Level Advancement Rate in 3e

[barsoomcore]

this seems backwards to me, isn't a player going from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd getting more powerful comparitively than a character going from 16-17 or 19-20?

Sure they are. But they still improve faster. Beginners learn faster than experts, that's true in any situation.

 

[Damon Griffin]

My current campaign started beginning of summer this year, so say 3 1/2 months ago, and we play every Monday night for 4 hours. The characters have just reached 7th level.
I'm happy with that advancement. I didn't think I would be since I like slow advancement.

Originally, I ran a very different, much slower XP gain campaign but it didn't work out, feeling much too slow.

Basically, my thoughts on the way XP is handled under 3rd editions is that WotC have got it just right, at least for me.

FWIW, Eryx, I think it's great that the rate of level advancement works for you and others, and I agree with those who pointed out that if you want to adjust the rate, you can.

I would certainly not support any suggestion that we all MUST advance at the same rate, or that any change in the XP system was inherently bad, or unbalancing.

What gets me is that the "normal" rate of advancement -- that is, the rate at which my scores of characters advanced over 25 years or so of gaming -- has been overthrown in favor of this much more frenetic pace. Anyone who wanted to increase in level more quickly was always free to do so, by increasing the amount of XP awards. Instead, this option has become the default system, and I am now invited to use houserules to return to what was, until now, always normal.

I associated this transition with a video game mentality. I don't think video games are bad, or that people who play them are mentally deficient, I just don't think tabletop RPGs should be played in the same way video games are.

As has already been pointed out by others, new players are coming in and being taught to expect that this rapid-fire rise in level is what is normal, which only serves to further marginalize longtime players like myself. In effect, we're being told to step aside and make way for a younger, hipper, less patient generation of gamers, and I don't much like it. Anyone who wants to earn a level per adventure should be free to do so, but it shouldn't have been necessary to set things up so that we all played at that pace, unless we took specific steps to avoid it.

Rapid-fire advancement isn't wrong, but it's wrong for me, and for the majority of us who grew up with 1e and 2e. We always used to say that houserules were fine, but if you make enough changes, then past a certain point, you're no longer playing D&D. That's what this feels like; certain things about the game have changed to the point where it no longer feels like D&D.

Overall, I do like 3e; the rate of level advancement is probably my biggest gripe...well, that and the absurdly high cost of magic item creation.

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

Your response is the rarity; Unfortunately, after I spelled-out the matter clearly for Hong, it's slightly suspect. But I'll accept this as fact for now.

Of course, it's fact. Don't forget I took that Always Universally Right feat. Heh.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

It is unfortunate that 9 out of 10 responses to the situation of which I address is comparible to Hong's reply; And it's because it's 9 out of 10 that it is a problem. Too many people forget that it's just a tool and consider it to be the gospel of the system, basing all of their comments and views on it as a universal truth that must be (see Hong's last post for his attempt to reinforce this).

It's very strange how a thread that was originally about the speed of levelling has transmogrified into one about CRs. You've somehow managed to conflate two completely separate issues:

- the speed with which characters advance in levels;

- the amount of gear/treasure they have at each level.

Both of these are tweaked easily enough by any DM with a modicum of experience. And since you've gone on in another thread about having enough time to run individual sessions for players when they do their own thing, you must surely have enough time to do this as well.

 

[hong]

As has already been pointed out by others, new players are coming in and being taught to expect that this rapid-fire rise in level is what is normal, which only serves to further marginalize longtime players like myself.

How long have you been playing? Because I've been playing since 1986, left midway through the 90s, and came back when 3E was released. I know there are plenty of other people like me.

In effect, we're being told to step aside and make way for a younger, hipper, less patient generation of gamers, and I don't much like it.

I'm 30, and I remember the red book and OD&D. I also have no problems with the rate of advancement.

 

[Corinth]

I'm with Hong; my experience is similiar to his--started in 1981, played all editions of D&D, nearly 30--and damn if this rate of advancement isn't one of the most fab parts of the current edition. Now I can realistically expect to reach 15th+ level when I play in a campaign; this wasn't the case in all previous editions.

 

[D'karr]

The beauty of the system

Level advancement speed is relative to your group only.

As has been stated way too many times any DM can alter the XP awards to fit his vision of level advancement.

The fact that the core books have enough information for the DM to do that effectively is a testament to how well it works.

The DM that wants to change things around actually has things that can be quantitatively used to determine what other things need to be adjusted.

 

[Ristamar]

How long have you been playing? Because I've been playing since 1986, left midway through the 90s, and came back when 3E was released. I know there are plenty of other people like me.



I'm 30, and I remember the red book and OD&D. I also have no problems with the rate of advancement.

I also agree with hong. In fact, I believe the advancement rate was increased to appeal to a majority of gamers that felt the old rate was too slow. 3e did receive a lot of player input, after all, and I would not be surprised if WotC's research showed that most 1e/2e D&D players never got to experience high-level play (unless they started at higher levels).

 

[Psion]

Rapid-fire advancement isn't wrong, but it's wrong for me, and for the majority of us who grew up with 1e and 2e.

I've played since before 1e and it's too fast for me, too.

But y'know what. It's great for some people. I've compensated a little, but in retrospect, I think that a little faster pacing works well.

We always used to say that houserules were fine, but if you make enough changes, then past a certain point, you're no longer playing D&D.

Eh. That sounds like an infamous editorial in Dragon by the esteemed Colonel Pladoh. I didn't buy it then, either.

What does it matter what people call it, so long as you are having fun. I have a load of houserules* and when we discuss what game we are playing that evening, we always call it D&D. AFAIAC, if you have to reference the books of a game for a majority of your rulings and references, you are playing that game.

* -- Actually, if there is one thing that feels less like old school D&D about my 3e gaming experience, it is that I have had to use FEWER house rules.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

It's very strange how a thread that was originally about the speed of levelling has transmogrified into one about CRs. You've somehow managed to conflate two completely separate issues:

I was actually replying to Buttercup. You managed to conflate the issue by attempting a futile effort to prove me wrong.

Both of these are tweaked easily enough by any DM with a modicum of experience. And since you've gone on in another thread about having enough time to run individual sessions for players when they do their own thing, you must surely have enough time to do this as well.

And I have, thank you very much.