Power Curve in C&C vs. D&D

[Breakdaddy]

I handled our last 3.5 campaign similarly. I let the PCs play a year (real-life) in the campaign, and let their actions affect the world around them in various ways, many of which were unseen. Then I fast forwarded the game (In-Game) 2 years and let them see what their in game decisions did to change the world around them, for better and for worse. The campaign world was now in the midst of a war between two major powers, and many of the things the PCs had done showed direct effects in the new wartorn campaign. At any rate, I bumped them up a level or two each and explained away the rapid level increase with time-compression. I was only handing out 75% XP to begin with, so I thought it went pretty well.

 

[Turanil]

Then I fast forwarded the game (In-Game) 2 years and let them see what their in game decisions did to change the world around them, for better and for worse.

Nice idea. I will try to remember that.

 

[serleran]

If, by power level, you mean "do the characters accumulate more power" then yes, it is linear, with the spellcasting classes growing exponentially as they gain access to more powerful spells, often, ones that outright kill or do so potentially. Against foes of lesser status, characters become more potent, yet, they retain weaknesses, which is far more "realistic" than the "I'll jump off this 70 foot cliff, because I know I can take the damage" attitude that I see in many gamers, from many ages, and every edition. What C&C is.. is a hybrid. Characters are slightly less powerful than their AD&D cousins, but only to a certain point and degree, and then, they are more powerful after this point. At times, they are equal.

As in every game, the one who runs it should have the power to control the characters. They are no more, or less, powerful than the situations and conditions presented.

A 1st level Dwarf Rogue with a Quick Shortsword +5, Backstabber and Invulnerable Leather Armor of Stealth, wearing a Ring of Skill is more powerful than the 20th level Dwarf Rogue with a Dagger. It is the CKs responsibility... not the rules.

 

[Mythmere1]

Another thing I've noticed is that the C&C xp awards for monsters is less than in 1e. I will be multiplying the C&C numbers by as much as five in several cases. I like a slower progression, but not slower than 1e.

 

[Akrasia]

Another thing I've noticed is that the C&C xp awards for monsters is less than in 1e. I will be multiplying the C&C numbers by as much as five in several cases. I like a slower progression, but not slower than 1e.

For both my last 3e campaign and my current C&C campaign, I simply grant experience points as I deem appropriate. I aim for 1 level for every 3-5 sessions (that was easier in 3e, since the exp charts are uniform, but for C&C I just used the fighter chart as the 'base'). Indeed, I can't remember the last time I actually kept track of exp. In this respect, I think Green Ronin's True 20 system is spot on.

 

[radferth]

I concur that freeform experience is the way to go. I do like having a point system in place, however. It lets me award points free-form instead of levels, and it gives me a benchmark so I have some idea of the rate of advancement for which the system was set (e.g. insanely fast in the case of third edition). I guess I strive for something a bit faster than 1st or 2nd ed., but much slower than third; although I will go faster in a less frequent game.

 

[scadgrad]

For both my last 3e campaign and my current C&C campaign, I simply grant experience points as I deem appropriate. I aim for 1 level for every 3-5 sessions (that was easier in 3e, since the exp charts are uniform, but for C&C I just used the fighter chart as the 'base'). Indeed, I can't remember the last time I actually kept track of exp. In this respect, I think Green Ronin's True 20 system is spot on.

That's how I handle it. Basically, I aim for an average of 5 sessions per level which seems about double the 3.X campaigns I ran. I always thought the rate of advancement in 3.X was just a total joke. Instead of the fighter though, I base it on the lowest level PC at the time.

 

[S'mon]

That's how I handle it. Basically, I aim for an average of 5 sessions per level which seems about double the 3.X campaigns I ran. I always thought the rate of advancement in 3.X was just a total joke. Instead of the fighter though, I base it on the lowest level PC at the time.

I give 1/2 XP in my 3.5e game and it works out about 5 sessions/level, yup. Full XP gave 2-3 sessions/level, horribly fast. Any ideas on a good formula for typical C&C XP? X x level squared? I was thinking maybe 400/session 1st, 900 3rd, 1600 4th, etc.

 

[Mythmere1]

I don't think there's a good formula, but if there is (and I'll be looking, since that sort of thing is a good guideline) it's closer to an arithmetic progression than a geometric one. You mean the number of xp that's appropriate for a monster opponent?

 

[S'mon]

I don't think there's a good formula, but if there is (and I'll be looking, since that sort of thing is a good guideline) it's closer to an arithmetic progression than a geometric one. You mean the number of xp that's appropriate for a monster opponent?

No, I was thinking the typical amount of XP a C&C PC should get per game session, at a given level. I'm thinking they should advance every 5 or so sessions to start with, slower later, so few ever reach 10th-12th.