D&D General How many adventures per level?

Level 2 by the end of the night. (1 Day)
Level 3 in two or three more nights. (2-3 Days)
Level 4-12 in about 4-6 nights each. (36-54 Days)
Level 13+ in about 6-8 nights each. (54-64 Days)

Which comes out to 93 - 122 Days.
With holidays and scheduling conflicts, that comes out to around 2-2.5 years for the entire campaign.
That feels about right.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

In a more structured game like 4e, whatever the math requires, unless you do milestone-based levelling, in which case, see below. I find 4e's system is pretty good about this one, relatively well-calibrated. Difficult fights feel rewarding, easy fights may still be worthwhile, and you get rewards for overcoming, not just for defeating, so if you circumvent an encounter purely through skill, cleverness, diplomacy and compromise, or obviating the need for it, it still counts. (E.g., you skip past the guards outside the base, then assassinate the leader in a brisk fight. Leaderless, the goons outside scatter. You overcame them, without fighting them, so you still get all that sweet XP.)

Dungeon World, which is what I actually run, can be slow or fast--but I truly adore how it naturally flattens the levelling curve despite having fundamentally linear XP. Each level gained requires current level+7 XP. You get XP in four ways, generally speaking: resolving bonds (story connections you have to other players), failing on rolls (rolling 6- on 2d6+MOD), fulfilling your Alignment move (a particular category of actions you need to fulfill), or having accomplished any of three things (can get more than one) from the End of Session move (Learn something new and important about the world, Overcome a notable monster or enemy, or Loot a memorable treasure.) So, in general, it's pretty rare for a character to get more than like 7-8 XP in a single session: 3 from End of Session, 1 from Alignment, 1 from resolving a Bond, 2-3 from failed rolls. But the thing is, this scale changes over time. You fail more rolls early on, because you have lower stats. As you get better, you learn how to mitigate your risks more and how to focus on your areas of expertise, where you become more skilled. This directly means that, even though earning level 9 only requires about twice as much XP as earning level 2 did (8 vs 15), earning level 9 will almost certainly take MUCH longer! On top of that, when you're a fresh green adventurer, you're constantly learning new and important things, overcoming notable opponents, and looting memorable treasure, but as you get to high level, these things naturally become less frequent--you know more, so learning something new or important is less common; you are stronger, so fewer opponents are notable, and you already have a lot of swag, so a new treasure has to really stand out to be "memorable." The level-up XP curve can be linear, because the XP input curve is sub-linear.

Milestone levelling is very different, because it's a matter of managing story expectations rather than mechanical ones. In general, you'll want to make milestone levels come after some kind of at least moderately cathartic or thrilling victory, or in response to a major setback (the whole "conviction to do better" sort of thing). This means each adventure is a prime opportunity, but if the overall mood is more just overall pleasure at success or frustration at failure, it may be better to hold off for another adventure or two, rather than going straight away. 13A is in some senses even better than most other systems in this regard, because it has partial "Incremental Advancements," which allow players to get the feeling of still progressing even as you spool out the actual levels themselves. Doling out incremental advances for every small victory and then a full proper Level for each large victory feels pretty good as a player.
 

Then again, I've allowed characters to jump 5 levels at once when things get dull, so it's not like I'm consistent.
How did that work out? I'm considering doing something like that in my current game, depending on how interested my players are in exploiting the nature of the setting.
 

I'm doing about 2 dungeons per level-up, or 1 if it's a long and complex one.
I also use my XP tracker sheet (DM's guild link, it's free or PWYW) to keep track of "Ok, should the party be close to leveling?"
In my high level campaign, they will also level up each time they complete a major campaign objective, so there's a chance of leveling twice in two sessions.
 

In the (distant) past, I've always felt that characters gaining a new level roughly every four times we played was a good pace.
But in the 5th edition campaign that I ran two years ago, I found that to be much too fast. There was barely enough time for the players to try out all the new toys they got from a new level before they reached the next one and got another bunch of newer toys. Most of which are combat abilities, which meant I put an amount of fights into the adventures to let them have fun with what they got, that in hindsight felt excessive.

If I were to run 5th edition again, I would aim for more like a new level every 6 times we play.
 

So I’m running 5e again. 2 sessions in and the introductory adventure is done, the party is level 2, and their 1st small expedition into uncharted territory begins on Friday. Which has got me thinking about pacing. What’s everyone’s preference when it comes to leveling speed? On average how many adventurers before turning the PC power dial up a notch?

This isn’t 5e specific. Feel free to chime in if you’re playing/prefer an earlier version. Prior to this we were playing Labyrinth Lord/AD&D mashup. Spent two pandemic years getting to L8/L9!

(well the thief got to L9…)
It's complicated :) and my preferences are far from the norm.

It seems common to have an adventure cover multiple levels, to the point that such adventures are designed in a way that almost requires the party to level up before certain encounters. And then to run adventures in a series, one after each other.

My ideal campaign is a more sandboxy style where multiple adventures continue in parallel, branch out, intersect, some botched/abandoned instead of successfully completed. Then unfortunately I don't normally have the luxury to run that kind of ideal campaign, but instead I have to settle for one-shots and 2-4 sessions games that cover only one single adventure at a time. If we are lucky, the same group gets to play another adventure next time, but it is not planned beforehand. The only ongoing long-term campaign I have in 5e is with the family, but because most players are still children, I still go with a series of quests instead of an "adventures grove" so that they don't have multiple plots to hold together all the time.

In all cases, I tend to manage levelling up in a way that is more paced for the players than to match the difficulty between the PCs and the challenges. Meaning, I want the players to focus on what they can do currently with their PCs (instead of keep thinking about next level-up), and learn to use efficiently what they have. Then when they're good enough at the current level and have used most if not all their available abilities, and maybe they are getting a bit tired of their current tactics, it is time to move on and level up. I do not like when the PCs level up and acquire new capabilities before the players had time to even try the previous ones out. I still generally grant XP to give the impression of progress and reward, but I am not afraid to let the players know they won't level up before their quest is done.

So in practice my typical way is to try and keep the PC to stay at the current level for the whole adventure (but then keep in mind that I rarely have the option for LONG adventures). If the adventure we want to play is designed to span multiple levels (likely not more than 2-3 levels anyway), I start it when the PCs are already at the end level or one below, and then I expect the earlier parts of the quest to be a bit easy and the latter to be tougher (which narratively makes most sense to me). I can keep running many adventures at the same level before deciding it's time for the players to increase complexity and level up. It's also possible I just have my eye on a higher-level adventure, and decide to bump them sooner so that we can play it.
 


The game is designed to go fast to level 5. And then fast again from 11+ speeding up as it goes.

It is intentionally designed for levels 5-10 to last the longest.

How are you defining 'adventure?' I prefer to think in terms of long rests.

In the current adventure I'm playing the PCs are at level 5 and will be going to 6 after 3 or 4 small quests each lasting 1 long rest.

Level 1 and 2 would be 1 long rest each. Levels 3 and 4 would be 2-3. Though we start at level 3 now and skip 1-2.
 

I always ask during session 0. My current campaign people level after 2-3 sessions, a session is around 5 hours. I'm thinking of suggesting slower progression next campaign but potentially starting at a higher level. Personally I like slower advancement but we don't get together nearly as often as I'd like.
 

Session Zero: Discuss with players roughly how long they want the campaign to be and/or their expected availability for playing. Also, discuss what would be an interesting level to start and end the campaign.

[ Length between leveling up ] = [ Expected length of campaign ] / [Final level - start level]

Adjustments may be needed as the campaign progresses. You can add milestones, XP or whatever... doesn't fundamentally change things.
This assumes the same players will finish the campaign as started it.

I make no such assumption, and in fact assume there will almost inevitably be some player turnover during the campaign's run.
 

Remove ads

Top