Pathfinder has fast, medium, and slow. I personaly for noww use the fast one. I play with two GMs for PF one also uses the fast one the other uses the slow chart.
So which ones do you use and why?
For play-by-post or play-by-email games, I prefer the Fast chart. (This probably belongs in the Pathfinder RPG forums somewhere, though.)
Slow, and I halve experience on top of that. I preferred the philosophy that levelling should not be a given, so I've stuck with it.
I use the medium chart when playing pathfinder Adventure Paths or modules - as far as I know, they are designed with medium progression in mind. For my own campaign, I like the slow chart - the progression feels better paced to me.
I don't.
Well, you ask my players and they'll say they're on the fast chart. I'm the one who totals and doles out the number, and they do bend a bit.
Mostly I just wing it and go for a level after a major plot point.
Actually, this one is my favourite.
It's funny how most gamers who like slow level-gain happen to be DMs, while most gamers who like fast level-gain happen to be players. Like the Magic Mart issue and the sources-allowed issue, players tend to want more and DMs tend to want to give less.
Actually, this one is my favourite.I don't.
Well, you ask my players and they'll say they're on the fast chart. I'm the one who totals and doles out the number, and they do bend a bit.
Mostly I just wing it and go for a level after a major plot point.
Ditto. Can't be bothered to track XP anymore.
It seems a little arbitrary to say players level up after "major plot points". How major does the plot point have to be? What if the players bypass your big, prepared plot point and do something else altogether? What if they just encounter a bunch of smaller plot points, is that as good as one major one? What if one PC is instrumental in defeating the challenge, does he get a couple of levels, and the other players only one, if that?
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a certain amount of GM control; after all, GMs are the ones crafting the encounters and should have a firm grasp of the amount of xp players are earning. But shutting the players out of the process seems heavy handed to me. Let them know how many xp they have, how many they have earned at the end of the session, and let them level accordingly.
I'd love to hear more from GMs who have abandoned the xp system altogether.
|
Complicated answer. Something I liked and does my group from playing Spacemaster and Rolemaster which has a built in system like this. We use fast more or less for a couple of levels. Then switch to medium and then slow.
So PC's level up a couple of levels very quickly then it slows down and then it gets very slow, as we keep slowing it down the higher you get. It works for us cause it prelongs the 3-12th level which is the levels we enjoy the most.
And we feel it adds "realism" (yeah i said the dirty word) by that I mean, most things are pretty easy to learn the basics but the better you want to be at something the harder it gets and to truly master something often takes a life time. So our experience system is based on that ideal.
So PC's level up a couple of levels very quickly then it slows down and then it gets very slow, as we keep slowing it down the higher you get. It works for us cause it prelongs the 3-12th level which is the levels we enjoy the most.
That's a great point and a good approach to keeping your game in the "sweet spot". Are you still using a point-based system, or a plot-based approach as was mentioned above?
|
|
Again complex answer, we use the system as a rule of thumb. With a bit of plot based tossed in. So killing stuff will get you xp, accomplishing plot goals does as well. The GM might tweak things up or down if the PC's are getting to high level for what is planned to quickly or reward a little more if they are falling behind to face the stuff coming up.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Hooboy, you asked for this wall o' text, JL!
It seems a little arbitrary to say players level up after "major plot points".
XP is fairly arbitrary too, even before you consider role play and problem solving rewards. Sure, each monster level or CR or HD has a defined XP value associated with it, but DMs play monsters differently and players play characters differently. For example some DMs play monsters smart, such that even dumb ones never provoke OAs. Other DMs play dumb. But how many DMs adjust their monsters' XP value because of tactics, or terrain? And then there's the player side of things; how many PCs actually have what the game 'assumes' they have in terms of wealth and items? How often do PCs have items that are useless or super-useful against a particular monster? (As long as everyone has a way to fly, a tarrasque in the open is easy XP.) Again, how often do DMs adjust XP values for combat for player items, or skill? Well, some DMs will lower XP values but I've never seen a DM say "Gee you guys just didn't have the right stuff to fight that monster, so I'm giving you extra XP."
I don't think I need to get into role playing and problem solving XP rewards. ;) You get the idea. At the end of the day, XP is just a way of saying "Here's how close your level meter is to next level-up." Which a lot of players like, which is fine.
How major does the plot point have to be?
It'd be more accurate to say "My players level up after every few sessions, approximately as many as it would take them to level up using XP, except never in the middle of a session or between minor encounters." But using 'major plot points' as a shorthand is just easier. :)
What if the players bypass your big, prepared plot point and do something else altogether?
Then they level up at another convenient point, after approximately the same number of sessions.
What if they just encounter a bunch of smaller plot points, is that as good as one major one?
Yes.
What if one PC is instrumental in defeating the challenge, does he get a couple of levels, and the other players only one, if that?
No. Everyone levels up together, one level at a time.
Hope that helps!
When running an AP or module, or running for a group who've I've never ran for before, I usually use the medium advancement.
However, with my regular group I tend to scrap XP anymore when playing PF and have players level when I feel a level has been played to its fullest, more often than not after a major plot point has been resolved.
|
I decided calculating XP was too much hassle, so I went for the "when I say so" method. Works pretty well. Occasionally the players will say "Are we levelling up soon?" and I'll say "Eh, maybe."
It helps keep the levelling organic to the story, rather than when the numbers say they can level. They're behind the curve a bit for the AP (Second Darkness) but it's also a larger party.
I prefer the medium XP chart. But I'm also running a test game where we're testing a pile of new stuff from the APG. Test game uses the fast XP track, the better to test out more new things faster.
Well, I'm still using the 3.5e advancement for my transitioning game, but I'm using the fast track for my beginner Pathfinder game, as I've got five brand new players who need all the help they can get.
For my old game, however, I give out a flat 20,000xp/game, regardless of what they do. I find that it removes the obsession over finding things, killing them, and taking their stuff (it wasn't always that much, it just is now because they're at epic levels).
My group uses the fast charts up to around 5th level, cause thats when the characters start the more fun abilities, then we switch to the slow chart to make the campaign last a good long while. Worst side effect is we spend a lot of time at 5th level. On the other hand we usually become some very rich 5 level characters.