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

[Bront]

Keep in mind that levels is not the onlyway to power up. Gear, gold, and even special training can allow for PCs to grow in power a bit without actualy leveling up.

Personaly, I tend to throw out the XP tables, and grant XP how I see fit, when I see fit. Lets me control the flow of the game a bit more, and can keep things interesting. Also lets you slide the scale a bit, since CRs are not always an excact science.

 

[cmanos]

Players who had played D&D less than a year averaged 8.8 sessions before restarting.

Players who had played D&D from 1 to 5 years averaged 12.9 sessions before restarting.

Players who had played D&D more than 5 years averaged 19.6 sessions before restarting.

Hmm, how about those who have gamed for over 25 years.......

 

[vulcan_idic]

Heh... I feel compelled to point out that you misread that completely.

The market research was done pre-3e, and the faster advancement came about because of this market research.

A'koss.

Actually I didn't eve read the study, I was merely hypothesizing based on the numbers quoted in the actual post, i.e. "their research indicated that most D&D campaigns ended after about 80 sessions" and later "Even rounding up, the longest an average D&D player played any given character was a mere 20 sessions!" Just a hypothesis based on the posts fact points - I don't have time to go through the longer linked article.

 

[Belen]

Given that, why didn't the designers of 3.0 D&D make it so that a character gains a level every session? That way an average D&D player (i. e., someone who abandons his character after 20 sessions) could experience the full range of 20-level play with a single character.

Because you'd never find a GM to run such games. Preppring for high level is a nightmare. Leveling once every few sessions allows a GM to learn the characters and slowly build up challenges. Otherwise, a GM would be faced with a host of new abilities every session, would be kept off-balance, and would have zero time to design anything other than encounters.

Heck, even players cannot get used to their characters that fast!

Finally, you're ignoring the fact that MOST gamers tend to prefer low to mid-levels. Most of the people I know who game feel that the best experience happens between 1-12.

 

[diaglo]

OD&D (1974)

3-4hrs / session; 5 sessions/ week; 50 weeks/ year; for 10 + years. 1 real time year to gain 1 level. on avg the it took ~900 hrs of roleplaying in the campaign i refereed.

to me. the current edition levels way too fast.

 

[Arnix]

The leveling at higher levels slows down a LOT. Combats take longer, so you get fewer in per session. This means it might take 8-14 sessions to level. If you are gaming every week, thats one level every 2-3 months. Rather slow.

Your OD&D would drive me insane averaging one level per year.

With 3.5's CR system it is slower than in 3.0 because of how the CR works for multiples of low level creatures and the Character level vs Average Party Level.

 

[Psion]

Even rounding up, the longest an average D&D player played any given character was a mere 20 sessions!

Given that, why didn't the designers of 3.0 D&D make it so that a character gains a level every session? That way an average D&D player (i. e., someone who abandons his character after 20 sessions) could experience the full range of 20-level play with a single character.

Because the assumption that the average (or even a significant portion of) the players want to play from 1st-20th level is flawed.

For me, it's a nice epic psuedo-campbellian jouirney, but handing it out too fast takes the fun out of it.

For others I have seen report, they'd just as soon never game in double digits.

For some others, below 5th is anethema.

Edit: That said, I don't dislike that 3e makes progression faster. They may have overcompensated, but I use to really rue that in 1e/2e, spells above 5th or 6th level, high level druid abilities, etc., were pretty much just for show.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Part of me enjoyed the utility of the faster levelling. But after switching to C&C with its more traditional levelling speed, I have to say that it feels like a far greater accomplishment to go up a level. Each level has more value in its own right.

In 3e, 1st level definitely goes by entirely too quickly.

 

[reveal]

Hmm, how about those who have gamed for over 25 years.......

They couldn't remember anything anyway.

 

[Janx]

there's a EGG article in The Strategic Review (go hunt it down in the Dragon Mag Archive) where he talks about how slow XP gain should be. His preference was that it be very slow indeed, much like Diaglo's example.

As for some folks anecdotal evidence of how long their games lasted beyond WotC's survey, I think they're missing the point. Assuming WotC's survey was fairly accurate, which most folks assume it was, then the AVERAGE gamer's experience was 12-20 sessions before the campaign folded up. All of this was pre-3.x, so we're talking 1e and 2e players here (and Diaglo).

Fact is, for most gamers, campaigns don't last, and they usually die before the story is finished. This is due to lots of silly people problems, like scheduling, crappy DMs, and sociopathic players. Now there are bound to be players who had longer campaigns, odds are good, those people are what pushed the average campaign duration UP to 20 sessions.

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. That's nice for the players. And I see that some of you say campaigns end early because it's too hard for DMs to run. I suspect that while that is one challenge of high level campaigns, that premature campaign termination is more frequently caused by other factors.

What kind, lessee here, what's been rehashed before on EnWorld about why campaigns die:
players keep missing events
DM isn't prepared
It's hard to DM high level games (throwing a bone for some of you)
interpersonal problems between players (arguments stop the fun)
Crappy DM, so players exit the game (I've bailed on crappy DMs and watched the campaign fizzle)
Lack of interest from players

If each one of those items has a 1% chance of happening and killing the campaign PER session, how many sessions would you have before the campaign ends. I'd guess that you'd be lucky to get 20 sessions in.

I've been a player or DM in the following sessions:
F/T: about a year
M: 4 months
M/TM: 5 years active (every 2 weeks)
T: 6 months
B: 12 months
R: 12 months
C: 12 months
Brb: 14 months

I've also probably played in 3-4 campaigns that started and fizzled by the second session (ie. were intended to be campaigns, but flopped so badly, they never got a second session).

I've played 4-5 campaigns that maybe lasted four sessions, also flopped due to busy schedules and lack of interest.

DMing campaigns
8 months (scheduling)
3 sessions (fizzled)
6 months (interpersonal)
18 sessions (over a year and a half real time and still running)

I suspect there are more people with experiences like mine.