Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 9418750" data-attributes="member: 2209">As a player I don't really care about advancement, I am fine advancing slowly or regularly, I just want to game and I don't want disparities between PCs to make it unfun such as playing a 1e level 1 fighter with 15 strength next to a level 3 fighter with double specialization and an 18 percentile strength who does the same thing I do just better in every way.As a DM I usually run adventure paths or module trilogies which are designed for specific levels and I level up the party when appropriate so the mechanical challenges are in a good spot for them. Paizo's APs in particular are good about telling the DM up front where they expect the party to level and are designed to provide good challenges for a party at that level. This is ideal for me.I used to track and calculate xp according to formula and advice in the 1e DMG in the AD&amp;D era for my decade long campaign, but it was very cumbersome and time consuming and I would often get behind on it. In 2e in college I borrowed a friend's DMG and copied down the revised xp stuff and even though the individual awards were a bit fiddly the monster math was much simpler and that was a little easier. I also played in an AD&amp;D campaign where Arduin xp charts were used and every session the DM awarded either 1000 xp for success, 750 for in progress, or 500 for failure with possible +10 or 20 percent for exceptional roleplay or tactics. I really liked the regular progression not tied to combat or loot, it allowed advancement in a campaign with a lot of politics and roleplay as well as dungeons and magic and combats.In 3e I was really excited at the equal xp charts and equal combat power design of the edition and the start of being able to really do milestone levelling and have it work in the system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 9418750, member: 2209"] As a player I don't really care about advancement, I am fine advancing slowly or regularly, I just want to game and I don't want disparities between PCs to make it unfun such as playing a 1e level 1 fighter with 15 strength next to a level 3 fighter with double specialization and an 18 percentile strength who does the same thing I do just better in every way. As a DM I usually run adventure paths or module trilogies which are designed for specific levels and I level up the party when appropriate so the mechanical challenges are in a good spot for them. Paizo's APs in particular are good about telling the DM up front where they expect the party to level and are designed to provide good challenges for a party at that level. This is ideal for me. I used to track and calculate xp according to formula and advice in the 1e DMG in the AD&D era for my decade long campaign, but it was very cumbersome and time consuming and I would often get behind on it. In 2e in college I borrowed a friend's DMG and copied down the revised xp stuff and even though the individual awards were a bit fiddly the monster math was much simpler and that was a little easier. I also played in an AD&D campaign where Arduin xp charts were used and every session the DM awarded either 1000 xp for success, 750 for in progress, or 500 for failure with possible +10 or 20 percent for exceptional roleplay or tactics. I really liked the regular progression not tied to combat or loot, it allowed advancement in a campaign with a lot of politics and roleplay as well as dungeons and magic and combats. In 3e I was really excited at the equal xp charts and equal combat power design of the edition and the start of being able to really do milestone levelling and have it work in the system. [/QUOTE]

Verification