Leveling assumptions then and now

[Raven Crowking]

It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play.

50 games to reach 11th level, the fastest rate in this scheme, is a rate of advancement of 1 level per approximately 4.5 sessions. 75 games for 9th level, the slowest rate in this scheme, is 1 level per approximately 8.3 sessions. A mean average is 1 level per approximately 6.2 game sessions (based on averaging 50 and 75, and assuming the PC reaches 10th level). Note that this assumes survival, which would certainly slow the rate of level gain from this average.

It should be clear to anyone that this is a slower rate of advancement than 1 level per 3 sessions, as was expected in 3.x, according to its author.

In 3.x, the rate of advancement is not expected to slow between levels 1-20? What about earlier D&D?

The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels.

Hmmm.

Again, if the question arises as to whether or not the expected rate of advancement in D&D has increased from earlier editions to the present, what must one conclude?

As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

If the authors in question included enough potential XP for a far more meteoric rise (which a certain examination of older modules demonstrates), but said meteoric rise did not occur, one must conclude perforce that a large portion of the potential was not realized. I.e., monsters were not defeated, and treasure was not gained. Anyone failing to take this into account is creating a model not in accordance with the expected reality, and that model must be considered suspect.




RC

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure if there's a question in there... but interesting. I approve. That's about my preferred advancement rate too; 1 level every 5 sessions or so.

Of course, I really slow down at a certain point; I refuse to run the game much past 10th level. Not very interested in playing at that range either, for that matter.

 

[rkwoodard]

so

50 games to reach 11th level, the fastest rate in this scheme, is a rate of advancement of 1 level per approximately 4.5 sessions. 75 games for 9th level, the slowest rate in this scheme, is 1 level per approximately 8.3 sessions. A mean average is 1 level per approximately 6.2 game sessions (based on averaging 50 and 75, and assuming the PC reaches 10th level). Note that this assumes survival, which would certainly slow the rate of level gain from this average.

It should be clear to anyone that this is a slower rate of advancement than 1 level per 3 sessions, as was expected in 3.x, according to its author.

In 3.x, the rate of advancement is not expected to slow between levels 1-20? What about earlier D&D?

The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels.

Hmmm.

Again, if the question arises as to whether or not the expected rate of advancement in D&D has increased from earlier editions to the present, what must one conclude?



If the authors in question included enough potential XP for a far more meteoric rise (which a certain examination of older modules demonstrates), but said meteoric rise did not occur, one must conclude perforce that a large portion of the potential was not realized. I.e., monsters were not defeated, and treasure was not gained. Anyone failing to take this into account is creating a model not in accordance with the expected reality, and that model must be considered suspect.




RC

Just so I am clear in my understanding, is this a correct restatement of your (maybe implied) position

Gary said that the rate was 1 per 4.5 session,
The adventures had more treasure/Monsters than that rate,
The writers were aware of the rate of advancement,

Therefore, they built in these extra's knowing that most/some groups would only get a portion.

and that if one believes that the adventures were written with a faster rate intended, they don't have any supportive grounds to base that on.

Is that right?

Could the writers thought that it would take many sessions to get through their modules and thus still meet Gary's stated rate of progression?

RK

 

[ExploderWizard]

I remember reading somethng about leveling speed in 3E. IIRC the fast leveling was a deliberate design choice because many gaming groups cannot play with weekly regularity and the designers wanted shorter campaigns to be able to experience a wider range of levels. In any event, leveling rate is one of the easiest things to tweak.

 

[rogueattorney]

One of the big discrepancies between what many modern viewers see as "a whole bunch of treasure" and this slower advancement rate is that the party was assumed to have a lot more characters - 6 to 8 pcs plus a similar number of henchmen, retainers, and other hangers on, versus the more standard 4 or 5. 50,000 gp divided by 12 is a lot different than 50,000 gp divided by 4.

 

[Votan]

If the authors in question included enough potential XP for a far more meteoric rise (which a certain examination of older modules demonstrates), but said meteoric rise did not occur, one must conclude perforce that a large portion of the potential was not realized. I.e., monsters were not defeated, and treasure was not gained. Anyone failing to take this into account is creating a model not in accordance with the expected reality, and that model must be considered suspect.

I don't own this issue but my best research indicates that this was published in April of 1975.

AD&D was published in 1977/1979 and the Basic Set was published in 1977. It's reasonable to assume that some modification of the rate of advancement could have occurred between the original game and the BECMI/AD&D era. Do we have many modules that pre-date 1977?

What modules was the advancement criterion designed based on?

I do agree that it is telling that original D&D had a very stately advancement pace and that it was probably a good thing [TM].

 

[catsclaw227]

It should be clear to anyone that this is a slower rate of advancement than 1 level per 3 sessions, as was expected in 3.x, according to its author.

I thought the rate of advancement in 3.x was based on the concept of 1 level every 13-14 encounters (13.33 to be exact)

How that translates into sessions is up to the DM and players, but at 3-4 encounters per session, it can be between 3-5 sessions. I don't know how anyone was able to get through 3-4 encounters at 15th level in one session and still have even 1/4 of the time spent on RP. (IMC, I prefer about a 50/50 ratio of RP and combat)

 

[evildmguy]

I think we have to look at something else, at what the intent of the quote was.

Imo, in 1E/2E, reaching about 10th level was the assumed ending of the game. I know that will cause some arguments but very little changed in 1E/2E at higher levels. I can't speak to OD&D.

So, my conclusion is more that Mr. Gygax was saying that the average campaign lasts 50-75 sessions, with the assumption that they quit the game at "name level" and then started new characters.

With that in mind, 3E played levels above 10 better but still hit about the same block around level 16 or so, where another level didn't add as much as lower levels.

Under these assumptions, if we say a campaign goes from 16-20th level, with what is in the core books, and assume advancment every three levels, then we get a campaign that lasts 48-60 sessions. If the progression goes to 3.5, we have 54-70 sessions, and to 4, it's 64-80 sessions.

So, my conclusion is that they assumed the same period for a campaign but expanded the levels, which is why characters advanced faster.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

edg

 

[Henry]

Again, if the question arises as to whether or not the expected rate of advancement in D&D has increased from earlier editions to the present, what must one conclude?

The only necessary conclusion is that the rate of level advancement has changed over the different versions of the game; you can infer, however, quite an array of things:

--The free time of the average gamer has been reduced
--The patience and sense of gratification of the average gamer has grown shorter and quicker
--The way actual gaming groups played compared to Gary's circle was quite diverse, and the rules were altered to conform closer to the way people were actually playing.

They're only inferences, though, and nothing concrete. About 7 to 9 months to get to 9th level was our average, though; when advancement slowed after name level, we usually got bored and switched to fresh PCs at 1st level in someone else's campaign.

 

[S'mon]

1 to 11 in 50 sessions is 10 level-ups, or 5 sessions per level-up.