Does it really matter how fast your characters level up?

[I'm A Banana]

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 dunno, my players advance very fast (usually one sesson = one level) and I've never had a problem with verisimilitude. So I don't think there is any nessecary correlation between verisimilitude and the speed of level advancement.

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.

Story awards are all I give out, and my PC's go up in level VERY fast, so I don't think there is any nessecary correlation between story awards and a "leisurely and less bloodthirsty pace," either.

There is also no correlation between XP awards and in-came chronology. I can give my PC's one level/session in a 3 month campaign, but have it cover only one night of time in the world that they exist in. Similarly, even though only a week passes between sessions, it could be that decades passed between events in the game, during which the PC's were all at the same level.

So I guess just because someone plays different than you, that doesn't make their pace bloodthirsty and it doesn't make their world lack verisimilitude. Furthermore, a fast advancement in XP is not inherently related to an advancement in chronology.


The way it is spelled out by default, with 3-4 encoutners/day, and roughly 13 encounters/level, it takes an average person 4 (ish) days to advance one level, during which time he's doing nothing but fighting well-matched enemies. In-game, this means that they gain about 5 levels/month, and that someone who had to constantly fight evenly matched characters (even most adventurers don't do that...). But assuming these optimum conditions, a level 1 commoner could go to a level 20 in one season.

I think the true stretch of verisimilitude is that you wake up every day and fight 3-4 encounters that are evenly matched for you. EG: it's not in the XP, it's in the way it's handed out by the DM.

 

[MonsterMash]

IMC that I DM I use a revised XP point chart which doubles the amount of XP required to reach a given level, but I use standard XP awards for beating challenges and small awards on top for RP and Story Awards (25 x level and 50 x level) - due to problems in getting the players together this mean that it took about 4 sessions (of 3-4 hours) to go from 1st to 2nd.

In the campaign I've been playing in we've actually had very fast levelling from 1st to 3rd, but I'd be happier for things to slow down a bit now, most of the characters have taken 5 sessions to go from 1st to 3rd. In mitigation in the last two sessions we have faced several extremely tough encounters, especially in the last one where only some incredible dice rolling on my part probably saved us from a TPK and meant we got nearly 1K XP from a single encounter (just wait till the story hour gets written). Now I'd probably be happier to take a few more sesssions to move up levels from now on as this is where characters get interesting as they are powerful enough to deal with more varied monsters than just the low CR range, but not so powerful that a group of Orcs can't challenge them.

 

[S'mon]

In the campaign I've been playing in we've actually had very fast levelling from 1st to 3rd, but I'd be happier for things to slow down a bit now, most of the characters have taken 5 sessions to go from 1st to 3rd. In mitigation in the last two sessions we have faced several extremely tough encounters, especially in the last one where only some incredible dice rolling on my part probably saved us from a TPK and meant we got nearly 1K XP from a single encounter (just wait till the story hour gets written). Now I'd probably be happier to take a few more sesssions to move up levels from now on as this is where characters get interesting as they are powerful enough to deal with more varied monsters than just the low CR range, but not so powerful that a group of Orcs can't challenge them.

Hi Dave (this is my Lost City of Barakus campaign) - I agree with all this, I'm not unhappy at PCs reaching 3rd in 5 sessions, which if anything is probably slightly slower than most groups' experiences of the very low levels, but I would prefer a rather slower rate from now on & I'll keep an eye on XP awards. Last session set the 2nd level party up against, in 1 encounter:

1 Clr-5 High Priestess, 2 Clr-2 Acolytes, 1 Ftr-2, 1 War-1/Rog-2, 11 War-1, I think it worked out around EL 8. . XP worked out at 925/PC, given that the session also featured lots of roleplay & investigation I awarded 1000 XP for the session.

 

[Runesong42]

I also enjoy mid-level gaming (7-12), but rarely have the time or the characters to attain higher levels. I have considered stopping the awards of xp altogether, and have opted to simply allow PC's to advance a level after the end of an adventure (usually 2-3 sessions worth of play time). I give "bonus" awards for good role-playing etc. through action points, NPC favours, having their wacky ideas come to fruition, and so on.

My highest 3.x character to date is Jarl MacAllister, Rogue 5/Fighter 5/Ninja of the Crescent Moon 6. I played him through the entirety of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and the DM and I had huge plans for the character after its completion. However, we had a falling out and thus the character was shelved. Since then, I have had a regular group of players who are about to hit 10th level in a d20 Urban Arcana game, but two of the three are moving away so now I'm more or less in the same boat. Both games took approx 4 months to complete. YMMV.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Under the current version of D&D (as opposed to 1e or 2e) you certainly have more tools easily available to challenge higher level characters. Of course, advancement is a whole lot easier under the current system, too. Books that cater to Epic level adventures are certainly much more likely to be used under the current system than previous systems and there is a reason why Dungeon Magazine constantly has really high level moduals in them.

I guess as a GM I am not as intimidated by high levels under 3e as I was under previous editions. Mostly because the game is set up to easily accomidate the higher level characters moreso than prior versions.

 

[Steel_Wind]

between this post and the post about no magic shopds or crafting magical items for your players, it seems to me you are playing third edition with that first edition feel.....

That would be true.

I don't like power gaming. I also believe that levelling more slowly and finding magic items less often makes those reward structures within the game all the more sweet when it arrives.

These things are chocolate - not meat.

 

[diaglo]

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

yes.

 

[Buttercup]

My present campaign has been running for 18 months, and the players just reached level 4 last session. Why? Because I ignore the experience charts and hand out XP as I think it's warranted. I'm just as likely to hand out a ton of XP when the PCs cleverly negotiate their way out of a fight as I am for killing tons of bad guys. Creative solutions get rewarded.

But then, I've got a group of players who enjoy the story as much or more than killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[D+1]

The short answer: Not only does it matter - it's critical.

The long answer: It first depends on just what kind of campaign you're trying to run - what's your campaign supposed to be like? How long do you intend it to run? Do you want fast-paced and non-stop action, a casual or even slow unfolding of events, or a mix of long periods of boredom marked by intense moments of absolute terror? Are the players still learning the game or are they old hands? Do you favor low levels, mid levels or high levels for playing PC's? How much in-game time do you want to pass over the course of the campaign? That is, do you want PC's to start as teenagers, mature to adults, marry and have children and then have those children become PC's - all without breaking 20th level PC's?

For a very short campaign or a one-off the speed of advancement is irrelevant. But for a long-term game you NEED to keep it under consideration. You don't necessarily NEED to adjust it, but you'll be much happier if you understand the effects it has on your game and WHY you might want to adjust it.

 

[The Shaman]

So I guess just because someone plays different than you, that doesn't make their pace bloodthirsty and it doesn't make their world lack verisimilitude. Furthermore, a fast advancement in XP is not inherently related to an advancement in chronology.

I never meant to imply that it did - I was giving my take on it, based on the game-world I created and the adventures I run.

There are as many ways to play D&D as there are gamers. What makes a game "right" is, does it work for the gamers? If the answer is yes, then hilarity ensues.

The approach to experience you outlined is equally viable to me, and if I was player in a game like that I'd have no problem at all maintaining my suspension of disbelief. I think the reason that threads like this appear is that some GMs running 3.x games suddenly discover that their characters advanced from 1st to 15th level in a couple of months in-game - it's a common enough concern that I've seen it raised on bulletin boards many times over the years. I'm not suggesting that it's a "bad" thing, but it is a recurring point of contention with some GMs, as evidenced by the response in this thread.