How fast do your characters advance in level?

[Desdichado]

Remember the old days of AD&D, when it took months (of GAME time) to go up in level? (Or maybe it was just my DM ). Folks say that 3e is designed for rapid level advance, but I'm not convinced it must be so.

So, out of curiosity, how fast do your PCs advance in level? (And DMs, it would be helpful to hear from your side of the screen: how fast do you ALLOW PCs to advance in level?)

That's one of the very few things that I liked better about AD&D than current edition D&D, actually. I hate fast levelling. I also don't much like high-level play in D&D; I think the system starts to really show it's limitations at higher level, like an engine running at too-high an RPM for too long.

I level fairly quickly through the first three or four levels (assuming I play them at all; I often like to start players at 3rd level) and then slow down considerably. By about 10-12th level I usually have no more interest in continuing, so I want to make sure I get all the playing I intend to for the campaign in before hitting that level.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I prefer the first few levels going by fast - they're important to give the characters a sense of themselves, but they're not *that* interesting.

Cheers!

Now that's almost quote worthy. I feel much the same way.

 

[Li Shenron]

Something a little faster than 1 level every 3 gaming sessions, probably around 1/2.5. Which makes sense since the game is designed to level up 1/4 session if you give the characters encounters with CR = average level, which we usually don't because they're too easy.

 

[MerricB]

Remember the old days of AD&D, when it took months (of GAME time) to go up in level?

Nope. Didn't happen back then to me. As I recall, advancement could get very quick. We were young, however!

Here's a pertinent quote from Gary Gygax on the subject, back from TSR #7 (April 1976 - before AD&D!)

"When it is difficult to survive, a long process to gain levels, when there are many desired items of magical nature to seek for, then a campaign is interesting and challenging. Think about how much fun it is to have something handed to you on a silver platter — nice once in a while but unappreciated when it becomes common occurrence. This analogy applies to experience and treasure in the D & D campaign.

"It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,” tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75
games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level."

####

There's something of an assumption for regular play of D&D (and AD&D) in the "old days" that it would be about 6 sessions per level; that's a bit more explicitly stated in the Companion rules of Basic D&D rather than at any point in AD&D.

This would significantly slow after "name" level; so about 10th or so. One of the big changes of 3e is to make those high levels achievable by players (and, indeed, fun - the gap between MUs and Ftrs in 1e was wide).

Cheers!

 

[Rel]

Huh, I had no idea all this time I have been handing out XP using the Rel Method (tm)! ;-) This is how I did it in my last campaign, but I've always felt it lacked precision, and here you've made it sound so nicely codified. Do you have any descriptive guidelines you can share that go along with the above? (If not, care to help me build some?)

ironregime

As a matter of fact I do have some guidelines.

For combat, anything with a CR obviously less than the party is a Minor Scene. A CR approximately equal to the party (adjusted by party size - I've got a group of 6 right now) is an Average Scene. Higher CR's than that are Major Scenes.

Roleplaying is more subjective but I generally guage how long the interaction took and how vital and important was the interaction. If it is a relatively short conversation (less than 15 minutes) or contained little besides witty banter then I'll rule that a Minor Scene. If the interaction took longer (up to half an hour) or held information important to the PC's or furthered an important agenda, I'll call that an Average Scene. For lengthy conversations that include major revelations or resolve important plot points I go with a Major Scene.

I use the same general guidelines for Roleplaying in Exploration. Sometimes the PC's venture into an area that holds no monsters or NPC's but contains important information nonetheless. Based on how involved the exploration is (this is typically predicated on how complex the area is) and how much information is gained, I rate the scene as I feel appropriate.

The feeling that I hope to engender by this system is that every part of the game session should be interesting and fun. Even if the scene in question is the PC's exchanging quips and banter, if it helps to illustrate and flesh out the attitudes, personalities and motivations of the characters then I'm happy to reward it. Parts of the game that are uninteresting minutae are not rewarded and are therefore minimized. This encourages the PC's to take care of book keeping, shopping and updating spellbooks outside the session via e-mail.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

The feeling that I hope to engender by this system is that every part of the game session should be interesting and fun. Even if the scene in question is the PC's exchanging quips and banter, if it helps to illustrate and flesh out the attitudes, personalities and motivations of the characters then I'm happy to reward it.

Cool, I agree. Sounds good. If I may be so bold as to tabulate and expand on your guidelines…

------------CR/EL---------------FOE’S RELATION TO PLOT------REAL TIME SPENT
MINOR-------lower than party----unrelated to plot-----------about 15 min
AVERAGE-----equal to party------closely related to plot-----about 1 hour
MAJOR-------higher than party---villain / major henchman----2+ hours

------------AREA EXPLORED-------INFO GAINED / PUZZLE SOLVED
MINOR-------room sized----------trivial / easy / unrelated to plot
AVERAGE-----castle sized--------important / difficult / related to plot
MAJOR-------city or larger------crucial / long-term / plot-hinging

How much XP do you award per scene level?
Also how many scenes per session have you experienced, on average?

Since I’m interested in a system-independent XP guide, here’s what I’m thinking, as measured in percentage of one LE (level equivalent): Minor = 2%, Average = 5%, Major = 10%.

I’d guess my group usually gets in no more than 6 scenes (3 minor, 2 average, and 1 major) per session, which would net the party 26% of a LE per session, or a level every 4 sessions. For a slightly faster progression, we could change the awards to 3%/6%/12%, which would net 33% per session, or a level every 3 sessions.

 

[Rel]

Check this out and ask me questions if you need to. Note that the first three columns are guestimates of what the PC's will encounter in a session. If you change these numbers then the estimated total XP for the session and how many sessions it will take for them to level will change too.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I definitely blow through the first 3 to 4 levels. Sometimes I skip them entirely and let players start their characters at 5th or so. Like others have said, I think that's when things start to get juicy, players can do amazing things with their characters, and the system is really at its best.

 

[Altalazar]

Levels 1 and 2 - about 1 session each
Levels 3 to 5 - about 3 sessions each
Levels 6+ - 6 or more sessions each

That sounds similar to my campaigns. My current one I've played twice and probably in one more I'll be third level. I'm not sure if it will level out to similar levels later.

I think advancement needs to be fast enough to keep interest, but not too fast. If it is too slow, character development slows.

 

[Christoph the Magus]

They advance roughly whenever I feel like it as I don't use the Xp rules and just assign them what I feel is appropriate at the end of an encounter. When I plan campaigns I have certain "steps" in my head as to what level PCs should be when they learn the next piece of the puzzle or BBEG's plan, so I assign xp based on how much of the story we've told so far.