Slowing Advancement and Other Arbitrary Restrictions

[S'mon]

A-frickin'-men!

Having been DMing Iron Heroes for a while now, I realize that one can't simply slap on a flat level adjustment for differential PC wealth (or CR adjustment for NPC/monster wealth), but at least a detailed explanation would be great!

I find that NPCS with NPC wealth are consistently about 3/4 the CR (rounded up) of PCs with PC wealth. NPC spellcasters' effective CR of course varies a lot depending on whether they've buffed up, but this 3/4 rule is overall extremely consistent. An NPC Ftr-3 is as good as a PC Ftr-3, but by 20th level the NPC Ftr-20 is far weaker than the PC Ftr-20.

If you half XP, I recommend don't generally half NPC wealth, the poor guys are already hard done by. If you did do so, though, I think NPC CR would fall to about 2/3 of their level.

 

[S'mon]

I hope that doesn't come off as condescending. It's not meant to. I just had a bad (or rather less than enjoyable) experience where it was 18 months into the campaign and we'd gone from 1st to 4th level. Slow is fine. Glacial or tectonic speeds, not so much.

I think this varies depending on which level, and which edition. In 1e or C&C, 18 months to get from 10th to 11th would be fine, because you're already at Lolth-stomping level (leaving aside the overpowered C&C dragons). In standard 3e, 1st & 2nd level is very weak & vulnerable, and the game really works best if you ascend fairly rapidly to the mid-levels; no more than 6-8 sessions per level up to level 5 I'd say. At around 6th-8th level or so depending on the campaign demographics, you're strong enough to start pushing back, and rapid advancement becomes less important.

 

[S'mon]

1e style XP

1e style XP chart for 3e:

Level / XP needed
1 0
2 2000
3 4000
4 8000
5 16000
6 32000
7 64000
8 125000
9 250000
+1 +250000

Or keep doubling by level if you want high levels hard to reach.

CR XP Award
1 300
2 600
3 900
4 1200
5 1800
6 2400
7 3600
8 4800
9 7200
+2 x2

The thing to note here is, XP needed doubles each level, but awards double every 2 levels, roughly in line with PC power increase. This will inherently slow down progression over time.

 

[Hussar]

I think this varies depending on which level, and which edition. In 1e or C&C, 18 months to get from 10th to 11th would be fine, because you're already at Lolth-stomping level (leaving aside the overpowered C&C dragons). In standard 3e, 1st & 2nd level is very weak & vulnerable, and the game really works best if you ascend fairly rapidly to the mid-levels; no more than 6-8 sessions per level up to level 5 I'd say. At around 6th-8th level or so depending on the campaign demographics, you're strong enough to start pushing back, and rapid advancement becomes less important.

In your experience of course. In my experience, we generally hit 10th ish level in about 12 months of sessions.

Then again, my 3e games take almost exactly the same time to level. Go fig.

 

[S'mon]

In your experience of course. In my experience, we generally hit 10th ish level in about 12 months of sessions.

? What's the relevance of that comment?

Using just over 1/2 XP my current group went from 1st to 8th/9th in 3e playing Lost City of Barakus over about 22 months, Feb 2005 to early Dec 2006, about 35 playing sessions. With weekly sessions it would have been under a year.

 

[RFisher]

one reason I like XP awards is that not everyone makes it to every session. By giving out XP instead of levels, those that show up are rewarded.

(O_O)

In my group, we don't need rewards for showing up. Having to miss a session is itself a huge disappointment. Your PC falling behind in XP because of it is a double-whammy.

 

[shilsen]

(O_O)

In my group, we don't need rewards for showing up. Having to miss a session is itself a huge disappointment. Your PC falling behind in XP because of it is a double-whammy.

Agreed completely. I award XP by session, rather than any in-game mechanic, and the PC gets XP whether the player is present or not. Heck, the PC gets XP whether the PC is present or not. If I thought that getting XP was a bigger thrill than actually playing in the game, I'd have to stop DMing.

 

[wildstarsreach]

It seems that 3.5 was geared to level a character every 3-5 encounters. You could stretch this to 7-10 encounters without seriously causing every problems. We did an Age of Worms Campaign in 15 months from levels 1-20. It usually took under 1st ed several years to get to 12th level. The games progression is too fast IMO. I would keep the progression for 1st and 2nd level and slow it down from there.

 

[Kestrel]

Agreed completely. I award XP by session, rather than any in-game mechanic, and the PC gets XP whether the player is present or not. Heck, the PC gets XP whether the PC is present or not. If I thought that getting XP was a bigger thrill than actually playing in the game, I'd have to stop DMing.

Thirded...If my players need a numerical carrot, then they are at the wrong house. The thrill of gaming should be its own reward.

 

[William drake]

A thought tha worked

I played with a Dm once that didn't give out EX...instead, we were playing once a week, he figured out that if the players showed up for every game, then, at the end of the year, they would be 20th level. You can do the math. Then, for every game them missed, or didn't really do anything during, the DM added another day to their totall. This pushed players to be IN THE GAME, and be active players even when someone else was doing something.

I dont know, it worked and took all the "well we need to kill it so I can go up a level"