Slow Advancement Rocks

[Bullgrit]

medium (i.e. typical 3.x) and slow (closer to AD&D)

Although I know it annoys some folks around here to no end, I must point out this is something of a myth.
Total Bullgeek
Slow level advancement in AD&D1 was essentially a house rule. Just like it can/could be in D&D3.

If I was participating in a perfect campaign:

5 hour sessions
1 session each week
At least half of each session spent overcoming challenges (that is, not just playing theater for the sake of "role playing")

I'd like to level up no faster than every 4 sessions, but no slower than every 6 sessions. And I'm not real insterested in leveling beyond 10th-12th level (in any edition).

Bullgrit

 

[Herschel]

I find 3E and newer advancement works great, if you don't play a character that often. If I were still in a longer, weekly game (over 6 hours/week in game) or gaming more often with the same character, I'd prefer slower advancement.

That assumes slower advancement as a whole. In the 1E/2E days, thieves and druids leveled up very fast, and everyone did at low levels. Fighters slowed down later while Wizards did earlier then essentially "sped up" ahead of fighters.

 

[billd91]

Although I know it annoys some folks around here to no end, I must point out this is something of a myth.
Total Bullgeek
Slow level advancement in AD&D1 was essentially a house rule. Just like it can/could be in D&D3.

Though I'm sure it annoys Bullgrit, I'll post a common caveat to his analysis.

His methodology is loaded with certain assumptions - like looting with complete or nearly complete thoroughness and having the wherewithall to cope with the encumbrance required (either at once or via multiple trips). If your players don't traditionally make it out with everything of value, you can expect different results.
The analysis also assumes that the selected adventures are reasonably representative of the general 1e D&D experience. Further analysis has not been conducted to determine if this is the case.

 

[Doug McCrae]

2e AD&D is by far the slowest due to no xp for gold. OD&D is about the same as 3e. AD&D 1e is somewhere between OD&D and 2e, probably closer to the former.

It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play.

This quote, from Strategic Gamer Vol 2 issue 2, is with regards to OD&D. Also the expected form of play wasn't to run the same character session after session, but to switch around a lot.

It's interesting that advancement starts off fairly fast in OD&D then slows and slows until 2e. Makes sense, in 1974 they didn't have much idea how long this thing was going to last.

Interesting also to note that in a very early, maybe the first, session of D&D in 70/71, a PC goes from 1st level to 4th in one session. Fast levelling is as old school as it gets!

 

[Herschel]

First ever session of D&D:

First level: I have a sword. Cool! Ouch! CLERIC!
Second level one hour later: Oh, look. The sword has a pointy end. Sweet! Ouch! CLERIC!
Third level two hours later: Hey, I think I'm starting to get the hang of this sword thing. Ouch! CLERIC!
Fourth level two hours later: Ouch! Stupid #&#!&* Ogre. The guy playing the cleric went for a pizza? I should have taken a bow. Can we start over?

 

[Raven Crowking]

EDIT: Scooped by far too many people re: Q/Bullgrit's analysis.

 

[Ranes]

Interesting also to note that in a very early, maybe the first, session of D&D in 70/71, a PC goes from 1st level to 4th in one session. Fast levelling is as old school as it gets!

Fascinating read, thank you for the link. My memories of AD&D (1e) are of quite slow advancement but there could be any number of reasons for that.

I also sympathise with comments here about low-frequency play being a driver of relatively fast advancement. And it's not as if I have a problem with 3e's advancement rate. I just prefer a more leisurely pace.

I didn't know PF had rules for faster advancement still. How do PF players find them? What's their effect on the campaign narrative? I mean, do you have players gaining more than one level during a session?

 

[Aus_Snow]

I prefer non-linear advancement, slowing as levels (or other improvements) are of a higher order.

As well as that, overall, I guess slow is how I like it. Relative term though, "slow".

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I didn't know PF had rules for faster advancement still.

It doesn't. Per the earlier post, PFRPG's "Fast" advancement is the same as 3.5's default advancement. PFRPG offers two tiers of slower advancement, but none faster.

 

[Crothian]

I have found that in a great game whatever type of advencement fast or slow is happening is they type that works. I don't think that an average game becomes better by slowing down the advcement. Advancenment by itself I don't think matters as much as all the other factors that make a game great.