Time between level-ups: always the same or increasing?

[Ahnehnois]

My leveling, like [MENTION=10177]Treebore[/MENTION] is done without XP. In general, I think it's pretty linear. I want each level-to-level transition to have roughly the same amount of meaning. I don't want to cheapen the lower levels by giving them out too fast (and I like low level play). I also don't want high level characters who regularly accomplish amazing things to feel like they aren't getting anywhere.

And of course, I'll admit that like many people, when I see high level abilities in a book, I just want to see them in play, so I don't want to slow down when they appear on the horizon.

 

[Janx]

I chose STEADY. Here's how I justify it:

As from my martial arts days, it was observed that Americans like recognition and signs of progress. Hence, they added lots of stripes and colored belts. Versus really old-school martial arts hands you a white belt, and you become a black belt by virtue of it's age and dirtyness (rubbing it in dirt is cheating, the implication is the grime build up from training is what causes it to shift from white, to brown to black).

So, from this, we take that our players mostly like seeing their PC advance. Getting XP and gaining levels is the RPG dashboard for progress.

I also accept as true, that the longer the time gap between sessions, the faster progression you should use. Conversly, if you play every day, you should slow things down. This is because for the former, if you only play once a month, players will be less likely to feel like they are getting anywhere. If you play every day, it becomes silly for them to reach level 20 in a month's time.

i also simplified/misinterpreted the 3e XP for encounter math to hand out 300 XP times CR divided by number of PCs in the encounter.

As such, the whole thing can be systemetized.


Since we know the expectation is 75 XP per CR per encounter for a PC (which is a new level for 13.3333 encounters) we have our basic pace established. Level 1 PCs are expected to face CR1 monsters, level 2 PCs are expected to face CR2 monsters, and so on. The result is that we're really working on a scale of 1000 XP per level when PCs are fighting level appropriate encounters. Because the XP chart is really level times 1000, it provides buffer if the PCs go slumming against weaker monsters, so they don't get as much actual XP.

Back to that scaled 1000 XP per level. As some other folks say, they advance the party as desired/needed. You can do this formulaicly, so the players are still using XP, but in reality, they advance at a controlled pace. Or you can use this metric to test/moderate the XP amounts you hand out in other methods.

First, figure out how much real time you want to require to advance from level 1 to Level 20. Let's say 1 year.

Next, determine the number of game sessions you'll be having in that time frame. Let's say we'll meet twice a month. So that's 24 sessions.


(1000/24) * 20 = 833 * Current Party Level

This gives us how much XP to hand out per PC at that session, as appropriate for their level.

Note that I asked how fast you want the PC to reach level 20. Rather than asking how many sessions to reach the next level. While I could provide that math (it ain't hard), doing so frames the problem wrong.

Saying "I want 3 sessions per level" doesn't acknowledge that the group plays daily, or plays once every 6 months.

In actuallity, old WotC surveys indicated that few campaigns last longer than a year. If you only play once every 6 months, and don't level up after a year of play, you may lose interest, further ensuring that the campaign doesn't last. So, the stereotypical gaming group needs to be a bit more generous with the XP if they play rarely.

So, instead, I frame the problem by looking at the player's end goal, reaching level 20 (that's not their only goal, but it's their default PC advancement goal). By determing how long to reach that sounds fair to your taste (I don't assume 1 year = level 20 = acceptable), you can then evaluate your group's frequency of play to support that pace.

Once you've got this basic pacing metric (say 833XP per level), you could divide that by 13.333 to get a per CR amount of XP to hand out. Remember, the 3e math assumed 4 PCs, so it should factor that back in.

(833/13.333) * 4 = 249 XP per CR for encounter as Party XP

An obersavation, having just done the math here. My brisk assumption to have my players reach level 20 in one year gives less XP than the standard 300XP/CR expectation of 3e. This confirms that D&D 3.x did have a faster than many GMs may have preferred. I can't say what the average GM prefers, but I think many would say that level 20 in one year is faster than their default assumption or preference.

 

[Lanefan]

If there was a third option "Variable" I'd vote for that; because that's how I've found it works out in the long run.

The first few levels are usually pretty quick*, but after that it varies mostly because some adventures/encounters/situations simply tend to generate more XP (relative to level) than others - so one might grind one's way slowly through 4th, almost leap through 5th, grind to a halt again for 6th-7th, get through 8th somewhat faster, etc.

* - note that my definition of "pretty quick" would still be mighty slow by the standards set in other posts in this thread. A level per 3 sessions is, to me, ridiculously fast; and utterly unsustainable over a long campaign. A level per 4-6 months is more like it.

Lanefan

 

[Janx]

If there was a third option "Variable" I'd vote for that; because that's how I've found it works out in the long run.

The first few levels are usually pretty quick*, but after that it varies mostly because some adventures/encounters/situations simply tend to generate more XP (relative to level) than others - so one might grind one's way slowly through 4th, almost leap through 5th, grind to a halt again for 6th-7th, get through 8th somewhat faster, etc.

I'd expect this to be true for anybody handing out XP per encounter/stuff done. Each encounter has some variance on it's actual CR and XP value. Plus, in any given session, there may be more/less encounters completed in the same time alottment.

* - note that my definition of "pretty quick" would still be mighty slow by the standards set in other posts in this thread. A level per 3 sessions is, to me, ridiculously fast; and utterly unsustainable over a long campaign. A level per 4-6 months is more like it.

You changed metrics in midstream here. Can you clarify? 1 level/3 sessions is using Session as a unit of measure. 1 level/4-6 months is using Months.

How many sessions do you have per month or year to give your former statement some context with the latter statement?

 

[Li Shenron]

If there was a third option "Variable" I'd vote for that; because that's how I've found it works out in the long run.

I left it out on purpose because it would just attract the votes of the undecided.

OTOH, notice that "variable" can easily average to "steady" if it is variable in roughly the same way at low and high levels. Or it might instead average to "slowing-down" too, like it seems your case.

The question is not to be taken too strictly... it's more about two different philosophies than a serious calculation.

 

[Treebore]

So it's more like a free-form then, sometimes faster and sometimes slower. But do you notice it ends up closer to a (very roughly) steady rate or to a diminishing rate overall?

I really can't say. Back when I still tracked XP I definitely preferred it to take longer and longer to level, but even then it varied dependent on XP values of monster, treasures, etc... that counted toward XP.

Now my perception is that I do have them spend longer and longer at each level as they go up, but my current game is the highest I have gone without tracking XP. In this game I have been focused on running specific adventure modules, so I would say this time they have been advancing in levels far faster, because now the important thing is being in the right level range for the given module I want to use. So for this campaign they might have stayed at the same level for 2 modules, and that isn't really going to change with the modules I have picked out for the future.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A level per 3 sessions is, to me, ridiculously fast; and utterly unsustainable over a long campaign.

Guess that depends how you define "long campaign". For me, anything that hits a double-digit number of sessions is a "long campaign". We don't meet that frequently, and I like to try new games and new concepts and offer a concrete sense of closure on a game without having to wait years for it.

I find my leveling practices very much dictated by these kinds of metagame considerations; if I knew I could run a game weekly for years and have the same players available, I'd probably slow down the pace accordingly.

 

[Celebrim]

Other?

Leveling should linger in the games 'sweet spot'. The game should end at some point after the sweet spot is hit.

For 1st edition, I considered this levels 3 through 8. Levels 1 and 2 should go by fairly quickly, then lead to a long steady state until the end of level 8 (perhaps 150 hours of play), after which, I desire the game to increasingly slow down with perhaps 50-100 hours of play per level. Interesting play up to higher levels is possible, but requires a lot of innovation.

For 3rd edition, by the rules I use, I consider this levels 1 through 13. Leveling should be fairly steady through this period, with the total period covering perhaps 300-400 hours of play. After that, play - if it does not end and a new campaign begin - should slow down to 50-100 hours of play per level. The campaign should probably end before you reach the point that most of play has been at high level, and before 20th level without a darn good reason.

Star Wars D6 games should move at a slow enough pace that you don't reach the game breaking greater than 10d pools before you are ready to wrap up the campaign. Indeed, the sweet spot is probably dice pools below 7 or 8d.

Other than that, I've not played the system long enough to have a good finger on things. In general, I'd expect any system to break down once the modifiers begin to become roughly as large as the range of variability in the fortune mechanic - GURPS breaks down for instance when skills hit around 16 - or when modifiers have diverged across a group so that success is either automatic or else failure is. Dice pool systems break down for similar reasons or else when the dice pools are large enough to become difficult to count.

 

[Janx]

Guess that depends how you define "long campaign". For me, anything that hits a double-digit number of sessions is a "long campaign". We don't meet that frequently, and I like to try new games and new concepts and offer a concrete sense of closure on a game without having to wait years for it.

Expected duration of campaign is important. Which is why I proposed considering it in terms of "how long to reach level 20". You could alter the formula to be more open. How long do I expect this campaign to last? What level do I expect the party to reach? Then do the math accordingly.

I think it's a useful thing for a GM to do the math. Find out for yourself what pacing your campaign is really driving at and compare it to your own expectations and others.

It's also important to use a consistent metric. if Lanefan answers "we play once every 2 months" then that means 3 sessions in 6 months. Which would directly contradict his statement that 1 level every 3 sessions is too fast, but one level every 6 months is OK.

When defining criteria and metrics, it is important to use a consistent unit of measurement so that everybody's clear on what's being compared.

Odds are good Lanefan plays frequently, hence his consternation 3 sessions per level. I think by having the discussion and comparison, GMs can better anticipate player reaction.

What if Lanefan does play once every 2 months? Is it reasonable that the players level up once in 6 months? Do a majority of players accept that, or do they find it is too slow due to the frequency and drop out?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think it's a useful thing for a GM to do the math. Find out for yourself what pacing your campaign is really driving at and compare it to your own expectations and others.

My take on the subject is that level advancement is a metagame consideration. I consider the amount of time I think I have, what range of levels I want to cover, and then plan accordingly to make it happen.