|
I'm just curious how quickly people level up in the campaigns you're playing, and what people prefer.
I notice that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths come out once a month, and often see 3 levels of advancement between issues. Assuming that people are playing out the campaigns at the same right, that's about one level almost every week. Feels kind of fast to me! :)
What are people's experiences at their tables, and what do you guys prefer?
Pretty slowly and always by GM fiat. We have been running the same campaign for over a year and a half and are just about to hit level 13. We started at level 1. We plan to take this campaign to level 23 or 24.
Essentially, you stay the same level throughout an entire adventure, regardless of how long that adventure lasts. Most adventures last about six weeks, but some have been four weeks and some as long as ten weeks. We rotate GMs between adventures and all adventures must tie into the over-arching campaign plot (which was outlined before we started level 1).
We don't use XP, if that wasn't clear, and adhere to strict WBL whenever we level. Basically, you can collect all the gear you want during an adventure but, before the next one starts, you are back down to whatever the WBL chart says you are allowed.
I'm starting to warm to dm fiat leveling, but I still like to reward good play and attendance with being slightly ahead of the curve. I've never had more than 2 level imbalance. That said, for my friday group, the curve was about one level every 2-3 weeks. We also played long-ish sessions, 6pm-Midnight or 1am.
I'm just curious how quickly people level up in the campaigns you're playing, and what people prefer.
I notice that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths come out once a month, and often see 3 levels of advancement between issues. Assuming that people are playing out the campaigns at the same right, that's about one level almost every week. Feels kind of fast to me! :)
What are people's experiences at their tables, and what do you guys prefer?
The people I play with engage in marathon sessions once a week usually running about 9-13 hours a session and we see about a level increase each game. Sometimes if its the big bad end boss we see one and half to two level a night but that's much rarer and usually only happens if were going for a 13 hour night like we did recently. We are old farts and don't do that as often as we used to.
Oscar
|
|
I've been a GM for maybe five months now, and I think I'm going to stick to keeping track of players' XP (and individually). I don't know... I guess I prefer having a consistent system, so that people's advancement has a direct relationship to the amount of "work" they put in.
Still, when I ran Crypt of the Everflame, I found the players leveling up every 2 weeks (the sessions were kind of short, about 3 hours each). That's faster than I would have preferred. I was using the medium XP track...
I'm going to be running Rise of the Runelords soon, which I believe Paizo says should be run under PF's "fast" XP track. The advancement will go faster than what I would prefer, but I'll have to follow it in order for the characters to handle the challenge as it goes up.
After that, I think I will follow the slow XP track for my own homebrew campaign, starting from Level 0. I like having a "grittier" feel in the game where common people slowly work up to becoming heroes. Also, I like the idea above of having people level up only after an adventure.
It's kinda by DM fiat based on story progression, but everything is approved democratically in our group. At low levels, it's about every session and it starts to spread out the higher the level.
I'm running modules and they level up abount once pee module. this works out to about once every two weeks. I asked them last week if they minded if we just forget exp awards. it makes itveasier for me to keep them the right level for the modules and I can write my own mini adventures without worrying they will out level the next part ofvthe story.
|
I have been GMing now for just about 30 years. In the beginning I used to keep track of Xp and level them that way, but that was back in the good Ole days of AD&D/redbox and all that good ole stuff where different classes leveled at different paces. A true headache. Now that I started Pathfinder I level purely by what the characters accomplish in game, and to me killing stuff is not a accomplishment. So i level them only by story advancement and only in between game sessions.
My next campaign will be some sort of official adventure path though, and I am going to try to actually keep track of the XP and level them that way.
We level about once a session. We also play for 6 to 8 hours. If we can't play for at least 5 we normally just don't play.
We level about once a session. We also play for 6 to 8 hours. If we can't play for at least 5 we normally just don't play.
I use the slow exp chart myself, because even if I'm running an AP I tend to add lots of side adventures to box out the rails, and the slow chart allows me to do this and keep an AP on track level wise at the same time. That being said, they usually level up every 2 because we play long sessions as well. If the wives put their collective feet down and cut it short, it may take 3 sessions though. :P
We level about once a session. We also play for 6 to 8 hours. If we can't play for at least 5 we normally just don't play.I use the slow exp chart myself, because even if I'm running an AP I tend to add lots of side adventures to box out the rails, and the slow chart allows me to do this and keep an AP on track level wise at the same time. That being said, they usually level up every 2 because we play long sessions as well. If the wives put their collective feet down and cut it short, it may take 3 sessions though. :P [/QUOTE.
im in the same lines as jon. i decided to use slow progression so my players get used to all the new pathfinder rules, we just transitioned. since i dont have as much time as i used too i use adventure paths.Also like jon i add in side quests to keep there levels on par. Now, my players HATED going the slow route. But last campaign we leveled so fast that players got abilities so fast they never had time to feel them out before they got new ones and often made bad choices they regretted later on. Since so many rules have changed in PF i felt it would be even worse learning the new system so i decided slow and steady. i did how ever throw them a bone. i allowed higher stat roles,used the wealth progression for medium, and uped WPL to the medium track. There stats ended up a little higher than i anticipated due to really good role and is somewhere between 25-30 point buy. This makes players more stronger than there level implies but also gives them new abilities and a sense of growth through magic items. I like the slower progression as i get to through a larger number of monsters at them before they outgrow there CR, which also gets the players used to how a lot of monsters have changed.
the next path i run i will use a lower rolling method for stats. but i'm really liking the slow exp / medium treasure progression. if a player makes a bad choice on a magic item or it doesn't pan out like they like it's easier to change than a feat tree progression or class abilities. after this path if my players want to go a faster exp progression i will still use medium treasure, that way players have to make a sacrifice.
in our current path we play long sessions. usually around 8 hours. since players are stronger than they should be because of treasure and stats all monsters are advanced or more. this lead to faster than normal leveling for lower levels but is steady now. on average i would say we level every 3-4 session, which i think is a decent pace.
I mostly play in play-by-post or play-by-email games. Going up a level takes somewhere between 3 months and a year of play, I'd guess (mostly in the 3-6 month range).
Levels by Fiat.
I was using the "agreed upon" leveling points for Rise of the Runelords, which was grand until my players derailed the plot.
In-game, they are averaging a level per month, which is way too fast for my preference. In practice, though, nobody really notices or cares how fast it is, they just want to play and level up.
Real world time, the game has run weekly-ish for about 3 years, and they have just reached 11th level.
Hmm, my current group is playing over the internet using maptools. We've had about 10 sessions (3-4 hours each) and those with the best attendance are just closing in on 3rd level. A couple are closer to the middle of 2nd level.
I use the standard xp at the end of the night divided by those in attendance method.
I'm using the medium advancement track and running Kingmaker, and level advancement comes roughly every 3-4 sessions, occasionally longer if we are doing moreroleplaying and kingdom-building than fighting.
For old guys like me rooted in 1st edition, it still seems like amazingly fast advancement, but that came about in 3.0, not PF. I actually applaud Paizo both for slowing it down a bit in their medium track and for incorporating the different advancement paths, giving people official options to fit their preferred style.
I've toyed with the idea of making level advancement at GM discretion, but I think my players wouldn't like it. They seem to enjoy tracking their XP and knowing when they are close to leveling.
I'm using the slow XP table and I'm doing what I can to keep the campaign relatively low-magic.
After six months of playing every 2-3 weeks, the party is about halfway through level 3. Pretty soon they're going to start getting access to actual magic items.
I like it when magic items are rare and cool, and I like it when gaining a level is a big deal.
We are curerently playing under level by fiat and just hit level 3 after 6 sessions. Faster than usual with our default GM, who is enjoying the non tracking of XP a good bit. Levels so far have corresponded with major plot point resolutions. I think it may slow a bit as we hit 6-7 but there will be more world exploration avialable to us at that point from the way the story is developing (I am guessing we may have our own ship and crew by that point, Huge for an Islands based game.) The real trick has been keeping us somewhat close to WBL as this is a bit fast for the GM who is used to having more time between levle to dole out treasure.
@ Brian Bachman we actually proposed the level by fiat to the GM after the second session as we saw a large, long term meta-plot unfolding rather than short unrelated adventures. It may be worth discussing with your group.
|
|
I'm using the medium advancement track and running Kingmaker, and level advancement comes roughly every 3-4 sessions, occasionally longer if we are doing moreroleplaying and kingdom-building than fighting.
For old guys like me rooted in 1st edition, it still seems like amazingly fast advancement, but that came about in 3.0, not PF. I actually applaud Paizo both for slowing it down a bit in their medium track and for incorporating the different advancement paths, giving people official options to fit their preferred style.
I've toyed with the idea of making level advancement at GM discretion, but I think my players wouldn't like it. They seem to enjoy tracking their XP and knowing when they are close to leveling.
Yes, that definitely describes my players. Also, I "fudged" their XP awards once so they were leveled up before the next challenges. Fists were pumped, glee all around the table! So I guess you can call that DM fiat, but they didn't do know it. :)
|
|
I'm using the medium advancement track and running Kingmaker, and level advancement comes roughly every 3-4 sessions, occasionally longer if we are doing moreroleplaying and kingdom-building than fighting.
For old guys like me rooted in 1st edition, it still seems like amazingly fast advancement, but that came about in 3.0, not PF. I actually applaud Paizo both for slowing it down a bit in their medium track and for incorporating the different advancement paths, giving people official options to fit their preferred style.
I've toyed with the idea of making level advancement at GM discretion, but I think my players wouldn't like it. They seem to enjoy tracking their XP and knowing when they are close to leveling.
Yeah, I never played in the first days of D&D, but I read the manuals. I forget where I read this, but I remember reading in one of them that completion of an adventure should take characters about one-quarter or one-fifth toward achieving their next level. I always wondered how that played out when also combined with the greater lethality of earlier editions. How on earth did anyone ever got to 10th level, and why would anyone ever want to send their high-level character into the Tomb of Horrors? :)
Also, there seems to be a greater power difference as you level up in 3.x D&D / Pathfinder. That's part of the reason why I don't like leveling people up so quickly in my campaign.
I personally dislike the DM fiat system. I have no problem adjusting encounters up and down as needed. I have to do that anyway, given we have a large group, and no two sessions will have all the same players due to scheduling problems. So I go with XP. And in my game the players have been leveling up every 2 or 3 sessions lately, though that is slightly accellerated as they are in a pretty solid dungeon crawl at the moment with alot of combat. I have also been throwing some rather considerable challenges their way on the Fast XP chart, further increasing the rate at which they level.
When we actually stick to an AP though, it seems like every 6 or 7 sessions we level. I dont think Pathfinder AP's expect you to keep pace with the releases, except in extreme cases. As far as I can tell it takes most groups more then 4-5 sessions to get through a single book of an AP. I think even if you start an AP when the first one starts out, they want you to fall behind a bit, so the dm has the next AP in hand when running the current one, so he can better keep track of things.
I give out XP, and the PCs level up according to medium progression on the XP table. We play 3 nights per month for 2.5 to 3 hours each session. It took them 9 sessions to level up last time (from 6th to 7th level). The dungeon they went through (a "side quest") took all nine of those sessions. I like that those two events synced so well.
I don't like the idea of leveling up mid-dungeon. The characters go to sleep that night and wake up with amazing new feats they've had no opportunity to practice or use. Or they wake up and, oh hey, they know some new spells! Whee! I've always hated that. I liked the AD&D concept of time passing between levels, returning to the lab or some master to study, train, etc.
...but this isn't about me or what verisimilitude means to me. The players are eager to level up, they track their XP meticulously, and are constantly planning their next level ups. Who am I to spoil their fun? So I let them level up at the end of any session during which they reach the required number of XP.
I think our game has the slowest levelling I have ever seen. We have been playing for about 5 years and are ALMOST 7th level.
The DM is running a Ptolus 3.5 campaign and using a Ptolus AP. He levels by us fiat based on our progression throught the AP. We are enjoying the game, so slow levelling is not really a problem.
In a game like ours, it is important that you enjoy playing your character as he is right now. Things are not going to change very quickly.
In our game lots of things happen in quick succession, so game time does not pass quickly. We have gone about 6 months in game time while playing over 6 years of real time. Our characters always seem to be running from one crisis to the next, without a lot of "me" time.
The slow pace of progression and game time is kind of joke in our game, but everyone seems to be having a good time.
@ Brian Bachman we actually proposed the level by fiat to the GM after the second session as we saw a large, long term meta-plot unfolding rather than short unrelated adventures. It may be worth discussing with your group.
I probably will at some point, perhaps when we begin another campaign. However, as folks are enjoying things the way they are now, I'm kind of in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" frame of mind.
Yeah, I never played in the first days of D&D, but I read the manuals. I forget where I read this, but I remember reading in one of them that completion of an adventure should take characters about one-quarter or one-fifth toward achieving their next level. I always wondered how that played out when also combined with the greater lethality of earlier editions. How on earth did anyone ever got to 10th level, and why would anyone ever want to send their high-level character into the Tomb of Horrors? :)
Campaigns literally would run years before characters reached 10th level. And at that level, they were movers and shakers in the entire world.
As for Tomb of Horrors, the original and still undisputed champion "killer dungeon", it would be cruel and unusual punishment to have PCS run a character they had spent years developing through that death trap. Most folks I know who ran it had people create characters specifically for that adventure (and usually had them create a few spares as well for when their original characters died). I know when I played it we took a group of 12 characers in and suffered over 90% casualties.
|
|
Campaigns literally would run years before characters reached 10th level. And at that level, they were movers and shakers in the entire world.
As for Tomb of Horrors, the original and still undisputed champion "killer dungeon", it would be cruel and unusual punishment to have PCS run a character they had spent years developing through that death trap. Most folks I know who ran it had people create characters specifically for that adventure (and usually had them create a few spares as well for when their original characters died). I know when I played it we took a group of 12 characers in and suffered over 90% casualties.
Funny, and I thought I was the grognard when looking at my friends playing video games where they're leveling up about twice an hour, I'm always thinking to myself: "They don't make levels like they used to", "Back in my day, a hit point was a hit point", etc., etc.
We typically use the fast progression and level up ever one or two sessions.
In my games it depends on your level. From level 1-8ish it's normal XP leveling. About then GM fiat becomes the leveling method. I dislike the length of leveling at higher levels and my party likes to progress at a nice rate so every 1-2 sessions they get a level.
I used to do level by fiat, at a rate of approximately one level/month, but my multiclassing house rules have required me to go back to giving out XP. I'm still aiming for the same approximate rate of improvement for a single-classed character.
