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

[Li Shenron]

Just a simple question, but you are welcome to expand on it or share your feelings on the topic.

Do you prefer a steady speed of character level progression i.e. time between level-ups always the same, or a slowing-down progression, i.e. time between level-ups getting longer and longer?

Notice that this question is strictly about at what time intervals do you prefer characters to level up during a campaign. It is NOT about how many XP are needed (for instance in 3e the XP needed for next level increase, but the number of encounters needed stays the same).

Just in case this isn't clear enough yet:

- STEADY means that on average it takes about the same time to level up, no matter what is the current level

- SLOWING-DOWN means that the higher the current level, the longer the time to reach next level

where "time" is measured in whatever units you want (e.g. number of gaming sessions, number of encounters, numbers of adventures...).

 

[Treebore]

I don't even track XP anymore. I level them when I am done using all the monsters and NPC's I want to for their current level. So I advance them to allow me to use new sets of level appropriate opponents involved in my over arching story lines.

 

[(un)reason]

Slowing down. It reflects reality better, where concentrating on learning one thing gets into diminishing returns after a while, and it means you can have longer campaigns before the numbers get too high and make the system struggle.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't even track XP anymore. I level them when I am done using all the monsters and NPC's I want to for their current level. So I advance them to allow me to use new sets of level appropriate opponents involved in my over arching story lines.

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?

 

[Cor Azer]

I prefer a steady pace.

That said, I find myself continually drawn to classless/levelless systems where small amounts of experience are awarded and potentially spent after each session. Still steady, but almost to the point of constant.

 

[S'mon]

1e AD&D and sandbox 3e/Pathfinder: Quick at first, slower later.

4e D&D: Steady progression, maybe slowing a bit in the upper part of each Tier.

Adventure Path Pathfinder: Just started playing one. I'd think steady progression would work best.

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't use XP in my Pathfinder game anymore. But I do prefer there to be an increasing amount of time between levelling up as characters gain levels.

 

[delericho]

Steady... mostly.

We generally use a rate of 1 level every 3 sessions. Except for 1st level, which we tend to get through in 1-2 sessions.

The reason for this has two parts:

- 1st level characters are easier to create and to understand, so we prefer to start at that level. But...
- 1st level characters are too fragile for my taste, so I prefer to graduate from that point quickly.

(Note that we play mostly 3.5e, with a little SWSE at times.)

 

[am181d]

I'm for a steady progression generally, but I can see the virtue of leveling a little faster at first, when characters are at their most fragile, to get them over the hump.

Ultimately, Experience gain is almost always something I house rule, so it don't have much invested in what the "core rule" is for this.

 

[Gilladian]

We tend to go through first and maybe second level fairly quickly - 2-3 sessions for 1st, then 4-6 sessions at second, then settle down to a much slower progression after that. I don't think it increases a LOT level to level, but it doesn't go any faster!

Once they reach 6th level, they'll only be gaining feats, at a theoretical 5,000 xp per feat, so they'll come faster than leveling, but not with extreme rapidity.