Does it really matter how fast your characters level up?

[IronWolf]

It feels a little fast sometimes, but in the end if it seems the players are having fun then it can't be all bad. Anymore you will probably hear me grumble about it a little, but that's probably more a throwback to my old days than anything else...

 

[Psion]

So, is it really so bad if the characters are leveling fast?

Well... yeah. If you don't prefer higher levels, or you don't like brisk advancement for suspension of dibeleif reasons. You can do challenging battles at epic levels, yes. But it's a bigger burden on the DM, so if you are at that point, you best have a good reason specific to want to run at those levels.

 

[The Shaman]

So, is it really so bad if the characters are leveling fast?

Speaking as one of THOSE GMs, the kind who fret about verisimilitude in the game-world, the kind who have plots moving in the background of their campaigns, yes, it matters, quite a bit.

I think it may also be an issue for GMs who don't like the idea of "killing stuff = experience points," including GMs such as myself who prefer the more leisurely and less bloodthirsty pace offered by story awards.

 

[drothgery]

or you don't like brisk advancement for suspension of dibeleif reasons.

This one's more easily cured by making sure there are significant stretches of down time in-game than by munging with the XP tables; if you want it to take 20 years in-game for Bob the Apprentice Wizard to become High Lord Robert the Archmage, then months and years have to go by uneventfully at some point.

FWIW, every tabletop campaign I've ever played in has had the PCs gaining levels every 2-4 sessions (of 3-4 hrs), getting closer to 4 as higher levels were reached, other than the occasional blowing through level one in the first session. As this happened in 2e and in 3e/3.5e/d20 Modern, with 4 different DMs on both coasts, I'm thinking this is pretty typical -- and about right; any faster and you don't get time to get used to your new abilities, slower and you start to get bored.

 

[Chimera]

This one's more easily cured by making sure there are significant stretches of down time in-game than by munging with the XP tables; if you want it to take 20 years in-game for Bob the Apprentice Wizard to become High Lord Robert the Archmage, then months and years have to go by uneventfully at some point.

This is the path I prefer and it seems a bit more realistic. At some point the adventure ends, the person has accumulated enough gold, more mundane duties call and the party should move on to other things for a while...only to regroup and set forth once again several months/years later when new threats spring up.

It mystifies me, but I seem to keep running into players (here and IRL) who cannot tell the difference between Game Time and Real Time. I suggest that the PCs take six months off to rest and do things, or I say it takes 3 months IMC to gain a new class and there is always be some guy who jumps up and down declaring that this is unreasonable because he isn't going to play out that downtime!

I don't see any reason why people should object to a hand-wave "and a month goes by" unless the GM is preventing their character from accomplishing minor and/or mundane tasks during this time.


Back on OP, I think people have made valid points about GMs not being able to handle higher level challenges and people not being able to keep up on the rules. It seems the latter would be an even bigger problem in games where the GM is expected to know all the rules and the players don't want to be bothered. (Sorry to revisit that other thread topic.)

 

[Steel_Wind]

My campaign's PC's don't level too fast for one very good reason:

I'm the one who passes out XP and I don't award standard XP. I award 50% XP once they reach 5th level so I can keep em longer right where I want em (5th to 12th).

 

[WayneLigon]

It depends on the type of campaign I want to run. I don't normally have a problem with how fast people gain levels in 3E; it's certainly better than the grind in 1-2E where for all practical purposes you'd never see better than about 12th level unless you started higher and fooled with giving out XP.

There are some campaign types I've done where it works better if they are lower level for a time. due to the types of monsters and challenges I want to use. Then it's a simple matter to adjust XP. In the Arcana Unearthed game I was running, I knew where I was starting from and the end challenge I wanted them to have: the campaign would stop once they did X, which required them to be about 16th level. For more than half the year-long campaign, I cut most XP awards in half so they could do these mercenary-level adventures and clear out certain types of monsters. Then after a particularly pitched battle and a series of adventures where they clearly were moving into realms beyond the norm, I removed that cap to let them gain levels faster.

 

[toberane]

Speaking as one of THOSE GMs, the kind who fret about verisimilitude in the game-world, the kind who have plots moving in the background of their campaigns, yes, it matters, quite a bit.

I guess my viewpoint is that even if there are complex plots moving in the background (and our adventures usually have a multitude of these) it's not that hard to adjust them to the character's current level.

For instance, we had a DM who wanted to run the 18-20 level campaign that came out when 3rd ed was released - I can't remember the name off the top of my head - but by the time he worked it into our ongoing campaign, our average party level was about 25. With just a few minor alterations, however, the same basic creatures and monsters were incredibly tough, and all the while we had complete game sessions interspersed which were nothing but political maneuvering and role-playing.

 

[toberane]

My campaign's PC's don't level too fast for one very good reason:

I'm the one who passes out XP and I don't award standard XP. I award 50% XP once they reach 5th level so I can keep em longer right where I want em (5th to 12th).

As a player, I'd hate to play in your campaign. I have no problem with the DM altering the XP scale, but it wouild seem like a rip off to me to get full experience for a while and then all of a sudden have the XP rewards dry up at 5th level.

But, if your players don't mind, then cool.

 

[Torm]

One level per session. Two sessions at most. But that is because almost all of the players in my gaming group got sick of starting 1st level characters that never saw beyond 7th or 8th, because we would change games.

Beat me with a stick for saying this , but it IS just a game - the idea is to have fun, and when Fromboz the Illusionist gains 20th level and fights the ultimate big bad with his party and gains the Loopid Sceptre of Throng, I, as his player, will have gained exactly the same thing whether it took me a year or 20. Not diddly squat, other than some fun memories of spending time with my friends. And not getting frustrated about having to shelve characters before they come to the end of their story makes it more fun.