XP progression: too fast, too slow, or just right?

[Nyeshet]

I chose 'Too Fast', but I only chose that because there was not a mid-way choice. I wanted to choose something along the line of 'Just a bit too fast', as that best describes my views.

If 1st level characters had to gain, say 2k or 3k xp to increase to level 2, and after this it followed the typical pattern of increase (3k o4 4k for level 3, 4k or 5k for level 4, etc) - that might be enough of a break to slow things down to a reasonable level.

I've tried considering alternatives, but exponential growth is far too slow, milankovich growth starts out okay but then bogs down around mid levels, and merely doubling the xp cost for each level seems just a bit too slow. Giving everyone the equivalent of LA +1 or +2 (in terms of xp required for following levels, not in terms of specials gained, etc), on the other hand, seems about right.

 

[Capellan]

Too fast for my taste, but it is easy enough to change. I'm awarding half XP in my current game, plus some story awards (probably about 60% advancement all up), which is working OK. I think in my next campaign I will award one third of normal XP for combat, and increase the story award proportion, to get to one half the standard advancement rate overall.

 

[Glyfair]

I'm not convinced that's an XP progression issue, and not a campaign style issue - I'm giving strong consideration to figuring out ways I can run a campaign with multi-year breaks in it, so that PC's might go from 1-5 fairly quickly, then break for a couple years, and then go 6-10, etc

I was recently considering something like this, after a letter in Dungeon pointed out that adventurers in the Savage Tide adventure path are expected to go from 1st to 20th level in one year.

IIRC, Pendragon has a system where characters have one adventure per year. An ongoing Pendragon campaign doesn't just last for years. it lasts for generations with character's descendants becoming the PCs. I was considering something like that.

Another option is ala Birthright where the PCs are rulers and have monthly events, but only certain ones of those actually become adventures.

All that being said, IMO experience is the easiest thing to tweak in D&D. Slow it down, speed it up, or have a variable rate. You might have to occasionally "tweak" the player's equipment, but that's been an issue that has been well covered since the early days of The Dragon.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Start your characters older. Why do they have to be teenagers at 1st level?

Sure, but I assume he was talking about the core rules, by the use of which characters certainly can (and often do) start out that young.

And then of course, it really is *that* easy to come across that 20th level teenager thing. Going by the RAW, that is, and even running 'official' adventures all the way.


Personally, I think the rate in the RAW is too rapid. Furthermore, I prefer each successive level's required XP (actually, the difference between each successive amount of required XP) to progress along a curve, not a line.

 

[uffinf]

I voted too slow, I've been playing RPG's for 25 years and I always want to try something new. After 2 good sessions(filled with character development, combat, and plot advancement) I am ready to see what else my character is capable of. I've not be able to find a good DM with a style that fits my tastes. The hack and slash DMs usually have fast advancement but that gets boring quick. DMs who run balanced(with character development, combat, and plot advancement) games usually have quite slow progressions.
Does any one else share this opinion??

 

[brainstorm]

Too slow...for me

In my opinion, preferences on rate of advancement probably varies from person to person, so the current system is good in that it is easily adjustable, as others have already stated. However, my gaming group has been playing D&D for nearly 25 years now and, in that time, we have only gotten from 1st to 20th level (legally) exactly once in all of the campaigns we've run. The main reason for this is that there are so many different kinds of games that we enjoy playing, that our gaming time is split between D&D, Warhammer, 40K, and a few others. Now that we are all 30-somethings, and well on our way to being 40-somethings, gaming time is a precious commodity; we are lucky to play 10-12 times a year. So, as the primary DM, I decided to forego the normal XP process and have my players level each session. Driving a hardcore, fast-paced campaign allows this to happen without sacrificing much. Basically, I cut out the boring parts of the adventure and stick to the main plot, leaving off-camera activities to bulletin board messages and emails. No more 500 room dungeons for us. My adventure design is such that we play through a campaign segment in 2-3 sessions, break for a few months or years in game time, and resume for another campaign segment lasting 2-3 sessions, and so on. My players look forward to new level abilities, hp, etc., in each session and I finally get to use all of those high CR miniatures that have been gathering dust in my basement for years. So far, it's working nicely for us.

 

[Agent Oracle]

I had one DM who gave out 1/10th standard Experience.

I wouldn't have minded as much, but he started us at 10th level, and at the rate of EXP we were earning, it would take us a year to make 11th. complicating matters, he also gave out "extra" exp in amounts greater than the amount he gave for in game activity. So Googling myself a character picture earned me more exp than i would have made slaying a dozen dragons.

On the other hand, i had another DM who gave out whole LEVELS whenever he felt like. We wound up fifteenth or sixteenth level, in one case we leveled up twice in one session. As a spellcaster, i never actually learned what my character could really do, because by the time i had a grasp on one or two of my new spells, it was leveling time again.

Myself? i believe in excruciatingly exact detail in exactly how much EXP should be given out (i once considered giving out the decimal amount recommended by a calculator, in the end, i rounded up). Even when not playing D&D, i study whatever mechanics are necessary for EXP distribution, and take them to heart. The game designers know better than I do.

For example: Godlike gives 1 exp if you show up on time, 1 exp for staying in character and having fun, and one "MVP" exp which the entire group votes on at the end of the night. Though, considering those 3 EXP are enough to considerably improve or add a whole new superpower to your character, it balances.

Conversely, Feng Shui recommends 1-4 EXP from the DM at the end of then night, with a bonus of 3 extra exp for each feng shui site controlled. Since it becomes harder to level up as the game progresses, it is understandable that the experience rewards system would increase, in number as your level increases.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Start your characters older. Why do they have to be teenagers at 1st level?

It's not necessarily the fact that they are a teenager as much as the fact that they go from zero to superhero in a very short period of time. How is it that they spent all that time before in training without achieving much, then they go out adventuring for a year and suddenly they can take on the world. It wouldn't matter if they were 17 or 27, why do the all of a sudden rocket up in relative skill?

Multiclassing into a level of wizard is another example that cracks me up. Order of the Stick had a very funny strip which pointed out this flaw. Wizzie the Wizard spent years under the apprenticeship of a master wizards, learning the craft and the various nuances of spellcasting. Bob the Barbarian decides to multiclass into Wizard and he picks it up in a couple of weeks! Sure the GM can overrule the choice to multiclass but it's legal as per RAW.

The longer lived races just make this whole thing even harder to swallow. I can't remember what the starting ages for elves and dwarves are but it seems silly that they live for 100-plus years, slowly learning, bit by bit; they start adventuring an suddenly they're on this huge growth curve in learning!

Like I said previously, how do you avoid this? I don't know. :\ So far I haven't seen a way to address this issue without making some big changes as to how the game is played.

Olaf the Stout

 

[shilsen]

It's not necessarily the fact that they are a teenager as much as the fact that they go from zero to superhero in a very short period of time. How is it that they spent all that time before in training without achieving much, then they go out adventuring for a year and suddenly they can take on the world. It wouldn't matter if they were 17 or 27, why do the all of a sudden rocket up in relative skill?

Multiclassing into a level of wizard is another example that cracks me up. Order of the Stick had a very funny strip which pointed out this flaw. Wizzie the Wizard spent years under the apprenticeship of a master wizards, learning the craft and the various nuances of spellcasting. Bob the Barbarian decides to multiclass into Wizard and he picks it up in a couple of weeks! Sure the GM can overrule the choice to multiclass but it's legal as per RAW.

The longer lived races just make this whole thing even harder to swallow. I can't remember what the starting ages for elves and dwarves are but it seems silly that they live for 100-plus years, slowly learning, bit by bit; they start adventuring an suddenly they're on this huge growth curve in learning!

Like I said previously, how do you avoid this? I don't know. :\ So far I haven't seen a way to address this issue without making some big changes as to how the game is played.

Olaf the Stout

Not sure if it would count as a big change in your book, but I deal with it in my Eberron campaigns as follows:

Firstly, NPCs don't advance using XP. They achieve whatever level I deem appropriate for them.

Secondly, XP is divorced from time and experience with adventuring. PCs advance over time mostly spent hanging around town just as much as they advance while off fighting and killing things.

The way people in society understand levels (though nobody is aware of or discusses levels, there are analogues to it, due to spells of different levels, class special abilities, etc.) is that all individuals have a level of internal potential. There is no real explanation for how or when that potential is to be achieved, but it is clear that some people have huge jumps in their potential over short periods of time.

Given the above, there is no problem in the existence of war veterans who are 3rd lvl Ftrs and a novice who happens to be 6th level, or PCs who jump five levels in a couple of months. People who know them and are aware of the improvement comment on it as a sign of them being special. Which is what they are.

 

[kaomera]

It's not necessarily the fact that they are a teenager as much as the fact that they go from zero to superhero in a very short period of time. How is it that they spent all that time before in training without achieving much, then they go out adventuring for a year and suddenly they can take on the world. It wouldn't matter if they were 17 or 27, why do the all of a sudden rocket up in relative skill?

IMHO, this just makes a great argument for introducing training and downtime between adventures. I think the game can be hurt by the drive to do something exciting right now. When I played AD&D it wasn't at all unusual for weeks or months to go by between adventures, due to training, traveling, resupplying, hiring on new retainers, training your retainers, buying gear, building castles, and even in some cases working a "day job" (but I don't really know how widespread that sort of thing really was beyond our group)...