoneering.

I couldn't agree more with this point. I think this is the *worst* thing about 3e on a number of levels.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Mechanical adjustments are not difficult, but then you get the "12th level bandits with half-baatezu half-dragon bandit chief taking over small village" effect - the numbers may be high, but it's still a low-level plot.

Agreed.

Characters of whatever level should be doing what they are capable of, not stuck in a time warp doing what they did years (i.e. levels) ago. The paradigm is whatever the DM makes it but I use 20 levels something like such:

1-5) characters deal with low level minions, need to survive within the social system
6-10) characters direct groups and exert influence over their surroundings
11-15) characters have strong minions, control regions, can be a of cause great occurances
16-20) characters are legends of their age, may "break" the system on a whim

A group of 12th level "bandits" means to me that this is no mere village and they are no mere bandits, some great event is about to unfold. If they act like a bunch of 3rd level brigands otoh, well, I'd be disappointed.

Btw, my DM is going old school on me by handing out aproximately 1/4 XP to the next level every session and not caring a whit for the CR/level table. It's the perfect method for his campaign and he's running it on instinct, I think the apprentice is becoming the master.

 

[S'mon]

I use (from http://www.geocities.com/s.t.newman/demographics.htm)

Level Distribution on Ea (NPC)
Novice - 1st - 50%
Trained - 2nd - 25%
Experienced - 3rd - 12.5%
Veteran - 4th - 6.25%
Elite - 5th - 3.25%
Ultra-Elite - 6th - 1.6%
Heroic - 7th-9th - 1.2%
Legendary - 10th+ - 0.2% (1 in 500)

Basically compared to 3e standard, IMC 1-3 is Low, 4-6 Medium, 7-9 High, 10-12 Very High and 13+ effectively Epic. I actually have more 2nd-5th level NPCs than Monte's distribution, but far fewer 10th+.

When creating NPC groups (eg a bunch of orcs, or bandits, or city guard, I typically use:

Baseline 1st level, 1 in 4 are 2nd, 1 in 8 3rd, 1 in 16 4th, 1 in 32 5th, 1 in 64 6th, 1 in 128 7th, 1 in 256 8th, etc. This automatically generates leader types who are competent but not overwelming - eg in a recent encounter with 15 orcs there was 1 3rd level, 3 2nd, and 11 1st level Warrior orcs.

 

[Shade]

I think the 1e paradigm where 9th level PCs were retiring from dungeon-crawling to develop baronies, thieves' guilds, wizard schools, temples etc actually worked far, far better than 3e's attempt at Diablo-style endless dungeoneering.

I couldn't agree more with this point. I think this is the *worst* thing about 3e on a number of levels.

And I couldn't disagree more.

This really goes to show you how split people are on this issue. I had grown so disillusioned with 2E's front-loaded, lack of anything to strive for after the first few levels approach that I was overjoyed when 3E arrived. Every level now dangles a carrot of greater versatility and fun, which actually made me want to stick with the same character for the last few years, rather than creating about 30 by now had we still been playing 2E.

Maybe the standard dungeon crawl through the goblins' warren isn't appropriate at 9th-level anymore, but the dungeon crawl through the ultroloth's tower in Gehenna may be. The Manual of the Planes is ripe with ideas for dungeon crawls at any level.

We're currently playing two campaigns at 20+ levels, and dungeon crawls are just as fun as they were at 8th level.

And to heck with realism...D&D is just not the game system for realism.

 

[Psion]

I'll voice dissent at the notion of the 1e model being a good one. It used to annoy the snot out of me that people would want to quit playing the characters just at the point that their abilities became interesting.

Also, I think that it's relatively trivial to regulate advancement rates with numbers. The number of XP to advance a level is 1000 x current level. So, if you want to advance after X hours of play, simply have your awards average level * 1000 / X. Yeah, you could just advance the characters every 20 hours of play instead of awarding them 50 * level XP every hour... but in doing so, you deny yourelves the psychological benefits of token economies. Given how trivial that math is, I rather think I reap great benefits in player enthusiasm (and overt GM manipulation ).

 

[S'mon]

I'll voice dissent at the notion of the 1e model being a good one. It used to annoy the snot out of me that people would want to quit playing the characters just at the point that their abilities became interesting.

My "1e model" didn't involve people quitting their PCs just when they became interesting - after all I GM'd PCs like Upper_Krust's Thrin to godhood and beyond (Thrin being a ca 117th level Lesser God by the time 3e came out). I always ran it more like Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals D&D, though I never possessed those rules until I bought the Rules Cyclopedia recently. Basically, over the course of 30 levels or so the PCs start with dungeon delving, but move up to wilderness exploration, political intrigue, positions of power, eventually become rulers, monarchs, legendary heroes, even gods. There can still be dungeon delves occasionally even for 30th level PCs, but they are particular distinct events, not part of a dungeon-crawl routine.

 

[S'mon]

As far as XP goes, I very much prefer to award XP based on achievement rather than playing time; although I will usually give out _some_ minimum XP award even if nothing obvious was achieved I'd much rather be giving out XP for specific achievements.

 

[Psion]

As far as XP goes, I very much prefer to award XP based on achievement rather than playing time;

Well yeah. If you aren't going to award for acheivement, I don't see any point to XP.

although I will usually give out _some_ minimum XP award even if nothing obvious was achieved I'd much rather be giving out XP for specific achievements.

Yup. Currently, my base is 50 xp * level. I then heap on percentage bonuses for difficulty of the adventure, acheivement of goals, roleplaying, ingenuity, etc.

The base I award even to characters whose players are absent. I grappled with this notion for some time, but I decided that keeping the characters at a level which they can contribute to the adventure is at least as important as recognizing accomplishments/token economy behavior.

I see the percentage bonus as a "participation" bonus. Participation is a behavior I encourage, too.

 

[3catcircus]

I'll voice dissent at the notion of the 1e model being a good one. It used to annoy the snot out of me that people would want to quit playing the characters just at the point that their abilities became interesting.

Also, I think that it's relatively trivial to regulate advancement rates with numbers. The number of XP to advance a level is 1000 x current level. So, if you want to advance after X hours of play, simply have your awards average level * 1000 / X. Yeah, you could just advance the characters every 20 hours of play instead of awarding them 50 * level XP every hour... but in doing so, you deny yourelves the psychological benefits of token economies. Given how trivial that math is, I rather think I reap great benefits in player enthusiasm (and overt GM manipulation ).

While it is trivial to regulate the numbers, it isn't so trivial when all of the players are smart enough (or observant enough) to question the amount of xp they got... If you've got a bunch of players who then bitch and moan about it, then you've got real problems. I've seen situations where the players complained about something the I (and other DM's - we switch off) did - because they didn't like it - not because it didn't make sense.

 

[MonsterMash]

As far as XP goes, I very much prefer to award XP based on achievement rather than playing time; although I will usually give out _some_ minimum XP award even if nothing obvious was achieved I'd much rather be giving out XP for specific achievements.

Hence the very rapidly levelling of the group in the Barakus campaign - total campaign time elapsed is about three weeks and the party has hit level 3 already, but it has been with some very high powered encounters and intensive adventuring. For example:

in a recent encounter with 15 orcs there was 1 3rd level, 3 2nd, and 11 1st level Warrior orcs.

- even though we had allies in this encounter the actual party members were still at second, so this was one that could easily have been a slaughter.

I think the longest in game time we've had between encounters has been one day, so it's hardly surprising that the rate of advance has been rapid.

Now we are starting to reach the stage where the party will become more recognised I suspect (certainly in the local area where the dungeon is) as we'll be close to the highest level NPC's there.

Seeing one of S'mon's earlier posts - isn't it worrying where your GM has a spoiler with a smilie in it!