EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
My notion, at least when I formulated the answer, was that the number of sessions is 100% completely irrelevant for someone who gives that answer. The one, and only, consideration--for someone who gives that answer--is the XP total, and nothing else about how the XP was acquired matters. If it took 1000 sessions to reach 2700 XP, then it took 1000 sessions. If it takes 1 session to reach 2700 XP, then it takes 1 session. An estimate of "number of sessions" would be unimportant at best and outright unhelpful at worst, because sessions do not give any form of consistent XP; one session might give none at all, and the next might give more than a thousand, and then the next might give only 100, and then the next might give 600, etc.I use XP as well, I guess it's just odd that choosing rough session numbers means you don't use XP? Or choosing XP means that ... you don't have a rough estimate for how many sessions it takes to get to 4.
It's not that you don't know the number of sessions. It's that the number of sessions is irrelevant.