Too tired for complete sentences. Homebrew setting and adventure. Started characters at level 5. They are approaching level 8. Playing since January. Only about two weeks of in-game time have elapsed. Using medium advancement schedule. On pace to reach 27th level in one year of in-game time.
Was hoping this adventure would be one part of larger campaign, but it's a big place and they're just hitting the tip of the iceberg. Could conceivably spend the entire campaign (up to level 20) without ever heading back to civilization. Had to make up a "rod of summon merchant" to compensate.
I am disappoint (from verisimilitude angle) with in-game rate of advancement, but happy (and so are my players) with real-world rate of advancement (every 5 or 6 sessions or so). Feel characters shouldn't go from heroes to demi-godlike in matter of weeks. Should take years.
Anyone else feel this way?
There is a few things you could do to slow in game advancement. You could add "training time" to leveling, having players spend 1 day or 1 week per level gained slows things down a bit, but not everyone likes it. This method has the added benefit of allowing plenty of time for players to utilize craft feats and skills they might possess. Another option is to allow a bit of down time between adventures for players to pursue personal goals. The method I most prefer to slow character advancement is simply eschew XP and instead just tells the players to level their characters at certain points in the story; baring that, just use a slower XP chart.
There is a few things you could do to slow in game advancement. You could add "training time" to leveling, having players spend 1 day or 1 week per level gained slows things down a bit, but not everyone likes it. This method has the added benefit of allowing plenty of time for players to utilize craft feats and skills they might possess. Another option is to allow a bit of down time between adventures for players to pursue personal goals. The method I most prefer to slow character advancement is simply eschew XP and instead just tells the players to level their characters at certain points in the story; baring that, just use a slower XP chart.
Yeah, the problem I'm having is the size of the adventure setting and its distance from civilization. There is no "between adventures." They're in the ruins of a lost city deep within an enchanted forest. And all the locals have gone loco/rabid from disease. There is no downtime.
It seems like the game is set up to work the way you suggest, with shorter adventures, and time spent between adventures honing skills, practicing new feats, pursuing personal goals. That breaks down with a remote megadungeon.
I'll have to give some thought to your idea about leveling up at story points. Two obstacles to overcome there are (1) it's a sandboxy adventure (so I really have no idea where it's going), and (2) I'm not sure how the players will feel about that.
It may not be a problem that needs fixing. I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced this.
A lot of premade adventurers seem to advance rapidly as well. Even with adding sidequests and reasonable downtime, all of my RotRLs games have seen players advance rapidly. It only took us a couple of months in game to run through SCAP (I played in that one, haven't read it), which went from low to high levels. Luckily most people I play with don't seem to mind the quick pace. I find that PFRPG and D&D 3.X don't lend themselves well to a, not necessarily gritty, but slower paced and more...realistic(?) fantasy game.
Rate of advancement has always been an issue.
In 3.5 you were supposed to level every 13.33 encounters (DMG p41). I've run games where players faced that many encounters per week. Certainly every dungeon I've ever run has had about that many encounters in it.
In original D&D, if you used the 1gp treasure = 1xp rule, it was possible to advance significantly faster than that. Every published adventure I ever tried to run ended up hitting the "You cannot gain more than 1 level per adventure" rule, and every pc was 1 xp away from leveling a second time. And that was after I stopped giving xp for treasure.
In my current game, I'm just stating when the PCs advance. I was thanked by a player for allowing the PCs to advance so quickly, when I'm actually advancing them a lot slower than expected (every 30 - 40 encounters). I even came up with a plot reason why the PCs are advancing so fast (compared to the NPCs).
Overall, decide what you want the game to be, and run it. You could play an E6 version of the game and stop advancement at 6th level, and just give out extra feats every 50,000 xp.
You could even slowly advance the level cap when an appropriate event occurs. So, the party is stopped at 6th level until they clear the ancient temple, then they level up to 7th, and after they beat the dragon that's terrorizing the city, they can hit 8th level.
Overall though, you might just need to allow some downtime as ringtail said.
(I need to compose messages faster.)
Megadungeons are easy to fix. You just put places of respite inside the dungeon.
Dark Heart of Uukrul, for example, had a whole town (with a tavern to recruit new party members) inside the dungeon. Including temples to the gods for your cleric, a blacksmith and armor shop for the fighter, and a giant wizard library for the mage.
That might be a bit extreme, but what about a non-hostile goblin or orc village in the megadungeon that's willing to trade? How about drop one of the non-evil monster races in there? A trapped angel who's willing to train the cleric or an archon who can teach a prestige class to the fighter? A crazy hermit who's set up shop and only trades items for a rare fungus that grows three levels down?
A megadungeon is a wilderness onto itself. So, put a town in that wilderness.
Teleporters back to the original town strikes me a bit like Diablo (not that there's anything wrong with that if that's the feel you're going for.) But even there, you have options. If the campaign is primarily in the megadungeon, you could have them find an airship. That'll get them to and from the town quickly, and with a little work, you can control where access points they can use the airship open up.
Of course, you'll have to figure out a few things about your megadungeon to drop those in. But the occasional non-hostile section can be placed without too much trouble.
It is pretty common. One thing that can be done is to stretch the time line out a bit if possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common problem. Use slow XP track, or my solution: no XP at all. Level by GM fiat.
Even so, running an AP like Runelords, you'll see them leveling WAAAAY faster than your mind can grok. Give up all hope. Players love leveling and will ignore it.
The problem it appears is they're in an adventure without a chance for breaks that can be transformed into "time passed". In a normal adventure you have a lot of "you spend two weeks in town, then one night..." or "it takes you three weeks of travel to get to...".
But if your players are overcoming the same challenges (XP wise) that a party would that was getting to travel and spend time in town but without actually using up playing time, they should get the same rewards.
The adventure paths are unrealistic also in time. It's easy to hit 20 in a year of game time.
With dungeon crawls, the GM needs to interject some down time. Put a gate somewhere that only works once per week that will take them back to a civilized area where they can sell off loot and upgrade equipment or buy spells. Make it an ancient gate that has a "recall" feature that will automatically pull them back at the end of that time and let them figure that out.
Bottom line, when you're dealing with artificial time passage, don't hesitate to use artificial means to make more time pass.
Too tired for complete sentences. Homebrew setting and adventure. Started characters at level 5. They are approaching level 8. Playing since January. Only about two weeks of in-game time have elapsed. Using medium advancement schedule. On pace to reach 27th level in one year of in-game time.
Was hoping this adventure would be one part of larger campaign, but it's a big place and they're just hitting the tip of the iceberg. Could conceivably spend the entire campaign (up to level 20) without ever heading back to civilization. Had to make up a "rod of summon merchant" to compensate.
I am disappoint (from verisimilitude angle) with in-game rate of advancement, but happy (and so are my players) with real-world rate of advancement (every 5 or 6 sessions or so). Feel characters shouldn't go from heroes to demi-godlike in matter of weeks. Should take years.
Anyone else feel this way?
Roughly 3 levels at 5-6 sessions/level = 15-18 sessions
2 weeks of game time = 14 daysDo you not have casters? I mean, it's conceivable, but just barely.
You can slow things with non-combat tasks. Locating food/water, for instance. Maybe your Rod of Summon Merchant gets stolen in the night by a rabid towny when someone fails a perception roll while on watch.
Started characters at level 5. They are approaching level 8. Playing since January. Only about two weeks of in-game time have elapsed.
Assuming 20 encounters per level (roughly the Medium progression), that would be about 60 encounters in 14 days. That's pretty extreme, but I suppose it's possible if they're genuinely stuck in hostile territory.
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.
Simple comparison. In 1st edition, a typical goblin was worth 7 XP (that is not a typo). In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, they were worth 100 XP. In 1st edition, a fighter needed 2000 XP to reach 2nd level. In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, a fighter (or any character) needed 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. So, a 1st edition fighter would need to defeat 286 goblins to reach 2nd level, while his 3rd edition descendant would need to defeat 10. That's just a slight difference.
This was, of course, a deliberate design decision. Designers, looking at the phenomenal success of computer games like Diablo, obviously discerned that players like leveling, that always being close to leveling keeps them involved in the game. I can't say they were wrong. The decision does, however, make it more difficult to have a campaign run for an epic period of time, and for characters to develpp and change as they grow older. Not impossible, but more difficult.
Paizo has actually taken steps in the other direction with PF. the medium advancement track is a bit slower than 3.x advancement, I believe, and the slow track is available for those that want it. They also published the excellent Kingmaker AP, which does encourage an epic camopaign taking place over years or even decades, rather than weeks or months.
Yeah, it's just the way things are, nowadays. I blame computer RPGs for creating the expectation.
You could always try GURPS 4... Not all games have rapid advancement.
If you aren't using pre-made adventures, you can just dump xp and level people as you see fit. Even if you are using APs and modules, you can still dump xp (I recommend doing so) and then level people as the adventures require.
-Kle.
It is not the games. It is just a generational mindset. I started playing RPG games after I started on tabletop games, and I always hated leveling slowly. I remember playing 2nd edition for year, and it took me 11 months to get to level 7. If someone tried that now and we played on a weekly basis like we did back then, I would probably excuse myself from the group.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah; the Slow advancement track is a good solution. You can also even further slow XP accumulation if you want—there's no reason you can't do a SUPER slow advancement track, say, by simply halving the amount of XP you give out for every single award.
But before you do... you might want to look at it from the PC view. If they're really enjoying the faster advancement rate... it might not be a problem at all. Advancing characters is a HUGE part of why players play, after all, and if you stretch out the opportunities for those rewards TOO much, you run an excellent chance of your players getting tired or bored or frustrated.
I'd rather run several fast XP track campaigns for a group than one super slow XP track that causes the players to quit the campaign out of frustration.
AKA: Talk to your players before you make any changes to how XP works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to give XP on a curve.
What I usually do is use the fast track for levels 1 to 5, as nobody really enjoys playing 1st level for a huge long time.
Then after they hit 5, I switch to standard for levels 6 to 15.
Finally, after 15th level, I switch to slow progression.
This seems more organic to me, as people learn things really fast at first, then slow down to a more sedate pace, then have to work really hard to master things.
Simple comparison. In 1st edition, a typical goblin was worth 7 XP (that is not a typo). In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, they were worth 100 XP. In 1st edition, a fighter needed 2000 XP to reach 2nd level. In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, a fighter (or any character) needed 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. So, a 1st edition fighter would need to defeat 286 goblins to reach 2nd level, while his 3rd edition descendant would need to defeat 10. That's just a slight difference.
You also used to get XP for treasure. If my DM made me fight 286 penniless goblins, I'd stick a sharpened pencil up each nostril and slam my head against the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.Some would disagree with you.
Interesting thread!
Use smaller things to trip them up for awhile each day, a single goblin can cause enough mischief to stumble a party for hours. Also don't be afraid to turn the adventuring day into the adventuring double or triple day, have the same number of encounters just spread it out. Adventurers can't always expect to get some sleep. This will also eat up more time for resting because they may be having too much recover time inbetween your encounters.
I don't tend to have 'adventuring days', I find it kind of strange in concept in game. What I have instead is a real world. They might go a week between combats, and then hit a CR+4 combat. Or they might hit a CR combat, followed up an hour later (in both game and real time) with a CR+3. Or they get hit with a CR+1 that turns into a second CR+2 immediately afterward.
I never hit them with so much that they can't possibly survive (although on occasion I've overestimated a new player's abilities, 10 black dragon hatchlings come to mind). However, by mixing it up, nobody is willing to go NOVA on each combat, because they don't know if it's going to be the only fight of the game day, or if it's just the prelude to a nastier fight.
It helps when doing this to throw lots of smaller things at them, rather than one or two big things. First off, lots of smaller things rarely have the ability to outrright kill a PC with a lucky hit. For example, the last game they had to deal with a group of 6 skeletons, then a second group almost immediately, then a group of 12 skeletons and a buffed up skeletal champion immediately after. Three waves of enemies (PCs were 3rd level). No skeleton is going to one-shot the PCs, each one being a fractional CR, but a bunch of them together sure can whittle them down and provide a good combat.
I prefer to give XP on a curve.
What I usually do is use the fast track for levels 1 to 5, as nobody really enjoys playing 1st level for a huge long time.
Then after they hit 5, I switch to standard for levels 6 to 15.
Finally, after 15th level, I switch to slow progression.
This seems more organic to me, as people learn things really fast at first, then slow down to a more sedate pace, then have to work really hard to master things.
Definitely. In fact, in one of my games, I just give out flat XP per game rather than doing any sort of calculation of monster XP. This had a number of advantages:
1. It lets me track out how fast I wanted character advancement to be, and that is exactly what it is, since I know exactly what they'll be getting.
2. Players who "fall behind" due to missing a game or two tend to catch up faster because they would get a larger chunk of XP - they might miss the 1000xp game, and the next game is 2000xp, for example.
3. This entirely got the players out of the "we need XP .. let's confront something" mindset. They're all experienced players, so it wasn't a huge deal anyways, but it made it so that they got the same XP whether they attended a state dinner as guards for the Minister of Cloth or whether they headed into the hills to confront an atropal scion. Though rare, we have had entire game sessions without a single combat.
I don't tend to have 'adventuring days', I find it kind of strange in concept in game. What I have instead is a real world. They might go a week between combats, and then hit a CR+4 combat. Or they might hit a CR combat, followed up an hour later (in both game and real time) with a CR+3. Or they get hit with a CR+1 that turns into a second CR+2 immediately afterward.
I never hit them with so much that they can't possibly survive (although on occasion I've overestimated a new player's abilities, 10 black dragon hatchlings come to mind). However, by mixing it up, nobody is willing to go NOVA on each combat, because they don't know if it's going to be the only fight of the game day, or if it's just the prelude to a nastier fight.
It helps when doing this to throw lots of smaller things at them, rather than one or two big things. First off, lots of smaller things rarely have the ability to outrright kill a PC with a lucky hit. For example, the last game they had to deal with a group of 6 skeletons, then a second group almost immediately, then a group of 12 skeletons and a buffed up skeletal champion immediately after. Three waves of enemies (PCs were 3rd level). No skeleton is going to one-shot the PCs, each one being a fractional CR, but a bunch of them together sure can whittle them down and provide a good combat.
This kind of thing is really important for me. It's fun (for me) and realistic (in game world terms) for them to treat encounters as something important. Plus, it adds an element of risk in the later encounters that wouldn't be there without the resource burn.
For example, this last game the wizard ran out of teleports, which meant that when he tried to plane shift home after a reality maelstrom fiasco, he ended up alone in the mountains 400 miles from home with nothing to do but hide in a Mordenkainen's mansion until morning. At the beginning of the day this would have been a complete non-problem.
But they very often will run through a bunch of encounters in a day, many of them minimal, but all of which use a non-zero fraction of their resources. I'm glad they don't try to stick with the 15-minute adventuring day.
AKA: Talk to your players before you make any changes to how XP works.
You might in fact find that they prefer the slow game — especially if they've run a whole campaign or two at lightspeed already.
My group likes leveling after the big fights with some downtime afterward. It just feels right.
Nice idea, mdt. If I were to bother with XP, I'd use that formula.
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.Some would disagree with you.
I'm too lazy to read all that, TOZ. Can you give me the Reader's Digest, or better yet, Cliffnotes, version?
Simple comparison. In 1st edition, a typical goblin was worth 7 XP (that is not a typo). In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, they were worth 100 XP. In 1st edition, a fighter needed 2000 XP to reach 2nd level. In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, a fighter (or any character) needed 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. So, a 1st edition fighter would need to defeat 286 goblins to reach 2nd level, while his 3rd edition descendant would need to defeat 10. That's just a slight difference.You also used to get XP for treasure. If my DM made me fight 286 penniless goblins, I'd stick a sharpened pencil up each nostril and slam my head against the table.
Yeah, but each goblin has about 5 silver pieces. That's not going to get you anywhere fast. Also, that was a rule that was very frequently discarded or modified, as many AD&D rules were. Basic point that you leveled much slower in AD&D, and the change to rapid advancement was a deliberate design decision still holds.
I don't use an xp system anymore. A group I play in though, you can't level until you train. It balances it out. Either continue to adventure and gain xp and treasure and eventually meet a monster that can kill you or go and get stronger.
I just dropped xp all together, they need to be whatever level is needed forcthe adventure. I'n the early stages (lvl 1 to 6) this was every 2 pr 3 weeks rl then downtime between each adventure.
I would comparmentalize your adventures into module lime sections and allow for downtime between them.
the only problem with the no xp bit is one of the players uses xp as a sense of reward or advancement and clearly isn't enjoying it. the others have been fine with it.
I'n general this was a bethelevel for the adventure change it to slow them down. players like leveling it seems to be a really big thing for ALOT of people.
|
I'm too lazy to read all that, TOZ. Can you give me the Reader's Digest, or better yet, Cliffnotes, version?
Comparing the classic 'adventure path' modules of 1E, to 3E advancement, judging estimated XP earned versus advancement charts, characters leveled up at much the same rate in both editions. What made people think 1E gave levels slower was the fact that many people did not give XP for GP earned, thinking it silly, unconsciously slowing character advancement.
But before you do... you might want to look at it from the PC view. If they're really enjoying the faster advancement rate... it might not be a problem at all. Advancing characters is a HUGE part of why players play, after all, and if you stretch out the opportunities for those rewards TOO much, you run an excellent chance of your players getting tired or bored or frustrated.
Oh yeah, they're really enjoying the pace, and I'm not about to mess with that. Happy players = good. It just means I'll have to toss a lot of my longer term plans out the window.
This is all really just a side effect of going straight from 1e to PF/3.5. My pacing is all off. Folks are having fun, though, so I'm gonna keep it like it is and make the necessary adjustments to my adventures for next time around.
Easy solution.
You have a few weeks in town with no maidens to rescue, assassinations to discovery, mysteries to solve, dragons to slay, or fights more dangerous than a tavern brawl. What are you doing?
Comparing the classic 'adventure path' modules of 1E, to 3E advancement, judging estimated XP earned versus advancement charts, characters leveled up at much the same rate in both editions. What made people think 1E gave levels slower was the fact that many people did not give XP for GP earned, thinking it silly, unconsciously slowing character advancement.
I'm too lazy to read all that, TOZ. Can you give me the Reader's Digest, or better yet, Cliffnotes, version?
Interesting. Some time when I have more time maybe I'll review their math and see if it holds true. Seems to run counter to my actual experience, however. I remember when we first started playing 3.0, I was GMing and the characters leveled up in less than two 4 hour sessions, and they were shocked and amazed. One possible fallacy I can think of is that of assuming in reviewing those old modules that the PCs work with perfect efficiency, discovering and successfully transporting every single GP, selling every piece of jewlery, gem and art object at full value, etc. Rarely, if ever, happened that way. Still a valid point that people's memories, like mine, may be confused by subconsciously assuming the very common houserule that treasure was a reward in and of itself, and shouldn't be also counted for XP.
|
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.
Simple comparison. In 1st edition, a typical goblin was worth 7 XP (that is not a typo). In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, they were worth 100 XP. In 1st edition, a fighter needed 2000 XP to reach 2nd level. In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, a fighter (or any character) needed 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. So, a 1st edition fighter would need to defeat 286 goblins to reach 2nd level, while his 3rd edition descendant would need to defeat 10. That's just a slight difference.
In first edition the big source of XP was the treasure, to the killing.
At 1 xp for each gp gained you did gained xp fairly fast. The difference was that for the first 9-11 levels (depending with your class) the cost to get to the next level would double, not simply increase by 1.000 xp like in the 3.x edition.
Even after getting to the HD cap you would need to get a big quantity of XP to get to the next level.
Pathfinder has taken steps to reduce the speed at which you get xp. After you get to level 5+ you should start to notice that the leveling speed will decrease.
Comparing the classic 'adventure path' modules of 1E, to 3E advancement, judging estimated XP earned versus advancement charts, characters leveled up at much the same rate in both editions. What made people think 1E gave levels slower was the fact that many people did not give XP for GP earned, thinking it silly, unconsciously slowing character advancement.
I'm too lazy to read all that, TOZ. Can you give me the Reader's Digest, or better yet, Cliffnotes, version?
Or DMs gave much less treasure in their home games than the books and/or modules suggested.
Of course, the methodology of the 1E vs. 3E comparisons is discussed at great length in that thread. For instance, the translation was done as literally as possible, so a Type VI demon with 38 hp would be translated to a Balor with 290 hp; does it make sense to compare wildly different power levels side by side like that? Still, very interesting.
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.
Simple comparison. In 1st edition, a typical goblin was worth 7 XP (that is not a typo). In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, they were worth 100 XP. In 1st edition, a fighter needed 2000 XP to reach 2nd level. In 3rd edition, if I remember correctly, a fighter (or any character) needed 1000 XP to reach 2nd level. So, a 1st edition fighter would need to defeat 286 goblins to reach 2nd level, while his 3rd edition descendant would need to defeat 10. That's just a slight difference.
In first edition the big source of XP was the treasure, to the killing.
At 1 xp for each gp gained you did gained xp fairly fast. The difference was that for the first 9-11 levels (depending with your class) the cost to get to the next level would double, not simply increase by 1.000 xp like in the 3.x edition.
Even after getting to the HD cap you would need to get a big quantity of XP to get to the next level.
Pathfinder has taken steps to reduce the speed at which you get xp. After you get to level 5+ you should start to notice that the leveling speed will decrease.
Yes, we did definitely notice that. As I stated, Paizo has taken some steps to slow down leveling a bit and to give groups tools to slow it further if they so desire.
|
|
Nice idea, mdt. If I were to bother with XP, I'd use that formula.
This isn't a PF issue. It's a legacy 3.X issue. Extreme rapid advancement was introduced with 3.0, and was one of the biggest system shocks for grognards.Some would disagree with you.
Leveling the first levels in AD&D was fast. But after that it slowed down.
Using the Temple of elemental evil example in the thread you linked for the third level of the dungeon there is a 1-1,5 levels difference between 3.0 and 1 ed in favor of the 3ed characters.
Honestly I have no idea of what conversion he was using to evaluate what the 3rd ed. characters would get in the module. There is a official 3rd ed. version of the module?
What I can say is that from experience 3ed leveling is way faster than 1st and 2nd edition leveling.
Comparing the classic 'adventure path' modules of 1E, to 3E advancement, judging estimated XP earned versus advancement charts, characters leveled up at much the same rate in both editions. What made people think 1E gave levels slower was the fact that many people did not give XP for GP earned, thinking it silly, unconsciously slowing character advancement.
I'm too lazy to read all that, TOZ. Can you give me the Reader's Digest, or better yet, Cliffnotes, version?
I could assure you that 1rst-2nd ed. at level 10-11 and up, giving XP for the treasure, still had way higher time requirement than 3rd edition.
In character it makes sense they are learning a lot fast. They are in a fast paced dangerous area, with no distractions (that you've mentioned) and just staying alive requires them to learn or die.
I mean just imagine they get a break and head back to town at 10th level.
Party wizard who spent the year casting to stay alive, "Hi how you been?"
Wizard who spent the year selling 1st level spells, "Oh, good just learned to cast third level spells."
Party wizard (in a Eeyore voice), "Me too."
|
|
I could assure you that 1rst-2nd ed. at level 10-11 and up, giving XP for the treasure, still had way higher time requirement than 3rd edition.
Your assurance, however, doesn't really prove anything. Plenty of people remember it being so, but that doesn't mean it was so. The linked thread does have evidence to back you up in some ways, however.
I could assure you that 1rst-2nd ed. at level 10-11 and up, giving XP for the treasure, still had way higher time requirement than 3rd edition.Your assurance, however, doesn't really prove anything. Plenty of people remember it being so, but that doesn't mean it was so. The linked thread does have evidence to back you up in some ways, however.
I suspect it's an issue of the DM giving out less treasure compared to published modules.
Raging Swan Press
|
Anyone else feel this way?
Yup, I feel your pain. I hate the speed that PCs seem to advance. In the good, odl rose-tinted days PCs could spend years exploring massive dungeons and still only come out at 7th or 8th-level. In 3.5 and Pathfinder this just isn't possible!
I'm now using the slow advancement track in my campaign and it is slowing things down (unsurprisingly). I do some other stuff as well -
*I only allow the PCs to level in a place of safety - a village, town and so on - and levelling takes 1 week per level that the PCs is training for. Thus, it takes a character three weeks to level to 3rd-level.
*I have increased magic item crafting times to 1 week per 1,000 gp value and I do no allow them to just buy anything they fancy. If they want something they have to engage a crafter to make it for them.
*If a PC is reduced to 0 hit points, but does not die, his body suffers a terrible shock. While he can continue adventuring as normal he must rest for one week as soon as he returns to a place of safety. These rest weeks stack, so if someone was knocked unconcious twice, he must rest for two weeks.
|
This is why my group and I have done are only xp system, based on Rolemaster actually. You advanced fast from 1-5th, then you hit a big slow down from 6-10th and then it gets really slow from 11th on. It works well for us, cause it keeps us in the preferred level ranges longer which is for us 3-12th level. That can work in any setting but a little late to likely change for the OP now.
Plus we included often a lot of downtime in our games. Like often during winter the PC's will head and stay in a city and then have some more RP focused side treks and mini adventures in the city. Until spring comes around and they hit the road again.
Doing both of those by the time the PC's travel to a adventure, go threw it, head back sell, train etc. Rinse repeat, they can typically only get about 3 adventures in per year. Add in the slower xp and down time, you can then have it take the PC's into their 30's to break into double digit levels.
I prefer to give XP on a curve.
What I usually do is use the fast track for levels 1 to 5, as nobody really enjoys playing 1st level for a huge long time.
Then after they hit 5, I switch to standard for levels 6 to 15.
Finally, after 15th level, I switch to slow progression.
This seems more organic to me, as people learn things really fast at first, then slow down to a more sedate pace, then have to work really hard to master things.
Good idea.
|
|
I prefer to give XP on a curve.
What I usually do is use the fast track for levels 1 to 5, as nobody really enjoys playing 1st level for a huge long time.
Then after they hit 5, I switch to standard for levels 6 to 15.
Finally, after 15th level, I switch to slow progression.
This seems more organic to me, as people learn things really fast at first, then slow down to a more sedate pace, then have to work really hard to master things.
Somewhat like what we do, though we take it a bit further and we do it for the same reason you listed. :)
I'm all ablush that everyone likes my idea. :)
Ok, maybe not everyone, but people liked it, and nobody flamed it, so I take that as a win. :)
Which level you switch over from one tier to the other is a personal preference, obviously, so some like 5/15, others like 5/11, others might like 8/18. The reason I picked 5/15 was that, to me, the most fun levels are 6 to 15. And the 16 to 20 are the really uber powerful levels where things can get broken, so I want to have time to adjust to each new level's powers and rebalance the game, so I don't get behind the curve.