Leveling up PCs; How do you handle it?

[Oryan77]

In 3e, it is suggested that we level up PCs about every 14 encounters or so. I'm not sure how it is gauged in other editions.

I don't really follow this guideline exactly since it always seemed that early levels went up way too fast in 3e.

So I gave out half XP back then. Now the 3e PCs are around the 10th-12th levels and I realize that half XP actually seems too slow now. I don't prepare my sessions ahead of time by how many encounters we'll have or how hard they are. It just seems like way too much work and not really all that practicable. I just create an encounter that I hope will be fun & fair regardless of CRs.

So I'm now sort of going by my gut feeling. I still figure up XP, and I like to give bonus roleplaying & adventure completion XP. But I may hand out more or less than what I figure up after a session based on how I thought the session went (did we stay busy all session or not?).

My problem is, I'm looking at this from a DM perspective. I'm not sure if players feel like they level too slow or if they are fine with it. I know if I ask, they will of course say they want to level up fast (who doesn't). And I also know that they will be ok with however I decide to handle XP as long as I'm not being ridiculous about it.

I'd like to get some kind of idea though on meeting halfway. So I'm just wondering what people are comfortable with in general from both the player perspective and DM perspective. What do you find too fast and too slow?

I know this is a really hard thing to gauge as a general idea since session length and other issues need to be factored in. But based on say a 4 hour session, how many sessions would you expect to play until leveling up again? Basically, how much time do you think you need to spend playing to level up?

 

[Crothian]

Whatever feels right. There are days we get a lot done in a 4 hour session and days we get nearly nothing done. I like to hook levelining into accomplishments. So if the campaign arc we are in I want them to gain 4 levels in then I plan out in different acts when the PCs will about gain a level. The players knowing that it is tied into what they get done then are usually a little more serious when we play and have fewer wasted sessions.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like to do it on a bi or tri-weekly basis, or depending on how much they accomplish in a single game. I don't like counting by encounters because clearing a few goblins from a cave and besting the Ghost King in his haunted tower are two totally different levels of encounters. Boss fights are almost always automatic level-up-afters. It keeps with the sense of accomplishment and challenge. Now that you've bested the lowbie boss, stronger foes will seek you out, or you feel tough enough to seek them out.

Assuming we get a solid play night in, which is almost always 4+ hours, then my bi to tri-weekly strategy works. We fight some kobolds who lead us to the bandits who we fight who then point us to the boss who we fight and then level. Or you level right before the boss. Either or.

I don't like basing it on side/story quests because then I end up preparing tons of material that never gets used, or it gets used and now I feel like they've done too much without getting a level. But if I level them, the content I've planned out will be easy for them, and simply adding more/stronger mobs isn't my idea of making things tougher.

In the end, I can sum it up as DM's discretion. When I feel the players have accomplished enough to level, they do. Low levels go by faster because they should, because there are always more kobols than red dragons, more bandits than demogorgons.

 

[Lanefan]

Avoid "per-x-sessions" as a gauge at all costs*. Per-x-encounters if you must, though I prefer it to be much more fine-tuned in that I still calculate ExP based on who participated in the encounter and-or did the useful things that needed doing...that way, the characters that do the work/take the risks get the rewards. I also don't mind at all if they bump at different times; it's irrelevant to me whether the characters are all the same level, all I need to know for adventure design purposes is a rough average.

* - reason I say this is that some sessions just aren't worth any ExP, whether it's because people just aren't into the game that night, or the whole session is spent dividing treasury and doing bookkeeping, or whatever.

Lanefan

 

[Stormonu]

I like to see characters level somewhat quicker at the beginning and then move into a slower rate of climb at the higher levels. I often fudge the first session or two so that (at least in D&D) characters can quickly hit at least 2nd level, if not 3rd. I generally shoot to have characters be 2nd level by the 2nd or 3rd session, and then slowly settle into a rate of advancement about one level per 20-25 hours of play (about once every 5-6 sessions).

Really, as long as players feel like their characters are growing in some way each session - new gear, level bumps, character revelations, etc. they're mostly fine with the level of progress.

 

[howandwhy99]

I award XP by class for the accomplishments achieved in game. It's logarithmically based, by level and the type of accomplishment for each class. Combat is one type, but raising an army for fighters, spellcasting for magic-users, conversion for clerics, and thieving for thieves are just a few of the others.

The world is divided up into levels as well with level 1 areas where the PCs start at zero XP and level 10 areas those hardest to reach. The difficulty is determined by complexity rather than target numbers for dice rolls. Think of it like this: a 4 square per side Rubik's cube is less complex than the standard 9 square variety. More complex varieties generally include the underlying patterns found in the simpler ones, but add more.

Each level of the world is an averaged variable complexity with the highest levels being the most difficult, like a game of Chess rather than Tic-Tac-Toe. As the complexity increases from levels 1 to 10 the awards increase as well. Not just XP, but resources available for gain within that region. You know, treasure. ...which is pretty much everything. Heck, even the region itself is treasure.

The scope of the world covers all the classes in the game and only those, but each player only focuses on the scope of their class for XP progression. XP progression equals class progression for me. So, if the whole world is a circle, a smaller concentric circle encompasses the portion available for fighters to advance, another for M-U's, and so on. There is some overlap between all the classes, like a Venn diagram, so there are no outlying Shadowrun Decker-like classes, but each has their niche as well.

As to variable XP tables for classes, it's the size in scope of XP opportunities that determine the ratio. M-U's need 2500 points for 2nd level and Thieves 1250. Thieves' opportunities are only 1/2 what M-U's have available to them, but thieves are not as broad a class either. M-U's deal with all of material reality as magical. Fighters focus on combat, fortifications and the like. Clerics focus on alignment and things like NPC beliefs and knowledge maps. Thieves really only focus on theft, sneaking, backstabbing, running thieves' guilds, etc.

In terms of quantifiable power in the game from XP, class level, and other resources, it's pretty much always in flux. Every PC is at a different amount from the first roll of the PC generation die roll. It's not like every player always has the same number of cards or something. It's a cooperative game, so players can pool their resources/treasure in one PC player's hands, if that is what it takes to accomplish an objective. Treasure distribution is one of the common negotiations between players in the game. This even includes information resources, such as "when do I pass notes to the DM" and "when do I tell the players what I learned?"

 

[Sunseeker]

Avoid "per-x-sessions" as a gauge at all costs*. Per-x-encounters if you must, though I prefer it to be much more fine-tuned in that I still calculate ExP based on who participated in the encounter and-or did the useful things that needed doing...that way, the characters that do the work/take the risks get the rewards. I also don't mind at all if they bump at different times; it's irrelevant to me whether the characters are all the same level, all I need to know for adventure design purposes is a rough average.

* - reason I say this is that some sessions just aren't worth any ExP, whether it's because people just aren't into the game that night, or the whole session is spent dividing treasury and doing bookkeeping, or whatever.

Lanefan

Short of a specific reason NOT to grant a player XP, I like to level all my players at the same time, even if Joe participated more than Jeff. Why? Well sometimes the fighter isn't much use when it comes to arcane skill checks. Sometimes the mage isn't too much help when it comes to kicking down a door or carrying a wagon.

And I REALLY don't deny people XP for missing a game, even if it was important. Somebody was sick, couldn't make it, and I tell them "tough, now you're behind everyone a whole game worth of XP"? Oh that's a great way to get people pissed at you.

Unless a player has crazy multi-classing or something, or spends their XP, I like to level everyone together, that way I can scale my encounters correctly and don't have to worry about a 5th level party having a 4th level tank and everyone getting pwned because they took on 6th-level monsters.

I do however agree that if nothing much(by my standards, not the players) was accomplished, either because we didn't play long, we goofed off, or what have you, then yeah, it's not counted towards gaining a level for them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

After going through various iterations of XP systems, I threw that out. I'm currently leveling my PCs once every two sessions or so, depending on where a convenient resting point happens and how much they get done. I think 8-10 solid hours of gaming is a reasonable amount of time to level up; anything less than that I start to feel stagnation. That said, everyone's different.

 

[Lanefan]

Short of a specific reason NOT to grant a player XP, I like to level all my players at the same time, even if Joe participated more than Jeff. Why? Well sometimes the fighter isn't much use when it comes to arcane skill checks. Sometimes the mage isn't too much help when it comes to kicking down a door or carrying a wagon.

But if each pulls her weight when opportuinity allows, it should in theory cancel out. If it doesn't, them's the breaks - not everyone is equal.

And I REALLY don't deny people XP for missing a game, even if it was important. Somebody was sick, couldn't make it, and I tell them "tough, now you're behind everyone a whole game worth of XP"? Oh that's a great way to get people pissed at you.

Allow me to clarify: a player missing a session does not in any way mean said player's character(s) don't participate! They do, run by those players who do show up with reference to instructions from the missing player if provided. (this is made clear to all at campaign start, if you miss a game your characters are at the mercy of the other players)

And ExP is given for character participation. If 6 characters helped defeat the dragon while the 7th ran and hid behind a rock, only the 6 get any ExP for that battle. In other words, those who take the risks get the rewards.

Unless a player has crazy multi-classing or something, or spends their XP, I like to level everyone together, that way I can scale my encounters correctly and don't have to worry about a 5th level party having a 4th level tank and everyone getting pwned because they took on 6th-level monsters.

You might be worrying too much about fine-tuning the numbers. Parties in all editions can handle battles a level or two higher than they are, and as DM if you see they're struggling you can always dial it back a little.

Lanefan

 

[IronWolf]

I am running the Kingmaker AP now. I'm not really tracking XP and more or less leveling the characters to keep in pace with the guidelines in the AP. So by the time we finish book X they should be a certain level, etc. For me it eliminates a big chunk of the administrative overhead.