How long can you stay level XXX and still have fun

[JacktheRabbit]

Simple question really, how often do you need to level?

How long can you last at one level before you get bored/irritated/whatever and you need that cookie of accomplishment of leveling?

Lets say you game once a week. The sessions are 4 to 6 hours. Would leveling twice a month or so be okay? What if its was 3 times every 2 months or once a month?

Is leveling up so important that as a player you need that cookie on a very regular basis to have fun? The question stems from another thread on how often a character should level. It led me to wonder how long players could stay at the same level and still have fun. If the campaign was enjoyable with action, heroics, plot, all the things you love as a player, but you leveled once a month or so would that be okay? Or would you feel that your character was getting stale and you were getting bored?

There are caveats of course. Characters should get out of 1st and 2nd level fairly quickly. This is for survival reasons if nothing else. It also allows for more variety. A DM can throw a lot more interesting challenges at 3rd level or higher characters.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think it depends on the level.

At a weekly gaming pace of 4-6 hours per session, levels 1-3 should get out of the way within the first 3-4 weeks IMO. Mostly because there's only so many kobolds and zombies you can kill before things get dumb.

Beyond that, I'd say once a month is probably the minimum I could go up till level 10-11, and from there on our it would depend on the quality of the content.

Of course, if we're double-timing games, 8-12 hours a session, I'd expect increased level rates.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I think it depends on the level.

At a weekly gaming pace of 4-6 hours per session, levels 1-3 should get out of the way within the first 3-4 weeks IMO. Mostly because there's only so many kobolds and zombies you can kill before things get dumb.

Beyond that, I'd say once a month is probably the minimum I could go up till level 10-11, and from there on our it would depend on the quality of the content.

Of course, if we're double-timing games, 8-12 hours a session, I'd expect increased level rates.

Because you want the level up cookie or you want the challenges to change?

I only ask because (to use 3.5 as an example) a DM with access to a decent number of the various monster books out there could probably put together months worth of sessions at any given level with very little repeat in foes.

I get the impression from what you wrote, and to a degree I think DnD creates this in most gamers, the gear and the class bonuses are the only real cookies that most players really care about.

"I saved the princess, earned the Kings affection, and had a public holiday named in my honor? Yeah great, sure sounds like fun. Oh you mean he is rewarding me with a +4 longsword? Now your talking!"

Exxagerated but I feel that this is how the game really fills out. Almost like you are playing World of Warcraft and your only really goal when leveling is to do it quickly and efficiently so you get to the end game material.

 

[Ahnehnois]

At the pace described (which is close to my pace) I would expect a level every other session or so. If the group went more than two sessions without a level, I (if I was playing or DMing) would be frustrated at the lack of progress. Most of the players I've had over the years feel the same way, and will push for that kind of pace.

This conceit is somewhat unique to D&D, which is very much about the acquisition of power. If the game defines levels 1-20, and a campaign lasts X amount of sessions, I naturally expect it to cover most of that range. X is rarely 40 (or even 20), IME. I used to level characters about 2/3 sessions, but slowed down a bit.

 

[Oryan77]

Geez, with the responses so far, I'm surprised my players haven't revolted yet. I'm also surprised past players didn't quit the game sooner before other incidents caused us to part ways.

This topic is a reason why I started the other thread about leveling. I wanted to compare how I do things with how other DMs handle it. If the general opinion is that you should level every other session or at least once a month, I'm really surprised.

In our game, the PCs are around 9th-12th level. We play almost every 2 weeks, and we get about 6 hours of real gaming in each time. My wife started her PC 5 years ago at level 3, and she is close to level 13. I figured, at our rate, by these mid levels they should level maybe every 4 or 5 months (so that would be about every 10 (six hour) sessions. The strange thing is that seems "right" to me.

I try to run a more character focused roleplaying game world where the players get involved in their PCs life. There is no way I could pull this off if they level up once a month! It seems like they would become godlike before they have really even lived a full life.

I wonder if players that expect to level that fast actually play in groups that get things done much faster than we do? Our combats do take quite a while and we may have 2 combats a sessions at most.

I wanted us to level slower so they can play these PCs longer as mortals and less godlike. But compared to what I'm reading, I'm making them go at a snails pace. Wow. I should probably ask my players about this to make sure this isn't a problem.

 

[howandwhy99]

We average around 80-100 hours of play per level, but there is an enormous amount to learn each level. Based upon the vast complexity of the world we play in it's really too fast, which is going to bother some people. However, we do manage to collect a lot of power ups from exploring and they give us far more abilities than just what we receive from leveling, so it evens out in the end. Every session has new things to explore and exploit to our PCs' advantage.

IIRC, our Ref ran the game at a standard 900 hours per level rate, but he has certainly toned that down for us.

Leveling, like the game length, is variable like how long it takes a person to solve a puzzle. Some boardgames take 45-60 minutes, some take 4-6 hours. As a game designed to last 1000s of hours, the number of hours it takes to level varies widely upon how what strategies we use in play. And the luck of the dice.

 

[fba827]

it kind of depends on the player (every player plays with different expectations), the pacing (how the game/plot progresses), and the game system (some game systems have introductory levels that are great introductory levels but they do not flesh out a core concept that requires a couple levels to achieve).

I am the type of player who enjoys the story aspect of RPGs, so as long as the story stays compelling for the given level, it's fine. but once it starts to feel repetitive, I start itching for a new level in order to either a) change the tactics that my PC can use via the gained abilities; b) change the encounters my PC is capable of experiencing... i.e. if the level has been filled with fighting henchmen to the evil cult, i want to eventually be strong enough to take on the cult headquarters which should be more powerful than the henchmen themselves; c) it just sometimes makes sense for progression of the story when talking about time spent studying, etc.

But you'll find that different players at your game table have different expectations and so it really depends on your group.

(snip)
I get the impression from what you wrote, and to a degree I think DnD creates this in most gamers, the gear and the class bonuses are the only real cookies that most players really care about.

"I saved the princess, earned the Kings affection, and had a public holiday named in my honor? Yeah great, sure sounds like fun. Oh you mean he is rewarding me with a +4 longsword? Now your talking!"

For what it's worth, I (and other gamers I know) would find the king's affection and public holiday to be more compelling than a +4 sword if the game world actually reacts to it (i.e. the PC is recognized, and next year is called upon to be part of the parade which in turn could be it's own plot device, etc). But also with the caveat that i don't feel that i -need- the +4 sword; if my PC is not up to the challenges it's facing and always missing then the +4 sword does get equally compelling.

 

[Lanefan]

If the story's engaging and the game is fun and the characters/players are entertaining - and the characters have enough going for them so as not to die from a stray arrow - then there's no real need to level up at all. But we do anyway, maybe once or twice a year except a bit faster at very low levels.

Level bumping is more of a side effect of play in our games than a goal. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Lanefan

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Very interesting. I was expecting more comments along the line of level at least once or more a month depending on how often a group meets.

 

[IronWolf]

I like for the first three levels to sort of move by quickly. They are fun levels, but I don't really like to hang out there long. From 3rd on I am fine with a slower advancement pace. At 3rd level the character is *just* powerful enough to feel good, but not overpowered to the point the character is ready to take on the gods.