Does it really matter how fast your characters level up?

[3catcircus]

I am one of those GMs who wants the players to experience the campaign world rather than zip through it like a console game with power-ups. I give more XP for roleplaying than for killing stuff. Some of the tricks that I use include:

1. Using a "Spycraft" style xp system that gives xp for completing certain plot goals - more or less depending on how you did it (i.e. you get 50 xp for killing the orc guards and gaining entrance to their caves, but you'll get 100 xp for distracting the guards or having them leave their posts to investigate a strange noise and then sneaking in.)

2. Using 1st edition's xp system.

3. Only awarding 1/3 of the xp shown on the 3.x charts.

 

[the Jester]

I find that the biggest I have with PCs leveling up is not the fact that it becomes difficult to challenge them, but because it becomes unrealistic.

Others may feel the same way, but I don't think a group of adventurers should be able to amass a fortune and a lot of power in a few months (i.e. go from level 1 to 9 in 2 months of game time).

Agreed! This is my biggest beef with 3e advancement speed. I slow it down a little, try to include some downtime when possible, etc. but it is difficult to justify the 18-year-old epic level pc, at least in my mind.

 

[ptolemy18]

I do think the 3rd ed XP tables are too generous. Characters easily level out of the range of a moderate-length adventure far too quickly, and that leaves a lot of potential plot lines inappropriate. I've gone more or less completely to story awards instead so I can advance the characters as the plot advances, not as the body count amasses..

I've been giving out XP on a fairly haphazard basis ("Hmm, that was a hard session... guess I'd better give them more XP than that other easy session. And... hmm... that guy did the most... I'll give him 50 XP more than the other characters.").

However, I try to stick to something I read in the DMG, that in the "average" campaign, people level up about once every 6 sessions. It's actually more like levelling up once every 7 or 8 sessions, because we only play for about 3 or 4 hours per session (2-3 encounters max), which, I get the impression, is less time than the "average" game where you either go all night or spend all day.

Also... as a GM, I prefer lower levels, because it's easier for me to think up encounters when the characters can be challenged by relatively 'normal' monsters and threats. If they're going from Point A to Point B along the Well-Travelled Road, I don't want to have to come up with some convoluted explanation why a Red Dragon is hanging out along the way. It's more plausible for there just to be some bandits or wolves or a Giant Lizard or something. (And yes, I *am* the kind of GM who tries to take into account the reasonable-amount-of-red-dragons-per-square-mile in such-and-such region... )

Of course, as they get more powerful, EVENTUALLY I'll have to let them breeze through all the 'normal' threats and only get challenged by equally bad-ass villains and monsters... but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it....

Jason

 

[Torm]

Agreed! This is my biggest beef with 3e advancement speed. I slow it down a little, try to include some downtime when possible, etc. but it is difficult to justify the 18-year-old epic level pc, at least in my mind.

One way to handle that could be to consider each session or mini-arc as an episode in their lives, and remember to allow them some time between each - anything from weeks to years - to have somewhat normal lives and process what they've been through.

But, yeah, I agree its a problem, especially if you don't want to have to break it up like that - like if your campaign idea doesn't allow for it (or, like if you don't want to give PCs with item creation feats an extraordinary amount of time to put them to use. )

 

[Shade]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It seems like so many DMs get caught up with the idea that their campaign world affects anyone other than their players, like some sort of review council is going to turn their nose up at them for not running the "right kind of game". As long as everyone is having fun, that's the important part. Unfortunately, many DMs equate fun to what they consider fun, because they are doing all the work. If they keep that up long enough, they'll find themselves as simply writers, because no one will play in their game.

I personally wish the current leveling system went faster. I know many DMs just had a heart attack, so I apologize for that. As both a player and a DM who only gets to play each campaign one night every other week, I'd like to see my characters make it to 30th level before I'm too old to roll dice anymore. We've been playing from 1st level since before 3E came out, and one campaign is just now hitting epic levels, while the other is around 23rd level. We're having more fun now than ever before. Sure, its more work for me as a DM to prepare epic adventures, but it takes alot longer to go through them so I don't feel any more taxed during prep time than I did at low-levels.

 

[toberane]

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.

My problem with exceedingly low-magic worlds is that if I wanted to play one of those, I'd play D20 Modern or one of the low to non-magic systems. When I'm playing D&D, I want high-fantasy, mortals wielding powers that are beyond what we use every day, and heroes out of myth and legend. playing in a world where leveling happens very seldomly and rewards are given out sparsely seems to defeat that point.

I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eek out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work.

 

[toberane]

As both a player and a DM who only gets to play each campaign one night every other week, I'd like to see my characters make it to 30th level before I'm too old to roll dice anymore. We've been playing from 1st level since before 3E came out, and one campaign is just now hitting epic levels, while the other is around 23rd level. We're having more fun now than ever before. Sure, its more work for me as a DM to prepare epic adventures, but it takes alot longer to go through them so I don't feel any more taxed during prep time than I did at low-levels.

Now that I am in my 30s and unable to game every night or every other night (ah, what fond memories) I agree with this. We have a group that contains at least 4 of us who enjoy DMing. In order to keep long term campaigns going, we have had to share worlds, with two DMs frequently switching off DMing the same group of player characters. Even this way, if it took us 7 or 8 sessions to level up, it would take approximately 5 years of gaming the same characters in the same campaign for us to reach 20th level. We have gotten better about being able to continue ongoing campaigns, but we've never managed to stick to just one group for 5 years.

if you game 2 or 3 or more times a week, then this isn't an issue for you, but for those of us who only have about 5 hours a week to devote to gaming, and at least one week a month the game is cancelled because our real life interferes, we need some more accelerated leveling.

On average our group usually levels once every 2-3 gaming sessions, and even at that it often means that we only get one level a month. It's really sad that as gamers get older, our passion for the game increases but the time we have to play decreases. Ah, cruel fate.

 

[S'mon]

However, I try to stick to something I read in the DMG, that in the "average" campaign, people level up about once every 6 sessions. It's actually more like levelling up once every 7 or 8 sessions, because we only play for about 3 or 4 hours per session (2-3 encounters max), which, I get the impression, is less time than the "average" game where you either go all night or spend all day.

He he, this is funny. The 3e DMG actually says that on average PCs should level up every 3.3 sessions, or 13 encounters at 4 encounters/game. With a typical game being, yup, 4 hours. So your rate isn't much over half standard - not that it's a 'bad' rate.

I don't really understand people who don't enjoy a game if they're not levelling more than 1/month, or won't play if they can't hit 20th within a year. As I've got older, if anything my liking for high level play has diminished and my liking for ca 4th-6th increased.

 

[toberane]

I don't really understand people who don't enjoy a game if they're not levelling more than 1/month, or won't play if they can't hit 20th within a year. As I've got older, if anything my liking for high level play has diminished and my liking for ca 4th-6th increased.

I think it has to do with what you are used to. When I was in junior high school, I loved the ridiculous power games (100th level, with a sack full of artifacts slung across my back), and then in my 20s I liked the lower level play because I was tired of the insane power gaming. Now I am enjoying higher level campaigns again, but I have found that since 3rd Ed came out, I like gaming at just about any level.

 

[Torm]

I don't really understand people who don't enjoy a game if they're not levelling more than 1/month, or won't play if they can't hit 20th within a year.

For me, it isn't really about levelling, so much as making it to the end of the story arc. Since many of our arcs are designed to have the BBG face 18th-20th level characters, that means levelling quickly before we end up changing campaigns for one reason or another (several players take a "summer hiatus" to spend weekends at the beach, for example. :\ ) If a story arc were designed to conclude at 8th level or what-have-you, that would be fine, too - I just like to give my characters some sort of resolution.