Slow Advancement Rocks

[radmod]

Interesting views. Coming from 1e onward we've always thought there were three speeds: Slow, Medium, Fast.
Fast is the Monte-Haul world where after a successful completion of an adventure (usually 1-3 sessions of 6-8 hrs.) you gained 2 levels - 1xp (1e rule).
Medium (in 1e and 2e) meant it generally took 2-3 sessions to gain both 2nd and 3rd level, then a number of sessions equal to CL to gain the next. Thus it would take 4-5 mo. to get to 5th and another 1 1/2 mo. to get to 6th.
Slow Growth meant straight xp. but only for the monsters fought (old D&D gave xp for treasure and magic). That could mean a year to get to even 5th level. However, that didn't always work out as when we decided to do an adventure that was way beyond our 1st level but with good tactics we succeeded and wound up gaining two levels from the start.

I ignore the 3.5 xp and do it according to time played and roleplaying done. I figure that way I can slow things down or speed up as necessary. However, I, too, think Slow Growth rocks but I suspect most people are against it. Everybody always wants MORE!

If you like slow growth, consider doing a slow start world. In it, PCs start out as regular joes, not PC classes. Instead they start out as NPCs, or any classes you want. Then they have to earn xp just to become 1st level. It's fun to see the 1st level Farmer duking it out with an Orc. Certainly someone out there has a variation for it.

 

[radmod]

One thing I forgot to mention addresses the 'realism' thread as well as speed of growth. I always found it difficult to accept how low level characters can even survive in a world which eventually has such high level characters so quickly. Unless you have them move all around the world and to other planes it seems strange that they could even survive to get to high levels. I know I'm not explaining it well so let me try an example.
I joined a campaign last year where the objective is to take a group of scoundrels and eventually take over the crime in the city. When I joined everyone was 12th level and had taken over 4 of the 5 criminal organizations. Yet to do so meant they had taken over the 1st org when they were only 5th level and the 2nd when they were 7th. Now for them to have a challenge the last org has to be pretty tough. But if the last org is pretty tough then why didn't they squash the party earlier or even the rest of the orgs?
That often seems to be the case. Adventurers go from low level adventures to progressively harder ones. If that's the case, then why aren't these harder (higher CR) opponents around to squash them at early levels?
That's why I prefer so growth worlds, it seems more realistic.

 

[Orius]

Using "campaign" to mean "world" just doesn't make sense.
"I would love a campaign wherein we'd play many campaigns over several years."

We're playing a game that uses the word "level" in at least four different ways. Does multiple definitions of "campaign" really matter?

Also, I'm moving this topic from my default "Subscriptions" folder to the one I have labeled "Campaigns". I really need to remember to sort subscribed topics so I can find them later....

 

[wedgeski]

The world where you care about having a sword, waterskins, and ammo, IMHO and IME, inherently retains interest longer than the one in which the players are told repeatedly that something they are interested in spending time on "isn't important", or where the action follows the dictates of the GM's interests, rather than those of the players.

Lots of mixed thinking here IMO. My current campaign has just reached Paragon after 50+ sessions and over two years of play, and the very first house rule I advertised to my players was that they would never have to track consumables. This was accepted with a grateful clap on the back from three people I'd never gamed with before. Players don't necessarily care about these things either!

 

[Raven Crowking]

How long do your campaigns last under either definition?

I'm not sure that I can answer that question. In terms of persistent setting, I usually maintain one until I move, or until some major life event requires me to stop playing for a while. By the time I have come back to the table, I have tinkered up something new.

OTOH, tinkering up something new doesn't always mean that the characters aren't persistent; sometimes they travel to the new world.

OTOH, within that world from the get-go there are numerous characters and character groups that come and go, interchange, etc. Most players operate more than one character. I would tend to think that events are, therefore, still related to the original set throughout the game (and some of the original set often survive until the end).

Depending upon time of life, I'd estimate 2 to 5 years. Much less than some; much longer than others.

Lots of mixed thinking here IMO.

Could be.

My current campaign has just reached Paragon after 50+ sessions and over two years of play, and the very first house rule I advertised to my players was that they would never have to track consumables. This was accepted with a grateful clap on the back from three people I'd never gamed with before. Players don't necessarily care about these things either!

Different strokes for different folks.



RC

 

[DragonLancer]

Lots of mixed thinking here IMO. My current campaign has just reached Paragon after 50+ sessions and over two years of play, and the very first house rule I advertised to my players was that they would never have to track consumables. This was accepted with a grateful clap on the back from three people I'd never gamed with before. Players don't necessarily care about these things either!

Same here. The characters pay their money for trail rations and it's done. I've never kept track of food/rations unless there is a story reason for it (big trek across deserts or something).

 

[Hussar]

We're playing a game that uses the word "level" in at least four different ways. Does multiple definitions of "campaign" really matter?

Also, I'm moving this topic from my default "Subscriptions" folder to the one I have labeled "Campaigns". I really need to remember to sort subscribed topics so I can find them later....

But, the definitions of level are easily apparent in context though. If I'm talking about characters, or spells or dungeons, the listener (presuming a basic knowledge of the subject of D&D) will know precisely what I mean.

The two definitions of "campaign" being used here are actually contradictory and not at all clear in context. Look at Raven Crowking's answer to my question. It should be a relatively easy question to answer - "How long do your campaigns usually last", yet, without knowing which definition of campaign we're using, the answer could vary a very large amount. If campaign=persistent setting, I've had multiple campaigns that lasted several years. If campaign=group of adventures, then I'd say my longest campaign has been about two years.

But, until I know which version of the word you are using, which is not apparent in context, I cannot give an answer.

If you ask me what level my elf is, I can answer that without thinking about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have to agree with Hussar. It isn't important that we use the term in the same way; it is important that we understand how the term is being used at any given time. I think that meaning is understandable in context most of the time, however.


RC

 

[billd91]

But does the difference between definitions matter? From the point of view of the respondent, if they see the continuity necessary to call it a campaign, why quibble over whether it's the exact same definition you'd use. Ultimately, I don't see much of a point to it. I don't even see it as being all that important to a question of how long campaigns usually last. As long as the players are perceiving some form of continuity, why quibble about whether H and B would call it a campaign compared to RC or vice versa?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it is one of those things that matters only in corner cases -- such as when discussing the length of a typical campaign.

However, I would guess that there is actually quite a bit of overlap in definitions. A campaign ends, and a new campaign begins, when the participants feel that they are now doing "a new thing" -- regardless of why this is so.

Identity doesn't follow conservation laws. It is quite possible for some participants to view a series of game sessions as two (or more) seperate campaigns, while others view them as the same campaign. It is also possible for a campaign to split (esp. if there are multiple GMs), with the participants of both viewing their ongoing sessions as the same campaign.

Does it really matter? No.

But where terminology confuses conversation, it is worthwhile to try to clarify what is meant -- and then to accept what is meant within the context of that poster and that conversation, even if that meaning differs from how one uses a term oneself.

IMHO, anyway.


RC