Examples of Torchbearer end-of-session awards can be found in my actual play thread.TORCHBEARER
This game has several different forms of Advancement and its complicated so I'll just sblock this in case you or anyone else is interested
Examples of Torchbearer end-of-session awards can be found in my actual play thread.TORCHBEARER
This game has several different forms of Advancement and its complicated so I'll just sblock this in case you or anyone else is interested
To me, that's crazy fast. I'm more interested in gaining a level or two a year, such that a) the campaign has headroom to last longer and b) levelling becomes a back-burner thing rather than constantly front and center. At high level, if advancement almost stops completely that's not the end of the world; because the mechanics of all editions kinda crap out after a certain (variable by edition) point.I don't think 4e was ESPECIALLY designed for slow advancement. Lets assume you do one full-up combat per session. Each level consists of 10 'tranches' of XP (exactly 10 at-level encounters). However, each PC should receive something like 20% of their XP from quests (I'm assuming each PC completes one minor and one major quest per level, which makes sense). Encounters are also often higher than PC level, either combats or SCs. There's no advice on ratio of SC to combat, but the DMG claims you should have 1 level + 3 encounter, 3 level +1, 3 at-level, and one level - 1. That would indicate 9 per level, so we can assume 4 sessions would be required, maybe 5 per level (as I would actually assume more like 8 total encounters per level, given minor quest XP which isn't mentioned in the summary). Thus 4 combats. In some cases you might get through things faster too, so this seems like a MINIMUM progress rate.
IME we played 4 or so sessions per advancement at lower levels, but it seemed like higher level play went faster in 4e. With 30 levels to get through for a full 'start to apotheosis' campaign, you might expect to do it in 1-2 years. I think that is a LOT faster than most AD&D games advanced, though the rates there could vary hugely depending on the GM and how you ran combats and such.
Personally I found that the most fun seemed to be had with a rate of advancement of about 1 level every 2 or 3 sessions.
Only boring if you're looking at levelling as a goal rather than a side effect.You got a power, you learned how to use it, you had some real fun with it, then you got a new one! Play for maybe 20 sessions, move on to Paragon, etc. I always found that AD&D got bogged down with slow advancement, it just gets boring to be eternally the same level (especially if that is like 1st through 3rd which seemed to be pretty common).
This has always been an interesting (puzzling as well!) aspect of your play.Only boring if you're looking at levelling as a goal rather than a side effect.
I'm just looking at playing at different levels as the goal, not 'leveling as a prize' or something like that. Gah, I have no interest in playing exactly the same character for an entire year at a time. Nope, not even faintly interested. I'd play the same character at a bunch of levels for a year or two, or maybe even 3 or 4 if it was a really engaging story/character and I liked the people I was playing with a lot. I never did understand the taste for this endless maundering around at level 1, 2, 3, .... Not that I'm dissing anyone's tastes, but it sure ain't for me.To me, that's crazy fast. I'm more interested in gaining a level or two a year, such that a) the campaign has headroom to last longer and b) levelling becomes a back-burner thing rather than constantly front and center. At high level, if advancement almost stops completely that's not the end of the world; because the mechanics of all editions kinda crap out after a certain (variable by edition) point.
Only boring if you're looking at levelling as a goal rather than a side effect.
Well, it can I suppose. It's a question of focus. If one (or a table) doesn't focus on levelling and just lets it happen when it happens, however infrequently, then it's a side effect. If it becomes a goal, then the push begins to have levelling happen more often and-or sooner; and somehow levelling seemed to very much become a goal/focus starting with 3e.This has always been an interesting (puzzling as well!) aspect of your play.
Why can’t leveling be both a goal and an emergent (or incidental if you’d like) side effect of play?
Not really, I don't think - if I understand your question. Moral hazard?I’m imagining your envisioning some kind of moral hazard to play that I have neither experienced nor am able to envision (given my priors). Is this part of your “No metagaming” purity test?
It's an insurance & economics term & the reason that you can't insure a 300,000$ house for $2,000,000. You have a moral hazard when someone insulates themselves from risk to such a degree that they no longer have any incentive in taking steps to avoid or mitigate risk on their own because someone else will bear the cost.Well, it can I suppose. It's a question of focus. If one (or a table) doesn't focus on levelling and just lets it happen when it happens, however infrequently, then it's a side effect. If it becomes a goal, then the push begins to have levelling happen more often and-or sooner; and somehow levelling seemed to very much become a goal/focus starting with 3e.
I put it that way as I assume the player continuing to play throughout is a given.
Not really, I don't think - if I understand your question. Moral hazard?
If it becomes a goal, then the push begins to have levelling happen more often and-or sooner; and somehow levelling seemed to very much become a goal/focus starting with 3e.
It seems easy to presume that if you grant levels or XP based on milestones then the game becomes about achieving those milestones. Maybe it's too easy and that's incorrect.I’d say leveling has always been a goal of D&D since the beginning.
I think with 3e, perhaps the focus sharpened a bit because leveling came to mean so much more.
But D&D has always been about increasing personal power to then delve deeper and face more dangerous threats… which in turn yield greater rewards, and so on.
How XP is awarded is a game saying “this is what the game is about”. I like that clarity… it lets me know what’s expected and how to play well. But having that goal as a player need not limit the goals my character can have. They can work in conjunction.
I think when that synchronicity is absent, you potentially run into problems. I’d say that this is why 5e’s default XP system isn’t great and gets largely ignored in favor of milestone leveling, even in their published material.
But then the question, to me at least, is what does milestone leveling tell us about the game? What’s the game about? How can I play it well? The answers are far less clear with milestone leveling.