The old "how fast is too fast" for gaining levels

[Quasqueton]

This was posted in another thread:

After our sessions are done, I tag the session with a 1, 2, or 3, with 3 being best, based on the group getting started on time, people playing in character and not getting distracted, and just in general getting stuff accomplished. So the way I play the characters can - literally - earn as much experience talking to townspeople as fighting dragons; in the long run it all balances out, most characters go up one level for every 8-10 hours of playing time.

Nobody's complained yet, and this way nobody gets exasperated during the role-playing parts of our sessions, thinking, "Hey, hurry up, you're costing me experience!" Works for us, anyway.

I didn't want to hijack the thread with this subject, so here is a new thread specifically for this subject.

I have a system that helps to alleviate that feeling of a "wasted" game session where no xp is racked up through overcoming obstacles.

At 4th level and higher, I don't award more than 1/4th the xp the PCs need for the next level. For example, a 6th-level character needs 6,000 xp to get the next level. At the end of a game session, I award xp for that session, with a maximum of 1,500 xp. Any earned xp above the 1,500 gets put in the "bank". If during a later session, the PCs don't earn enough to hit the maximum limit, I pull xp out of their bank.

For instance: The 6th-level PCs earn 2,400 xp on game session. I award them 1,500 xp and put the remaining 900 xp in their bank. The next game session, the earn only 800 xp. I pull 700 xp out of their bank to give them their full 1,500 xp for that session. And that still leaves 200 xp in their bank for later.

This does three things: Keeps the PCs from leveling "too fast" (no faster than once every 4 game sessions). It lets them know they will probably still get some xp for a game session where they may not be taking on many challenges (so they are more patient with the slower action). And it sticks to the concept that the PCs still have to actually *do* something to earn their xp --- the PCs have to overcome obstacles and navigate challenges (no xp for free).

Do you do something similar?

[And "go up one level for every 8-10 hours of playing time"? Wow, that's fast. With one level per 4 game sessions for us equals 16-20 hours of playing time.]

Quasqueton

 

[ph34r]

I'm usually a player so I don't really have a system to award XP. I really like the system you've got though. I may steal it next time I run a game!

 

[painandgreed]

Depends on how often and how long you play. If you only play for three hours a week, then 1 level per 8-10 hours play doesn't seem like that much. if you play 12 hours a week, it might be too much. Similarly, depends on how durable the game is. if you expect it to only go for a few months while your regular DM is taking a break or before you know that flaky players will drop out, then a level a game might not be so bad as it will keep things iteresting and you'll ony be 8th leve by time the game ends. However, if you did this in a weekly game with dependable people and expect the game to last years, that would mean 50th level in one year. Thus you might want to tune it down some. In the long term, I think I'd look at 1,000 per game session or so, but i don't otehrwise limit how much XP people get.

 

[Crothian]

I don't go into any session with pre arranged notions of limits to XP handed out. I've had games were the players were doing great, moved things along, and earned a level in one night. I'm not going to cheat them out of a night of hard work. That's rare, most times it takes at least 4 weeks ir so.

 

[Bodah]

I dont have any set system that I use for XP limiting or anything like that. How I hand out XP changes for almost every campaign, and how how often we are able to play. Mainly its handed out in such a way thats in line with the 'feel' that I'm going for with the campaign.

 

[TheEvil]

4-6 hours/week, meet weekly, level up every 3-4 weeks. Any faster and you will probably want to slow things down a bit. Feel free to extraplote using this formula....

 

[shilsen]

I just hand out XP per session based on how fast I want the party to level. There's no formula to it, but it is based on how long I think they need to spend at the level to enjoy (and get used to) the new abilities they've gained and what works well for the game. The PCs are currently at 6th lvl and will make 7th after 4-6 sessions, depending on where I see the game being at that point.

 

[Desdichado]

Huh. Well the question asked in the text isn't the same as on the post title; the answer to the former is no, I do not. I don't even track XP, I just arbitrarily level after every "module" which can take up to half a dozen or so sessions depending on how much time the PCs spend "investigating" before actually tackling the point of the module. To the latter, 3e+ is way too fast for my taste. My ideal campaign setting, which has never actually played out before, would play roughly 3-4 times a month (weekly with occasional misses for holidays, real life, etc.), run for two or three years, and take the PCs from about 3^rd level (where I prefer to start) up to maybe 10^th where the campaign would end.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

Changing the rate XP is gained causes lots of problems because of treasure issues. If you're playing a low-magic setting or D20 Modern it's a lot easier to slow down the rate of advancement.

However, it's common for players to want to get out of the doldrums of being a low-level character, however.

 

[Baron Opal]

The only reason I assign experience points is to give the players an idea on how much xp they have to spend on making items or learning feats. I try to level up every three to four sessions or so. That translates to a level every two months or more. We only game every other week and for about 4 solid hours each time. We get together, visit, have dinner, and then casually get into the game. When I was younger and had a more regular game I kept much more stringent track of xp gains.

FYI, I also tend to award fewer, yet more powerful magic items.