Leveling assumptions then and now

[theemrys]

Well, I did find when I was playin 3.X that leveling went much faster and seemed to be more of the focus... but it was also a shift to have levels 1-20 (or 30 in some games) available. Also, I felt that because of some of the major elements of the game, especially feats which had dependencies, you were encouraged and almost needed to plan ahead. (this also includes PrCs).

That being said, I moved from there on to HackMaster (4e, the older edition) which was much more of a 1e/2e D&D style for experience, and now on to Hackmaster Basic. I'm really enjoying the HMB because the progression is much flatter. You only gain a hit die every other level... and I found that the leveling benefits make a difference but less so than in some other systems. What is great about it is that if your party has gotten a few levels and you die, it's not that bad to start at level 1 again and work to catch up. Also, it means that even "low level" threats are dangerous at higher levels.

Back to the point of this thread though... I think a lot of the game aspects directly play into how things work and the expectations. If need to be in a certain level range to be able to do what you have fun with, then there will be a push to get there. If there isn't as much different between levels, or the focus/feel of the game is to earn and claw your way for every little advantage you can get, then slower progression makes more sense.

I think the best comment from above is about where you're headed. Even if you played a 1e game which was focused on advancement (reaching name level), that still only took you to 9 or 10 in many cases... and there was very little choice during advancement that would impact your core competency down the road. In 3.X, that changed and your 1st level to 2nd level choices could directly affect how effective your "build" is a level 15... Not always for all play, but there was a lot more potential.

Now, our group meets when we can, and we're trying to setup a weekly weeknight game for 2.5 to 3 hrs to keep things regular... which means a slower pace per session than our ideal 5 hr sessions... but if we can really get them in every week rather than every month, it will help keep our pace up.

Ok.. reading this over I've rambled a lot but hopefully at least made a few good points...

 

[catsclaw227]

(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.

Oh my goodness, that's fast! We actually level about once every 3-4 sessions, depending upon how many combat encounters/SkilChal/RP encounters we run.

Though, like you, I am also moving more toward leveling when it seems appropriate. I make a guess as to where the PCs should (by XP count) be leveling up and then I can move this target sooner/later depending upon the situation and the story breaks.

 

[MerricB]

(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.)

Not quite accurate hearsay.

The 4e DMG (page 121) discusses the rate of advancement: it should take about a year-and-a-half to reach 30th level if you play 4-5 hour sessions every week and get in 4 encounters a session (or about 70 sessions). So, slightly slower than 1 level every 2 sessions.

It then goes on to say that "most campaigns don't move at that pace", and "you'll probably find the natural rhythms of your campaign produce a slower rate of advancement that is easier to sustain."

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

What a strange thing for a rulebook to say:

Effectively, "This pace is normal, but you will probably find what we are calling normal is actually faster than normal."





RC

 

[Scribble]

What a strange thing for a rulebook to say:

Effectively, "This pace is normal, but you will probably find what we are calling normal is actually faster than normal."





RC

That's not what it's saying though.

It's basically doing the same thing Google Maps, or a GPS unit does. Based purely on the math, this is how long it will take to get to your destination. However, allow extra time for traffic, potholes, and morons along the way.

The DMG is saying the same thing- Based purely on the math, here's how long leveling takes. Allow extra time for your real life along the way.

 

[Janx]

I remember reading that article when I got the Dragon Magazine Archive CD ROM

The points I got from it then were:
Gary was chastizing groups who boasted higher levels than the campaigns of the creators of D&D. His point was soem GMs were handing out too much XP and he was setting the standard his group played by.

These groups seemed to play a lot (50-70 sessions in a year). Thats once a week or MORE.

If you expected to get to 11th level in a year of game play, and if you follow the advice of "give out more XP when you play less frequently" then there's also some expecation of "faster leveling with fewer sessions".

When WotC did their big survey of gamers, and 3e came out and declared the 13.3 encounters per level metric it was based on the reality of how people WERE playing D&D.

Most people were not playing as frequently, and wanted faster advancement (because that's how they changed from the Gary standard). Campaigns were lucky to last a year. So 3e changed the pace to meet model.

I had long ago accepted the idea that if you play infrequently, you need to have a faster XP pace to keep the players feeling like they are advancing. And this would also gibe with if you play VERY frequently, you could slow down the XP pace.

I recommend not just looking at the concept of # of encounters per session and # of sessions per level, but also the # of sessions per year.

 

[Janx]

Even BEFORE 9th level, getting through 3 to 4 encounters in a single session? That's kind of pushing it IMO.

Another metric to consider: How long is YOUR session?

For our low-level games, we adopted "fast combat" methods (see my blog).

We try to keep our sessions between 4-6 hours, 5 being average.

We have plowed through 6 combats and some RP and the usual "finding the plot hook".

Some people take too long at combat. At higher level, combat does take longer, even with my methods. The trick is to minimize wasted time.

My friend who GMs is know for 8+ hour sessions. We've started at noon, and not been done at 2AM. And then we'll resume the next day. But then these are with friends who visit from 1500 miles away once a year or so. And his combats do take longer to run.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Before one concludes much of anything, one must consider:

1) Is 50 to 75 games a year anything like reasonable? Maybe in early 1970s Geneva, WI. Maybe for teenagers in the 1980s. But today?

For my money, it is not reasonable to expect the play pattern of ardent hobbyists in a small Midwestern town in the age before cable TV or internet to play patterns in later decades. The game would have adjusted to suit.

2) Is a level in one game equivalent to a level in another?

While you might have some argument for equivalence between 1e and 2e, that equivalence was weakening in 3e, and is largely gone in 4e.

3) What was the point of the original statement?

Gygax was a major force in the creation of our hobby, but I don't think his early personal preference for advancement speed is particularly binding or informative. Clearly, because he had to say this at all, people were playing faster than his stated pace even back then! That would suggest that in practical play, for many the game's pace then was more like it is now than his suggestion, no?

So, he had a pace he liked. That's nice. I am not him, and my people are not his gaming group. And there are several decades of wisdom gained by thousands of people since. Thanks, I can choose a rate of advancement and starting level for myself, and the rules have had tools to help me do that for a long time.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, in old D&D it's not really a matter of sessions. It depends on what you accomplish. A single session could encompass several adventures.

While the DM is encouraged to adjust XP awards, the emphasis is on reducing them if considered too great.

I don't see RC making any assertions as to suitability of what was and what is. I see a counter-argument to the claim that there is no difference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In 3e you advance faster than in 2nd edition in level. But you don´t advance much faster in power compared to monsters (PHB only of course)

Monsters have much better statistics in 3.x especially much more hp.