Even BEFORE 9th level, getting through 3 to 4 encounters in a single session? That's kind of pushing it IMO.
Leveling assumptions then and now
- Thread starter Raven Crowking
- Start date
Even BEFORE 9th level, getting through 3 to 4 encounters in a single session? That's kind of pushing it IMO.
The Shaman
First Post
RC, is it worth considering that in older editions characters faced a greater potential for permanently lost levels due to undead energy drain? I mean, there's a reason wraiths were among the most feared monsters among the players in our high school group.
evildmguy
Explorer
I responded the way I did to try and put the quote into "modern" context. There really isn't any way to accurately compare gaming today to back then, unless you have two groups composed of players from back then. Even then, that doesn't guarantee that the style will be the same as the 70s.
Role playing is vastly different today than it was back then. While I am sure it happens, it's my understanding that most games today are one player plays one character and that's not how it was back then. Especially the wargamers that converted over, playing a main character and a dozen henchmen was probably no big deal.
Again, generalizing, I think today role players like to focus on one character each. More like ST:TNG or Firefly, as an ensemble cast, rather than a warband going out for treasure.
I could be wrong. But that's how I saw it.
edg
Role playing is vastly different today than it was back then. While I am sure it happens, it's my understanding that most games today are one player plays one character and that's not how it was back then. Especially the wargamers that converted over, playing a main character and a dozen henchmen was probably no big deal.
Again, generalizing, I think today role players like to focus on one character each. More like ST:TNG or Firefly, as an ensemble cast, rather than a warband going out for treasure.
I could be wrong. But that's how I saw it.
edg
evildmguy
Explorer
It depends on the group. Back then, at the "height" of my gaming, I played up to three nights a week and probably had 2-3 fights per night. That's a lot of fights! (Yes, fights, not encounters as they weren't called that then.)
Currently, playing once a week for four hours, it still varies. When I started and was doing everything by hand, one fight was a lot and was long. With the tools I have now, laptop and other combat helpers, I can do 2-3 fights and still have half the session for role playing.
This is only my older group. I am sure younger people play longer than we do and don't care about sleep! So, they probably get even more encounters done!
edg
I suspect that energy drain is among the implications of "assuming that he manages to survive." In other words, "it is reasonable to calculate" something that is an ideal or pretty close to one. I do not think the conclusion implied was that Blackmoor and Greyhawk lacked "fair players", or that all of those wanted for sufficient frequency of play to have gotten further in four or five years than was "calculated" for two to three.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
We used to do 10, 12, 15 encounters a session sometimes in 1e. Even in 3e we generally did 8 or 10 up til about 10th level or so, anyway.
Thasmodious
First Post
You know that a level in one game is not the equivalent of a level in the other game, right? The scale changed, level is an arbitrary breakdown of character advancement based on the internal math of the system. That math is substantially different from OD&D to 3e. So, no, not 2-to-1 at all.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
***Warning: broad generalizations ahead***
Levelling assumptions then:
- campaigns were open-ended in length, 5-10 years not uncommon
- campaigns were not designed with specific intent of reaching a certain level
- levelling was relatively infrequent
- levelling in some cases was a mere side effect of play rather than the focus
- achieving a new level was a hard-earned reward
- levels could be lost, and often were
Levelling assumptions now
- campaigns are short: 1-2 years at most, often less
- campaigns are designed around a level path, be it 1-20, 1-30, or whatever
- levelling is very frequent
- levelling in many cases is the main focus of (or reason for) play
- achieving a new level carries little feeling of accomplishment as it happens so often
- levels, once reached, cannot be lost
When I played 3e, the DM (to his everlasting credit!) harshly slowed down the levelling rate. Result: almost 9 years later that campaign is still going, with the party now around 11th-14th level. That said, what I did notice when levelling in 3e was how long it took to do the level-up bookkeeping in comparison to 1e: skill adjust, feat selection, bonus adjusts...I can't *imagine* having to do all that every few weeks!
Lan-"25 years and 10 levels later"-efan
Levelling assumptions then:
- campaigns were open-ended in length, 5-10 years not uncommon
- campaigns were not designed with specific intent of reaching a certain level
- levelling was relatively infrequent
- levelling in some cases was a mere side effect of play rather than the focus
- achieving a new level was a hard-earned reward
- levels could be lost, and often were
Levelling assumptions now
- campaigns are short: 1-2 years at most, often less
- campaigns are designed around a level path, be it 1-20, 1-30, or whatever
- levelling is very frequent
- levelling in many cases is the main focus of (or reason for) play
- achieving a new level carries little feeling of accomplishment as it happens so often
- levels, once reached, cannot be lost
When I played 3e, the DM (to his everlasting credit!) harshly slowed down the levelling rate. Result: almost 9 years later that campaign is still going, with the party now around 11th-14th level. That said, what I did notice when levelling in 3e was how long it took to do the level-up bookkeeping in comparison to 1e: skill adjust, feat selection, bonus adjusts...I can't *imagine* having to do all that every few weeks!
Lan-"25 years and 10 levels later"-efan
delericho
Legend
Certainly, it has been my experience that characters level much faster in 3e that they did in 2nd Edition. 2nd Edition was about the same as BECM D&D.
(My understanding is that 4e PCs are generally expected to level up almost every session, but that with 30 levels to gain the length of the campaign should be about the same. However, that's based on hearsay, not actual play experience.)
That said, it depends very much on the campaign, the group, and even the levels themselves.
As I've gotten older, it has become harder and harder to get the group together. That means that we have to make the most of what gaming we do get in, and it means that campaigns have had to be accelerated to compensate. As such, it is no longer feasible to root around for 4-6 sessions at 1st level - we want to get up and on to the "good stuff" as quickly as possible.
And, in fact, it has always been my preference to get through the first few levels as quickly as possible. I don't like just omitting them, as I find them very useful for establishing character, but at the same time I don't want to dwell overly on them. However, once 2nd Edition characters got to 5th level, or 3e characters got to about 4th, I preferred to slow advancement somewhat, to draw out the "sweet spot".
(I've also started moving very strongly away from giving XP for defeating challenges/killing monsters/gathering treasure. In my recent SWSE campaign, characters simply levelled up every 1-and-a-half sessions, either at the end of the session or at our 'break' for food. I would do the same for D&D, except that the spending of XP for item creation makes this difficult.)
(My understanding is that 4e PCs are generally expected to level up almost every session, but that with 30 levels to gain the length of the campaign should be about the same. However, that's based on hearsay, not actual play experience.)
That said, it depends very much on the campaign, the group, and even the levels themselves.
As I've gotten older, it has become harder and harder to get the group together. That means that we have to make the most of what gaming we do get in, and it means that campaigns have had to be accelerated to compensate. As such, it is no longer feasible to root around for 4-6 sessions at 1st level - we want to get up and on to the "good stuff" as quickly as possible.
And, in fact, it has always been my preference to get through the first few levels as quickly as possible. I don't like just omitting them, as I find them very useful for establishing character, but at the same time I don't want to dwell overly on them. However, once 2nd Edition characters got to 5th level, or 3e characters got to about 4th, I preferred to slow advancement somewhat, to draw out the "sweet spot".
(I've also started moving very strongly away from giving XP for defeating challenges/killing monsters/gathering treasure. In my recent SWSE campaign, characters simply levelled up every 1-and-a-half sessions, either at the end of the session or at our 'break' for food. I would do the same for D&D, except that the spending of XP for item creation makes this difficult.)
Raven Crowking
First Post
I would agree, but I was being generous. A single 0e or 1e level in no way represents even a quarter of the power increase gained by 1 level in 3e.
