XP and time passages

[klofft]

OK. FWIW, I never considered the 20 levels in 60 days as a plausible scenario (it's been brought up several times as if that was the main point of my original post). Nor did I ever think that the designers intended that. Nor was I wondering if anyone ever did that. Nor would I ever consider it for my campaign. I brought it up as an extreme illustration: even multiplying the time by a factor of ten, which I think is a very reasonable scenario for many dungeon-bashing campaigns, you have 1st to 20th in under 2 years' game time. Farm boy at 17, legendary plane-hopping hero at 19. (And these ages become even more problematic for any long-lived race like dwarves or especially elves; you could multiply that timetable by 100 and it still remains a curious statistic.)

I also appreciate the simple truth that it is the DM and the players that choose to set the pace of the game.

My original query was (and many of you have responded thus) whether or not your group had any sort of official house rule that mandated the passage of time for going up levels.

Just a clarification.
C

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The letter was mine -- it was in Dungeon, BTW -- and I'd actually originally posted it here on EN World.

I was very dissatisfied with the response in the magazine, which basically said that going from 1st to 20th level in less than a year (game time) in D&D is fine, because The Lord of the Rings took place over only a year. (Yeah, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry, Strider, Boromir, Gimli, and Legolas went from 1st level to 20th in Lord of the Rings. Sheesh.)

I get very annoyed when people talk about the video-game-ization of D&D, but in this particular area, I definitely understand it.

 

[Papewaio of The Org]

Using D&D paradigm.

Gandalf was about the equivalent of a demi-god and only 'leveled' once... gray to white.

All the hobbits would have been starting out characters. While the rest of the nine were definitly highly experienced and elite heroes of their respective nations and 3 of them where the heirs to the leadership of the nations they represented (Boromir was next to be the steward of Gondor, Legolas was a Prince of Mirkwood? and Strider was already the leader of the northern rangers). So they would be say 10th level plus (Lords).

Using the books and the movies when the hobbits leave the shire they have all the equipment for a hike but nothing for a battle, when they return to the shires they are kitted out like most adventurers... armed to the teeth... but even then two of them are regarded as squires... definitly well short of 10th level let alone 20th.

The other members of the nine might have gone up a couple of levels from say 10 to 13 or 15 to 17. Strider is a bit more unusual given his heritage... mind you in the D&D paradigm that would be say a LA of +4.

The level 20/epic characters would have been the Herald Elrond and the other ring wielder the Elven Queen. But as seen they wouldn't have leveled because they were too busy churning out items and advice for the much younger adventurers.

 

[Rhun]

In my current tabletop game, the characters have progressed from 3rd level to 12th level over a period of about 3 in-game years (using the standard XP rules).

 

[Li Shenron]

There is a letter in the current Dragon that bemoans the speed of the 3/3.5 rate of level advancement, not in terms of # of encounters, but in actual game world time.

...

I understand that spacing levels out is a matter of campaign style. I was wondering what people's own house rules might be in place to limit the speed of advancement, aside from something explicitly mechanical such as 1/2 normal XP. I'm looking for house rules along the lines of, "No more than one level per month of game time," or something like that. I'd also like to know the players' impressions of such rules.

I fancied a house rule about "no more than one level per year of setting time", but never actually used it.

If the problem is in levelling up too fast from the character's point of view, for ex. meaning that the PC are 1st level at 20 years old and 20th level at 22 years old, then you fix this from the character's point of view.

Don't let them find monsters and adventures at every corner! Don't let a new BBEG threaten the world on a weekly basis. FORCE THE PC TO WAIT.

They want to actively seek a new adventure? Well, let them pack their bags and travel the world to find one. Travel is SLOW especially when you actually don't know where you're going Take LotR as an example: the whole adventures takes many months, most of which have no battle at all but only travel time, information research or simply waiting.

The key point is that downtime doesn't have to be roleplayed when it's really empty. So instead of having the BBEG come back (assuming he escaped) after a week, have him come back 5 years later, and you'll have a slow advancement on the PC's point of view, without having a slow advancement on the players' point of view.

A side benefit is that you don't need rules for training, because you can assume it is part of the downtime itself.

 

[klofft]

Sure, but this just goes back to what I said before, i.e., I know how to pace a game in that way. That's not the point - I'm looking for house rules like the one you proposed (but evidently never implemented).

The reason I'm specifically curious about actual house rules, not simply "DM guidance," if you will, is that my present group may be more likely to accept a house "rule." They are actually the opposite of many of the posts presented: in most cases, they think artificially imposed downtime is far worse than an actual rule. In other words, they understand that the story or world circumstances might demand waiting, say, three months, but from a metagame perspective, the players feel like that's arbitrary.

 

[irdeggman]

Sure, but this just goes back to what I said before, i.e., I know how to pace a game in that way. That's not the point - I'm looking for house rules like the one you proposed (but evidently never implemented).

The reason I'm specifically curious about actual house rules, not simply "DM guidance," if you will, is that my present group may be more likely to accept a house "rule." They are actually the opposite of many of the posts presented: in most cases, they think artificially imposed downtime is far worse than an actual rule. In other words, they understand that the story or world circumstances might demand waiting, say, three months, but from a metagame perspective, the players feel like that's arbitrary.

How about the "Official" variant rules in the DMG for training? (pg 197+)

DMG II also contains a lot of useful hints on structuring and "timing" of adventures.

 

[Phlebas]

No levelling up until you have some downtime is a pretty simple rule, and as Irdeggman says its in the DMG. (in this case then you're effectively house ruling when you allow PC's to level up without any downtime.......)

once you have the down time principle imposed, the length of it becomes academic from the players perspective so that gives control of the calendar back to the ref.

 

[ValhallaGH]

The reason I'm specifically curious about actual house rules, not simply "DM guidance," if you will, is that my present group may be more likely to accept a house "rule." They are actually the opposite of many of the posts presented: in most cases, they think artificially imposed downtime is far worse than an actual rule. In other words, they understand that the story or world circumstances might demand waiting, say, three months, but from a metagame perspective, the players feel like that's arbitrary.

I'm sorry man. I'm so very, very sorry.

Good luck with that.

Alternatively, you could have a houserule that every non-downtime day they aren't adventuring, they have to fight an entire ninja clan. For no experience points or loot.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mmm... I'm sorry too to hear that.

If you need a rule, how about ruling that characters can only level up at the end of an adventure AND (as per the DMG) they cannot level up more than 1 level at a time - with the excess Xp wasted?

That is the same as having a time limit, only it's adventure-based instead of month-based or year-based. The common ground is that the Xp beyond a limit is wasted. But are you sure your players are going to like something like that? I didn't use the idea I thought because my players immediately whined about how "it doesn't make sense to adventure once you've already got you max Xp for this year" (unless you're a magic item crafter, of course).