Is advancement in 3.X D&D too SLOW?

[gizmo33]

No, 3E DnD level advancement is way too fast. Not only is it too fast for my tastes, but I think it's also too fast for all those DMs posting the "I can't challenge my PCs" or "I can't do all the math for a 20th level character" etc. etc.

So if they do a survey next year and find out that people are only playing an average of 10 minutes before restarting a campaign, then what? It's like doing a survey and finding out that the average person doesn't read, and from that concluding that a book should therefore contain no words. The decision ought to be based on what makes for the best RPG experience - not catering to a group of people who may or may not even be trying.

 

[sniffles]

You've got to be kidding me! 3E advancement too *slow*?! It seems to go like lightning.

I was involved in an AD&D campaign for about 6 yrs. During that time our PCs advanced to 7th level. As the campaign neared its end the GM decided to convert to 3.5. During about 3 months following the conversion the PCs advanced 2 more levels (although admittedly the GM wanted us to be higher level before we met the BBEG at the end, so he may have advanced us a little faster than the norm). I've been involved in 2 other 3E campaigns over the past few years; in one that has been running 3-4 yrs. the PCs are now 7th/8th level, in another running for 2 yrs. the PCs are 9th level (that game occurs more often).

However, all other things being equal, I prefer the level advancement in 3E. I learned to roleplay in level-less systems like RuneQuest and Fantasy Hero, and I find waiting to accumulate a certain amount of XP before getting some gratification very frustrating.

 

[TerraDave]

D&D has always been about the rewards of long term play....so those who hold it together and the keep the campaing going longer (which takes some work) get something for it (which may include headaches for the DM).

As Psion points out, even then, if you played by the book, you might still not see higher levels in earlier editions of the game...(and there is no evidence that there was any attempt to really play test or balance things at those levels, but that is another story). In very long running campaigns they could just be for show.

With 3.0 advancement, now it is possible, but the DM and players still have to work at it and have some patience if they want to go 1-20.

 

[Faraer]

The newspeak term 'levelling' goes along with it being a relatively frequent and routine event (the gerund makes it sound continuous), whereas 'gaining a level' is something more momentous.

Someone could do a poll on how many sessions it takes to advance a level in people's current or latest campaign, and what their preferred rate is. I'm not sure what bands to use. I prefer about a quarter the speed of 3E, myself.

 

[JoeBlank]

I prefer a compromise between delayed gratification and seeing some progress in character improvement.

For the record, diaglo's current OD&D game has been running for right at a year, 21st session is this weekend. The survivors of the original group of PCs are 3d level.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The newspeak term 'levelling' goes along with it being a relatively frequent and routine event (the gerund makes it sound continuous), whereas 'gaining a level' is something more momentous.

You lost me there.

 

[Faraer]

Nouns get formed into verbs when the concept is used a lot, so the verb 'levelling' connotes something that's frequent and routine enough to be abbreviated. '-ing' is usually used with a process that goes on continually -- digging, growing -- rather than one that's occasional. Language shapes thought and vice versa.

 

[Desdichado]

Nouns get formed into verbs when the concept is used a lot, so the verb 'levelling' connotes something that's frequent and routine enough to be abbreviated. '-ing' is usually used with a process that goes on continually -- digging, growing -- rather than one that's occasional. Language shapes thought and vice versa.

Wow. Read any Frank Herbert lately?

 

[diaglo]

Nouns get formed into verbs when the concept is used a lot, so the verb 'levelling' connotes something that's frequent and routine enough to be abbreviated. '-ing' is usually used with a process that goes on continually -- digging, growing -- rather than one that's occasional. Language shapes thought and vice versa.

but there are out of RPGAs uses for the word.

think along the same plane or tier as Grading.

or drawing a straight line

or making something level with one of those... levels.

 

[kenobi65]

Now I assume that when WotC saw that campaigns maybe last 20 sessions, and tended to end around 12th level, they decided to try to speed up advancement, so players could at least experience higher levels.

Exactly. I don't think the goal was specifically to make it so most players could experience the entirety of levels 1-20 in their campaigns; it was so players could experience a variety of levels, within the limited lifespan of the typical D&D campaign.

Under 1E / 2E, you could often advance *very* quickly through the first few levels, but the way the advancement system worked, most classes bogged down to a near-halt by around 8th or 9th level. IMO, *that* is the big change that 3E implemented.

In the two 3E groups I DM, the PCs typically advance a level every 3 game sessions or so. As we only play monthly (if that), you're only looking at going up 3-4 levels in a calendar year (OK, diaglo would say, "what do you mean, *only*" ). As our campaigns do tend to last 3-4 years, and 30+ sessions, I don't view this as too fast, but I certainly don't view it as too slow, either.