Leveling assumptions then and now

[Umbran]

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.

What "difference" are we looking for?

Straight number of levels per year? Given the rules changes, such that "level" does not necessarily mean the same thing in all the games, I don't know if that is relevant. Apples and oranges, and all that.

How about, reaching the game's target for, "top level of play normally expected" in some particular time? 1e "name level" was typically in the 9-12 range, and anecdotally was about as high as many folks tended to get. And Gary suggested that should be reached in about a year. In 3e and 4e, the top expected level has a higher number attached to it, but it still takes a year of weekly play to get there. So, on that basis, there's no real difference in rate of advancement.

 

[Lanefan]

In the not-very-many years since I've been tracking session numbers, I've found a single-track game attempting to play weekly tends to get in about 40-45 sessions a year, while a double-track (i.e. two different groups each playing weekly in the same campaign world) game gets in maybe 90-95.

I've never run the numbers, though I suppose I could if I wanted, but at a guess I'd say that the *average party level* within a game goes up by maybe 1-2 levels a year, while an average single character that lasts the whole year might go up 3 or even 4 levels until a slowdown at higher level. What slows the party average down is dead/retired characters are usually replaced by ones of lower level, and my game still has level drain...

Now I'm thinking about it, though, I suppose I have to run some numbers. This might take a while...

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

What "difference" are we looking for? Straight number of levels per year?

"Per module" was the particular presentation.

Given the rules changes, such that "level" does not necessarily mean the same thing in all the games, I don't know if that is relevant.

Relevant to what is the question, of course. You could ask the folks who took it as an article of faith. It may have been relevant to locking that thread.

In 3e and 4e, the top expected level has a higher number attached to it, but it still takes a year of weekly play to get there.

That's apparently a contentious claim in some quarters, even before getting into how much higher.

And Gary suggested that should be reached in about a year.

He suggested that could be reached in a year. As the estimated rate of advancement, including the 2nd+ years, is better than the best actually attained in Blackmoor and Greyhawk; and in the absence of actual 1st-year data; I would not take it as expected, normative performance.

 

[Lanefan]

... at a guess I'd say that the *average party level* within a game goes up by maybe 1-2 levels a year ...

Now I'm thinking about it, though, I suppose I have to run some numbers. This might take a while...

Well, that didn't take as long as I thought it would.

I can post the specific data here if anyone likes, but here's the generalities:

Preamble: all games are 1e-based, with no ExP given for treasure (thus a slower-than-designed advancement rate). All games start at raw 1st level. I have a sample size of 6 campaigns over 28 years: 3 big ones that got to 10th-ish level, one smaller one that finished at around 5th-6th, and two new ones. All levels refer to the approximate average of the party or parties; individual characters can and do vary wildly from these at any given point.

Year 1: All campaigns except one either stay at 1st or poke their nose into 2nd. The one exception is a new one where advancement was sped up, it got to 4th in year 1.

Year 2: All campaigns get out of 1st; finishing at anywhere from 2nd to 5th. (one new campaign is still in year 2, with parties in the 3rd-5th range)

Year 3: All campaigns get out of 2nd, most are 4th-5th. (the other new campaign - the faster-advancing one - is still in year 3 and is around 6th at the moment)

Year 4: Range is 4th to 6th, except one disaster that went backwards from 4th to 2nd during the year! It would never recover from this, and by year 8 when it ended it still had not reached 6th level.

Years 5-8: The three big campaigns settle in to a 5th-8th range, with lots of ups and downs; except one party in one of the campaigns that stalled at 4th-5th, stayed there for 4 years, and never went further.

Years 9-10: Range is now 7th-9th for the three, again with ups and downs.

Years 11-12: The major parties from the two campaigns that got this far are in the 8th-10th range, with minor parties still as low as 6th in some cases.

Make of the above what you will. My point, perhaps, is that games do not need rapid level advancement to be long and successful.

Lanefan

 

[weem]

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.

Absolutely - Our group that meets every other Wednesday feels like we are very regular/frequent considering all the other things vying for our time -- and that comes out to 26 games a year... I can't imagine hitting 50+ a year these days (I did have a 2e campaign that hit 50-ish games a year way back when, as mentioned earlier).

 

[S'mon]

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!

My experience of 4e so far has been that advancement at low levels has been substantially and surprisingly slower than in 3e. With 3-4 fights per session, 4e PCs earn around 200 XP each, whereas in 3e they'd be getting more like 600 XP. I throw in tons of bonus & quest XP and the PCs still didn't get from 2nd to 3rd in 3 sessions of fighting powerful foes, including a lot of 9th level opponents (troll, worgs, deathpriest of Nergal/Orcus etc).

Monster XP seems substantially lower. Where a 1st level warrior in 3e gets you 150 XP, the equivalent in 4e is a ca 3rd level minion worth 38 XP. A 1st level foe in 4e is worth 100 XP, and will take much much longer to defeat than a 1st level 3e foe. At the higher end, 400 XP for a 4e 9th level opponent isn't much at all; the rough equivalent in 3e would be a CR 6 foe worth 2400 XP.

Of course the 4e PCs are also more durable, and there is less random PC death.

 

[S'mon]

I disagree with the notion that 20th level in 3e is equivalent to 10th in 1e-2e. Maybe for Fighters; if anything a 3.5e Fighter is weaker vs the monsters than is a 1e Fighter (compare 1e Type VI demon to 3.5e Balor!). But Wizard spells by level did not change much over the editions; a 1e M-U 10 has similar spell power to a 3e Wiz-10, and a 1e M-U 20 has similar power to a 3e Wiz-20. If anything the 3e Wizard-20 is more powerful due to the addition of more very powerful spells.

A 3e game that seeks a 1e feel is best off sticking to the 1-10 level range, in my experience.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree with the notion that 20th level in 3e is equivalent to 10th in 1e-2e. Maybe for Fighters; if anything a 3.5e Fighter is weaker vs the monsters than is a 1e Fighter (compare 1e Type VI demon to 3.5e Balor!). But Wizard spells by level did not change much over the editions; a 1e M-U 10 has similar spell power to a 3e Wiz-10, and a 1e M-U 20 has similar power to a 3e Wiz-20. If anything the 3e Wizard-20 is more powerful due to the addition of more very powerful spells.

A 3e game that seeks a 1e feel is best off sticking to the 1-10 level range, in my experience.

no, thats not right.

Wizards in 2e have 10d6 fireballs.Those are so devastating to enemies that you don´t need much more. So a wizard of lvl 10 is about as powerful as a wizard of lvl 20 in 3e compared to the monsters.
You get to be epic when you reach level 12, where you get your first lvl 6 spell.

I have played a module where you should level up from one to 15 twice in ADnD. We played with 5 or 6 members and were level 10 - 12 depending on class when we finished it.

I DM'ed it for 3rd edition, with 5 - 6 players, not adjusting a single encounter and when we had to stop they were level 12 at 2/3 of the adventure. And 90% of the challenges were exactly as chellenging as I hoped them to be. No more and no less.

Monsters in 3e are a lot tougher and more dangerous than in 2nd edition. And wizards in 2nd edition were much more powerful compared to the challenges they had to face than a 3rd edition one.
Also in 2nd edition there were spells much more versatile (illusion, ice rain, wall of ice etc...) and much more powerful (stoneskin/fireshield combo, Feuerhülle, improved blink, and not to forget Farbkugel the first level save or die spell... which petrified on a successful safe... oh and of course magic missle was no joke back than... you could singlehandedly shutdown 5 higher level spellcasters)

 

[S'mon]

And wizards in 2nd edition were much more powerful compared to the challenges they had to face than a 3rd edition one.

Definitely not my experience. Even with direct damage spells, NPCs don't have many more hp in 3e and die very easily. Most monsters have a few more hp (Ogre 19 hp 1e > 28 hp 3e), some have double, but Wizards can just blast them twice instead of once and they have plenty more spell slots with which to do so. They can't be disrupted the way 1e M-Us can. I always found 1e 10th level M-Us powerful but limited, 3e Wiz-10s powerful and effectively unlimited.

Exception: The 2e Stoneskin spell, as written, made casters invincible.

 

[Jack99]

We have played 350 hours in my campaign. Which amounts to 70 5-hour sessions. Now, we only had 58 sessions since June 6th 2008, but that's because we have a couple of weekends where we leave for a cabin and get a lot of gaming done.

Players are 21st level. So that's a level-up every 17,5 hour, or every 3½ session.

We play 4e.