Should character advancement be linear or logarithmical?

[Odhanan]

Linear.

On a side note, where is the "I don't care" option?

 

[Umbran]

Setting aside how the words you use are incorrect...

I'm going to go with "linear", but not for the usual reasons. I find the current system easier to customize.

As a DM, it is far easier for me to tinker with the current, highly predictable advancement. I can easily determine how alterations in the rate I give out XP will impact character advancement. If the game used a more complicated advancement curve, figuring out how I wanted to adjust XP would be more difficult.

If I want to mirror Shadowrun, for example, I can start characters at higher level, and cut my XP rate, and voila!

 

[Li Shenron]

As a DM, it is far easier for me to tinker with the current, highly predictable advancement. I can easily determine how alterations in the rate I give out XP will impact character advancement. If the game used a more complicated advancement curve, figuring out how I wanted to adjust XP would be more difficult.

If you give Xp according to something else than the Xp table in the DMG, then take that into account. The question is not targetted to the current system but to the system YOU like using (not even necessarily D&D).

For example, if you cut all DMG Xp by 50%, that's still linear (obviously I mean "roughly linear" guys, let's not be pedantic...).

Fluctuating depending on the occasion (such as.. "I need to speed up to be able to run the next adventure") still qualifies as linear for the purpose of my simple question, if it has no relationship with the absolute level.

IOW, the question could be rephrased as "Should advancement rate be (more or less) the same at every level, or should it slow down the higher the level?"

 

[Drawmack]

First important question: Is progression in DnD linear?
In order to advance in level you need to earn a number of experience points equal to the level you have currently attained. Therefore the formula to advance is N * 1000 where N is the level you are currently at. Since in this formula that is no power attached to the variable it is clearly a linear progression.

Further more take the XP by CR vs Character Level from the DMG. If you look at the table on 166 then you’ll see that as party level increases and monster cr increases they use similar formula but instead of 1000 it is 300.

Second question: Do you like this or would you prefer logarithmic?
I think this is tied to verisimilitude. Learning theory tells us that the closer we are to mastering a skill the more slowly we advance our knowledge of said skill. For example someone with a PhD in mathematics doesn’t learn new things about math very often. Someone working a BS in mathematics learns new things about math everyday.

So to model the real world progression would have to be logarithmic.



However, this can be fixed by fixing either the level chart of the xp chart and you could fix the xp chart more easily without telling your players.

Personally I prefer the linear progression in game because in 2e it really sucked when I was 12th level for damn near a year of playing every week.

 

[KB9JMQ]

IOW, the question could be rephrased as "Should advancement rate be (more or less) the same at every level, or should it slow down the higher the level?"

Levels 1 thru 5 I would leave the same but I would like 6-10 to take about twice as long as it does then normal again for 11-20.
Or in other words make the sweetspot last longer

 

[howandwhy99]

Logarithmic is best. It's is not that difficult to understand. 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16...

And it allows two things the current system does not.
1. Flat CR charts so the Xp for every creature and every PC regardless of level is the same.
2. And it allows all characters to start at 1st level and catch up to every other PC in the party during the time it takes them to advance only 1 level. (Adventuring with a party outside your level would need some tweaks for d20 though)

 

[Umbran]

If you give Xp according to something else than the Xp table in the DMG, then take that into account. The question is not targetted to the current system but to the system YOU like using (not even necessarily D&D).

Oh, well in that case my answer is, "None of the above", in that I don't have a single preference - I think of it as a campaign design element. Each campaign (whatever the system) has it's own best rate curve. For some games, I want advancement to be meteoric, others I want long and slow.

 

[Slife]

No.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

I prefer approximately linear (precise linear is pretty unreasonable, of course), but with a higher starting point and a lower slope.

For example...

D&D starts very low and rises extremely fast.
Shadowrun starts high and rises slowly.

I prefer what Shadowrun does over what D&D does. You start out on a level, where you can do quite a bit already and you still notice the difference when you gain experience, but it takes a long time until you become twice as powerful overall. In D&D you start out as a complete loser (ok, one step ahead of the Commoner ) and double your overall power every other level, roughly.

Bye
Thanee

I like both in different circumstances. For some games, say Nobilis or four color supers, I'd prefer no advancement at all (though perhaps a few extra points to round out characters who were poorly-optimized.)

And, as noted by many, there's a difference between: how many encounters does it take to level, and how much power do you gain by levelling. That's also a situation thing, and since few games use levels, not really a big deal IMO.

 

[Ourph]

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be games that do both. Linear advancement works fine in some cases. Diminishing progression works great in others.