D&D General Experience Matters - The benefits of XP

[Lanefan]

So 55 games to get to level 10, which is as far as the vast majority of campaigns make it - seems about right, though I find that I like slightly more even distribution after the first few levels, and sometimes the players want to go faster than that.

210 games to get to level 20 would be a lot, I think, though compared to some of Lanefan's campaigns that would be child's play, I suspect.

Ayup.

That said, if you play weekly (with occasional missed sessions) 210 sessions would take somewhat over 4 years and maybe even spin out to 5; which isn't bad; plus whatever extended play might happen once the characters reach 20th.

Personally, I'd rather see it evened out such that the low levels last a bit longer. Being 3rd level by the 4th session is way too fast, partcularly if the game's likely to tap out in the early teens; and low-level play where characters are fragile little things can be hella fun - and also hella challenging.

If the progression was evened out to a flat 5 sessions per level then you'd hit 20th at session 196.

 

[Lanefan]

That is almost exactly the way the 5e XP chart works.

Quick to get to level 5.

Then slows down considerably until 11.

Then speeds up considerably and faster until 20.

Interesting - the designers have kinda baked in that there's a sweet spot, and tried to extend that part a bit via tweaking of the advancement table.

My question for you 5e-playing types: is the 5th-11th range in fact 5e's sweet spot in play?

 

[Clint_L]

Because I haven't seen much discussion of the method my home group currently uses: what do you all think of levelling by consensus: the players (including DM) just have a conversation about when feels like the right time for the next level up? We talk about story arcs and character progression, where they are in the game world, etc.. From my DM's perspective, I don't prep encounters until just before the next game, so I can always retune if the party decides it's the right time to go up a level.

I think this is only viable with an experienced group who have a copacetic play style, but it works for us.

 

[Clint_L]

Interesting - the designers have kinda baked in that there's a sweet spot, and tried to extend that part a bit via tweaking of the advancement table.

My question for you 5e-playing types: is the 5th-11th range in fact 5e's sweet spot in play?

For me, anything from 1-11, though I slightly prefer the 1-5 stage but that's partially because getting to know all the new characters and seeing them establish their quirks and so on is extra fun.

In terms of design, I would say yes, levels 5-11 are where each class feels more or less complete, and it is probably the range where they are best balanced (e.g. moon druids are no longer out of control, casters have enough options, melee has that crucial extra attack, even monks become semi-useful).

Very high level games have never been my jam, even when I was a kid.

 

[iserith]

My question for you 5e-playing types: is the 5th-11th range in fact 5e's sweet spot in play?

It really depends on the kind of game you're trying to create in my opinion. But those levels in my experience do offer good survivability and interesting characer build options for the PCs and a wide spectrum of potential foes/hazards without it getting to complicated for the DM to challenge the players.

 

[Lanefan]

Because I haven't seen much discussion of the method my home group currently uses: what do you all think of levelling by consensus: the players (including DM) just have a conversation about when feels like the right time for the next level up? We talk about story arcs and character progression, where they are in the game world, etc.. From my DM's perspective, I don't prep encounters until just before the next game, so I can always retune if the party decides it's the right time to go up a level.

I think this is only viable with an experienced group who have a copacetic play style, but it works for us.

I could see this working with a laid-back group. In other groups, though, I could see it as very fertile ground for some truly nasty arguments if some players don't feel other players' characters have been contributing enough and thus don't deserve to level alongside those who have been contributing.

 

[iserith]

Because I haven't seen much discussion of the method my home group currently uses: what do you all think of levelling by consensus: the players (including DM) just have a conversation about when feels like the right time for the next level up?

It's too ill-defined for my taste. When I sit down to plan an adventure or campaign, my first question is what kind of experience I'm trying to bring about at the table. What's this game supposed to be about? Then I think about what dials need to be tuned to ensure everything is pointing in that direction so that play is as coherent as it can be and that the main themes are reinforced. That most certainly includes what is required of the PCs to advance in levels, so that is laid down and communicated in detail to the players so there are no questions as to what needs to be done.

 

[Li Shenron]

The big problem I have with adventures that need the PCs to level up is that it almost hard-forces a certain speed of advancement even if that's not what the DM wants. For example, one of the tricks I use for making a campaign last longer is to greatly slow down the advancement rate, which runs into trouble if I want to use any of the published modules...unless of course I just accept the fact that the early parts of that adventure might be a cakewalk for the PCs and the latter parts might be above their heads.

I could have written the same thing.

I am probably very old-school now when it comes to a game's difficulty curve (not just a RPG), and it would make more sense to me that the game gets more difficult as you progress. So I actually do prefer to accept a cakewalk-to-challenge-to-nightmare progression, over the default of published modules.

I also push back against milestone levelling in favour of individual xp so as to allow characters to come and go as the players desire; and to not have it that characters get xp while they're dead or otherwise not adventuring for a while; and because I'm a bit chaotic and want to occasionally see elements arise in the game that bestow or remove xp or levels to lucky or unlucky individual characters (e.g. Deck of Many Things, level drain effects, magic surges, etc.).

I've done all these in the past. In long-running 3ed campaigns, I've always given XPs only to present characters, not absent ones. Different XP per characters in the same session is something I did only at the beginning but then saw only problems, and moved to always dividing XP equally, but only among present characters. And yes, I'm a fan of having level drain in the game as well, even though my favourite is actually ability score drain.

OTOH, it's not wrong to even completely throw the idea of XP as a reward out of the window, and simply have the characters be the appropriate level for the current adventure, if the group mainly plays adventures serially, rather than concurrently or sandbox-y. I know that XPs are traditionally treated as a reward, but it doesn't have to be the same for everyone, there's lots of rewards inherent in playing the game itself. It's like videogames after all, some people play for high scores and do not understand why someone else would play a game without a score, while others do not need a score system at all and are only interested in going as far as they can.

 

[Clint_L]

I could see this working with a laid-back group. In other groups, though, I could see it as very fertile ground for some truly nasty arguments if some players don't feel other players' characters have been contributing enough and thus don't deserve to level alongside those who have been contributing.

Fair point. Although I am happy to argue all day long on this forum, I would definitely describe my gaming style as non-competitive (like, you do not want to play Monopoly with me, because I break the game by refusing to charge rent most of the time. Though why would anyone want to play Monopoly? Terrible example). And I try to build campaigns out of story hooks rather than plots, so that I can enjoy discovering where the story is going along with the players - this means there is no pressure to get to any level at any particular time. So coming to consensus on levelling is never hard, and nobody ever worries about anyone else's contributions, so far as I am aware.

When a new player joins us, even if just for one session, they just make their character at the same level as the party currently. We also agree upon a few magical items that they would have acquired upon the way. Similarly, if a player wants to make a new character, they just choose their starting level, up to that of the rest of the party.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Interesting - the designers have kinda baked in that there's a sweet spot, and tried to extend that part a bit via tweaking of the advancement table.

My question for you 5e-playing types: is the 5th-11th range in fact 5e's sweet spot in play?

I like 3-9 best by a wide margin.