Slowing Advancement and Other Arbitrary Restrictions

[painandgreed]

Double the requirements for levelling - I do this, it works great.

I found that this makes the upper levels way too hard to reach. I do like an exponetial XP scale and I like getting though the lower level fairly quickly and slowing in the mid levels. I opted for 1000 xp to reach 2nd and then 1.6 times the requirement each level as the best solution.

 

[Reynard]

This is very quotable. Hmm .. I don't want to crowd my sig though :\


EDIT: I hope you don't mind me quoting you in my sig. That quote is something I game by

No problem.

It really isn't all that special, though. i just think "plot" when I think "story" and a "plot" is a sequence of events. I don't want a predetermined sequence of events in games I run. Deciding beforehand that Fred's fighter is going to be crowned King of the Land is as bad, IMO, as deciding beforehand that Fred's fighter is going to die at the end of a goblin's spear. Both of those things can make cool stories after the fact, I just want them to happen at the table.

 

[Reynard]

I found that this makes the upper levels way too hard to reach. I do like an exponetial XP scale and I like getting though the lower level fairly quickly and slowing in the mid levels. I opted for 1000 xp to reach 2nd and then 1.6 times the requirement each level as the best solution.

Keeping the upper levels out of reach is, for some of us, a desired outcome.

 

[Kestrel]

No problem.

It really isn't all that special, though. i just think "plot" when I think "story" and a "plot" is a sequence of events. I don't want a predetermined sequence of events in games I run. Deciding beforehand that Fred's fighter is going to be crowned King of the Land is as bad, IMO, as deciding beforehand that Fred's fighter is going to die at the end of a goblin's spear. Both of those things can make cool stories after the fact, I just want them to happen at the table.

Totally agree. My post should have said "Game appropriate periods". I don't like the "Ding" effect of hitting an arbitrary number. I would prefer the leveling happen while in downtime or at least between sessions.

 

[Ry]

Keeping the upper levels out of reach is, for some of us, a desired outcome.

I've got a great way to keep the upper levels out of reach without stopping character advancement entirely. Pick where your "sweet spot" ends (for me it used to be 6th but I"m trying a game at 12th). As of that point, let the players buy feats for that level * 1000 XP.

It's worked great in the 6th-level capped game, we'll see about the 12th-level but I think it will work even better.

 

[Mallus]

i just think "plot" when I think "story"

Strange, when I think "story" I don't think "plot". Actually, thinking back to the short stories I used to write in college, that makes perfect sense.

I'm coming around to shilsen's way of thinking about XP. I've all but stopped giving it out after a session. From now on I'll just hand out levels.

 

[Reynard]

I'm coming around to shilsen's way of thinking about XP. I've all but stopped giving it out after a session. From now on I'll just hand out levels.

The reason I don't like this is I do believe that what the players do, how they play and what challenges/adventures they are willing to engage in matter. Saying "We'll level every other session" or somesuch means, to me, that it doesn't matter what the players do because *I* have a preset notion of when and how the PCs should level. Bullcocky. Obviously, I want to avoid super fast levelling (and note my levelling problem is directly related to my preferred DMing style, and may not be a function of the standard rules), but the players essentially decide how much XP they get by deciding what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. If they want to spend the whole session sitting in the tavern, chatting up buxom barmaids, I'm all for that. I loves me some role-playing. But they don't get any XP for it*. If they'd rather spend the session pushing deeper into the Dungeon of Dangerous Denizens, well -- thar be XP in them thar halls.

It is, after all, Dungeons and Dragons.

*unless, you know, there's some challenge to be overcome in doing so. I am referring to "chewing the fat" with NPCs because they like to hear my funny voices, not interacting with NPCs as part of an adventure.

 

[Henry]

To be honest, if you're cutting both levels and money rewards by a fraction, then magic item costs for XP or money really won't be any costlier; you're still only gaining magic items at the rate they would go up in level, anyway. You're levelling and collecting loot in the same fashion, only at half speed.

One thing to note about the XP charts, Reynard -- levels 1 through 3 are faster than the rest of the levels 4 through 20. This was on purpose, to allow players to get to 3rd quicker and leave the more vulnerable levels behind. If your group levelled 1 through 4 (you didn't mention which levels), then that's the quickest they'll ever level up in 3.5 as-is.

One thing I've often found in playing by the XP charts, is that the PCs tend to level up more sessions per level as they go; if it took them four sessions to go from 10th to 11th, it might take them five sessions to go from 13th to 14th, and six sessions from 14th to 15, for example.

But no, it's cool to change fraction of XP and loot, and I could have sworn there's a sidebar in the DMG that even says that in the very chapter.

 

[painandgreed]

Keeping the upper levels out of reach is, for some of us, a desired outcome.

Well, that's all of us that want to change the XP system probably. However the upper levels I'm talking about are upper teens, and then then there are the DMs who consider 8th level too high to play any more. What defines "upper levels" varies from DM to DM.

I think doubling XP really put the slow down around level 8. At 1.6, the slow down seemed to occur about level 12. Similarly, you could adjust the multiplier of XP to suit your taste in advancement.

 

[Umbran]

Lots of people are telling you to ditch XP.

To broaden the discussion, I'll mention the basic reason to not do that - if you don't track advancement in a regular way against the PCs activities, the players will lose the connection between the two. While many players are fine with this, many aren't.

XP are a reward for the player. People, in general, like to be rewarded. There is a positive feedback loop that can be used to the GM's advantage - they do something interesting, you give them XP, and they are then further motivated to do more interesting things. Without seeing the link between action and reward, many players will stop and ask why they bother, and the answer may not inspire them to greater play.