Rate of Advancement and how often people play

[Drakonus]

My group played RttToEE over the course of 2+ years, averaging 1 to 2 play sessions per month. By the end, the group of 6 averaged about 17th-18th level. I had lots of add-ins for that module, so not everything was by the book.

Our current group is leveling much faster. We are running an Orc PC campaign, so I've specifically made the combats very large and savage. Thus, the survivors tend to reap very high XP rewards. We've had maybe 6 or 7 sessions, and the party has advanced to about 4th-5th level.

My players seem to prefer faster levelling, as they tend to more of the Monty Haul style of play. Also, our sessions are sporadic. Sometimes we meet diligently every two weeks, but it's not uncommon for a month or two to slip by, as real life interferes with gaming. The nerve.

I think the players are enjoying the challenge of the high ER battles they face. It forces them to maximize their resources and character abilities against more powerful foes.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I personally think fast advancement is one of the things CAUSING campaigns to crumble in short time (6 to 9 months)

Nahhh. In the decades (gaaaahh!) I've been gaming, there's been maybe a dozen campaigns that lasted a year or more. (I'm including games I'm not in but know about.) There's been at least 2-3 times as many games that ran for one story arc (or less!) and collapsed.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Our play schedule is sporadic, unfortunately. We are all in school and all participate in a wide variety of activities. It's difficult to get together on a regular basis. Couple that with the fact that we have a surplus of DMs (one for d20 Modern, one for Arcana Unearthed, and two for 3.5) and it's hard to run a set, paced campaign.

I advance my players as quickly as possible for levels 1-3. This can take anywhere from two sessions to five sessions, depending on how long I want to drag it out. After that, advancement becomes more linear and RAW-based. I hand out encounter-based exp rather than ad-hoc, along with roleplaying and storyline experience. Plus, I don't completely abandon ad-hoc. So all that lends for a fast-moving game. By the time my PCs reach level 9, they're strong enough that I can slow down a little bit more, and advancement becomes much steadier.

 

[Klaus]

I'll be starting a new campaign soon.

My old campaign has been going on for 3 years and the PCs are STILL only 11th level (we play once every two months or so... kids and jobs, oh my!). I handed out XP by the book.

So for the new campaign I'll be levelling them up once per session, with each session being a whole adventure. Next to none averarcing plots, since these are wasted after 2 months of inactivity...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I personally think fast advancement is one of the things CAUSING campaigns to crumble in short time (6 to 9 months)

Actually the nine-month campaign that I ran was the longest in our six years of playing. And it didn't end because the players wanted it to. It ended because I was burned out and had a lot of other work. In my experience, speedy leveling is not what causes problems. In a group where several people DM and you're done after high school, you're in a hurry to play and DM high levels at least a few times.

Even if my circumstances were different I still think I'd be annoyed/bored if I couldn't level at least once a month.

 

[Epametheus]

In the current campaign that we started in May, the party has on average levelled once every 2 sessions (they just became 6th level).

This is after we cut combat exp in half. We've made the PCs rather high-powered (action points, each PC has a unique ability, and the generation method approximates to like 37 point-buy), and so they can win (and get exp from) fights that would outright kill normal characters of their level.

The advancement rate assumes that you're playing it safe with the PCs. When they start facing harder challenges and winning, the exp awards skyrocket.

 

[sparxmith]

Playing since March, 3 levels

In the campaign I play in, the DM hands out XP by the book. In the course of 4 months, playing the campaign bi-weekly (once a fortnight for all you old farts =-), we've gained 3 levels. So that works out to 3 levels in roughly 9 sessions, or 1 level every three sessions. Also, we play for 6-8 hours.

Advancement feels about right. Any faster would seem forced. Any slower would put us behind in the module we're playing (RttoEE). I never played 0/AD&D, but compared to V:tM and Mage: the Ascension, this rate feels perfect.

Sparxmith

 

[MerricB]

bi-weekly (once a fortnight for all you old farts =-)

It's odd, but bi-weekly can mean both "once every two weeks" and "twice a week". I found the following at Dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Bimonthly and biweekly mean “once every two months” and “once every two weeks.” For “twice a month” and “twice a week,” the words semimonthly and semiweekly should be used. Since there is a great deal of confusion over the distinction, a writer is well advised to substitute expressions like every two months or twice a month where possible. However, each noun form has only one sense in the publishing world. Thus, a bimonthly is published every two months, and a biweekly every two weeks.

Cheers!