Leveling assumptions then and now

[Raven Crowking]

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

D'oh!

 

[Dausuul]

I agree with EvilDMGuy. 3E's expected advancement rate of three-and-a-third sessions per level means 63.33 sessions to reach level 20. Gary's estimate of 50-75 sessions to reach name level yields an average of 62.5 sessions. So they really track quite closely.

The interesting thing is that 4E has added ten more levels but not significantly accelerated advancement over 3E, implying longer modern campaigns.

 

[Stoat]

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)

My recollection is that the expectation in 2000 was for players to level about every 12-13 encounters and to have about 4 encounters a session. An average of one level per 4 sessions. I think I read that in Dragon, but it's been a long time.

 

[TerraDave]

By pre 3E standards this is fast! Certainly faster then my 2E game.

It implies a couple of years for a "full" campaing. In that sense not much has changed.

And if anything 3E and 4E advancment still feel slow.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3E's expected advancement rate of three-and-a-third sessions per level means 63.33 sessions to reach level 20. Gary's estimate of 50-75 sessions to reach name level yields an average of 62.5 sessions. So they really track quite closely.

You know that you are tracking 20 levels to 10 levels, right? Or, in other words, 2-to-1.

As for changes to levelling rates, in his Q&A when the 1e DMG came out, Gary's foremost message to players was "The party is over."


RC

 

[catsclaw227]

My recollection is that the expectation in 2000 was for players to level about every 12-13 encounters and to have about 4 encounters a session. An average of one level per 4 sessions. I think I read that in Dragon, but it's been a long time.

At the bottom of page 41 of the 3.5 DMG:

Behind the Curtain: Experience Points
The experience point award for encounters is based on the concept that 13.33 encounters of an EL equal to the player characters' level allow them to gain a level.
Thirteen or fourteen encounters can seem to go by very quickly. This is particularly true at low levels, where most of the encounters that characters take part in are appropriate for their levels. At higher levels, the PCs face a varied range of Encounter Levels (more lower than higher, if they're to survive) and thus gain levels somewhat more slowly. Higher-level characters also tend to spend more and more time interacting with each other and with NPCs, which results in fewer XP over time.

Then there's more about how the DM can control or gauge PC advancement.

 

[weem]

Originally Posted by Gary Gygax, the Strategic Review Issue 2.2, page 23
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.

That's interesting, and the one 2e campaign I remember these details of was pretty much inline with this. We played every SAT for 1 year (missed maybe 2 times) so about 50 games, and my players were level 9 by then.

In 3e and now 4e I level the party when I feel it's time - there is no more XP.

 

[Ariosto]

Some folks here are using "campaign" in a quite different sense than what Gary meant. Neither Blackmoor nor Greyhawk was limited to one small group of characters advancing in lock-step, with but one character per player per campaign. Whether any particular character (or even player!) dies, retires or remains active has no bearing on the continuation of the campaign in the original D&D sense.

 

[Ariosto]

A certain argument based on a load of arbitrary assumptions has already dismissed Mr. Gygax's views in that article as cavalierly as his rules in the DMG and the practical considerations raised by experienced adventurers (including veterans of cited modules).

 

[catsclaw227]

A certain argument based on a load of arbitrary assumptions has already dismissed Mr. Gygax's views in that article as cavalierly as his rules in the DMG and the practical considerations raised by experienced adventurers (including veterans of cited modules).

I am sorry, I don't understand. Which argument are you talking about? I don't see anything in this thread that has cavalierly dismissed Gygax's views in the periodical nor the 1e DMG.