Personally I dont mind the xp advancement rate, that I am ok with. As I get older my group has less time to game (work, families, life etc), so less real world game time to level is ok with me. Its the pace of adventures that bothers me. Part of that is based around the idea that you are always adventuring and thus should be facing 3-4 encounters a day. 3-4 fights a day every day is near insanity if you think of it in context of the real world. No one could do that, under any circumstances.
In fact one of the things I am really liking about kingmaker is it has built in downtime that is having the adventure pass at a more reasonable in world pace. We are around 2 years in and have just hit level 5, that makes sense to me. I hope more adventure paths are paced in a similar way. It is a better solution to the problem in my opinion then doing something with xp.
Megadungeons I find are the real issue here. It's hard to justify getting in so many encounters and not leveling fast if they tear through enough in a session. If that bothers you I echo the sentiments that the slow xp track is your friend.
Beyond that I justify quick leveling via aps and the like as (the pcs) are hero types, and levels are somewhat abstract. Therefore they go all luke skywalker and get awesome in a matter of weeks, with very rare long term bumps in time/power. So for instance in an AP, these are heroes who could have fought giants and ogres and the like since they are destined and all that (tenacious some might say) but instead they dealt with the easily percieved threast such as goblins and the like. Eventually they finish dealing with said threat and move on to greater threats or get targetted by stronger foes since theyve proven their mettle. It's not that they were weak at low levels, its that their percieved threats were different. They have class levels after all, and not the npc ones...
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.
I wish I had started this way with RotRL's. So many things would have gone better early on in the campaign. Still fun, but would have taken more time to explore Sandpoint and its environs. Given the PC's a stronget identification with the town.
We talked it over, and in fact REtalked it over recently, and any Pathfinder game going forward, none of us are using the xp charts. Just DM fiat and "suggested" levels.
Greg
|
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.
This is the method I always preferred / used. Everybody except the local power gamer was happy with it, which I took to be a good thing.
Megadungeons I find are the real issue here. It's hard to justify getting in so many encounters and not leveling fast if they tear through enough in a session. If that bothers you I echo the sentiments that the slow xp track is your friend.
I'm not so certain it's "megadungeons" that are at fault. I've never GM'd one, and yet advancement is still too fast for my taste.
Even micro-dungeons have this problem.
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.This is the method I always preferred / used. Everybody except the local power gamer was happy with it, which I took to be a good thing.
When one of my players announced to the group he runs ( and I play in) that he would be changing to this method, I was stunned at the sighs of relief and encompassing approval. No one dissented and everyone was happy.
greg
|
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.
This is exactly how we did it after I suggested it to the DM, and I believe the idea came from reading a post of you in the previous years.
It did really well for everyone's pleasure, verisimilitude and character development. Fast progression gives the fun faster and avoids being bad too long with a low-level character, it also builds enough story with the character to grow fond of him and avoid the turnover effect when someone suddenly wants to play something else.Something that happened to us is also the way XP means less and less the more we gain levels : it is a closely kept statistic at low levels, but from level 5-6, the time needed to grow up becomes annoying and useless to follow. Now we pretty much wait for story arcs ending until the moment the DM says we level up, and we don't even keep track of XP anymore, except for one or two big times events.
Is this a common phenomenon? In my experience, across many editions of the game, this is relatively common. Fast advancement is part of the games history. Older editions used to give bonus exp if you had a high stat in your primary ability.
In a current 2cnd edition game I am playing in I went from level 1 to level 4 in 3 sessions of the game. Random encounters, bonus exp from high stats, and gaining exp for casting spells to overcome problems all added up to advance my character very rapidly. I am currently over half way to level 5 and see no reason why my character won't be able to get to level 6 fairly soon. In game time this took all of about 3 days of adventuring separated by about a week of travel time between each day.
I used to make custom exp tables back in the early 90's to deal with fast leveling. Then I read about a martial arts program in japan that took a person from having no experience to being a black belt in under a year. After doing some research about military training, martial arts, and learning in general I became comfortable with the leveling pace of the game. Basically I learned that if a person spends all of their spare time training and focusing on a single thing then they will show continuous improvement as long as they keep focused.
I have found that most d&d games slow down once the characters start getting past level 10. Encounters tend to take longer and characters tend to have more down time between encounters. This is especially true if the characters have to make their own equipment. In a 3.0 game I played a wizard who crafted all of the parties magic items. We had a feat that the dm allowed that enabled me to take the exp for items from other characters so we all stayed at the same basic level. By the time I had finished outfitting the party we had spent 9 months building items in game time.
The biggest issue with leveling time in game is providing characters with things to do other than adventuring. Characters will level rapidly as long as they keep having encounters with monsters. If they have other things to do that consume time then they may not level as quickly in game time. In most games I find that trivial things like buying a house or developing a plot of land can take a large amount of time. Any time a character uses a library to research something it should take a substantial amount of time as well. If player have to negotiate with an enemy or other npc then make sure that they spend time getting ready and preparing. Most negotiations in real life take time to begin and require patience to deal with as they tend to be slow with both sides having to take pauses to examine the offer. Exploring should take time as well. In old d&d games it took longer when you weren't in combat to explore a dungeon. It was assumed that characters were examining the areas in detail as they traveled.
If you really want to slow down the in game speed at which the characters are leveling my best advice would be to recommend talking to your players and seeing what suggestions they have.
Not using XP but rather leaving it to GM discression is a great idea i hadnt thought of previously. Has anyone had any experience with this?
I've been in a couple of play-by-post games that did this. It works out great for APs and the like that tell the GM what level the party should be at various points. It cancels out the effect of tangential side quests and skipping encounters alike. Honestly, I'd really like to go to this method so I'm more in control of when the party levels without having to add in extra encounters, etc. I don't think my RL players would go for it, though. Their eyes light up at the end of a session when they ask for XP and a calculator to see how close they are to the next level.
|
|
Not using XP but rather leaving it to GM discression is a great idea i hadnt thought of previously. Has anyone had any experience with this?
We pretty much use this today, no one even thinks about asking for XP, we just say jokes about encounter better being worth 3 452 000 XP at level 10, and we wait for the time we level up - often at the end of a quest, story arc or before an uber-boss.
Note this came naturally - when we players saw XP crawling slowly, we finally came to ignore our XP count and let the DM do it the way he felt it. The DM still makes us level up at the approximate time we would by counting, but we don't think about it and prefer the feeling of memorable RP experience converted as crunch experience. :)
Since Paizo has cut out any instance of XP being a resource that you can spend or lose, I have seen no reason whatsoever to use XP since switching to Pathfinder, especially because I primarily run the adventure paths. Characters level in my games when the DM feels it is appropriate for the story and the challenges they're facing and have faced.
Not using XP but rather leaving it to GM discression is a great idea i hadnt thought of previously. Has anyone had any experience with this?
Yes, both as a player and as a GM I don't bother keeping track of XP nowadays. I either tell the players when they go up a level or I let the GM tell me when I go up a level.
Not using XP but rather leaving it to GM discression is a great idea i hadnt thought of previously. Has anyone had any experience with this?
It works fantastically in an Adventure Path where you can give the players page-counts, chapter titles, and concrete goals that represent their level-up points. They really focus on achieving those goals, and the whole thing feels more organic and story-like.
In a total sandbox game, though, it would fall to the GM to control the pacing, and I wouldn't trust myself to get it right, so XP become a more tempting option.
Wow... I must admit I am very surprised to see this attitude, in the Pathfinder campaign I am starting with my gaming group in weeks I was daring to contemplate the idea of removing experience altogether, but I thought it would be something only a mad man would think of...
Apparently I was very wrong, I am delighted to know this idea is not that wild and that people seem to actually respond well to it. It mainly was because this campaign is going to be low fantasy, with a little cosmic horror added to it.
My players don't usually pick fights, but the idea of monsters rewarding players with XP after being slain by them somewhat encourages encounters, and for this campaign I wanted to eschew the CR system, use the monster that fits the mood, if the players can slay it, good, if not... well they best run for their lives and hope whatever it is they escaped from doesn't come looking for them later.
Seeing that many commented on eschewing XP altogether and never looking back, I am feeling very positive about talking this over with my players.
|
|
Usually about book 2 in an AP is when I stop tracking XP. Unless the PCs seem hellbent on following the rails the only way to deal with side treks and personal side stories is to give 0 xp or forever be adjusting for PCs moving too far ahead of the curve.
Instead I use the level up points recommended in the APs as a guide and reward PCs with achievements (for accomplishing goals resolving encounters). They don't DO anything but my players love them.
Another method is to give out one Hero Point per session. Allowing PCs to still see a non-monetary reward for their actions in game but allowing the GM to still control pace of advancement. :)
|
I suspect it's an issue of the DM giving out less treasure compared to published modules.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.
More probably it is that people rarely found all and every treasure present in a module while the guy doing the comparison has taken that as a granted thing.
Even when you did found all the treasure, moving it away wasn't a granted thing.
I recall the module with the 3 millions of copper pieces (plus assorted more interesting treasures) in the dragon turtle hoard at the bottom of a lake. I doubt most players groups did recovered them.
Plenty of treasure XP were lost in hidden chambers never discovered, out of the way lairs and so on.
As further "proof":
- in a 8 years 2 ed champaign the maximum level reached was fifteen;
- in a 7 years 3-3.5 campaign the maximum level reached was 23.
- in a 2 years 3.5 AP (Crimson throne plus a modified Second Darkness) the players are level 16.
It is circumstantial proof, but the best one I have on a personal level.
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.
You can add another one to the list of people appreciating this idea.
I am starting a Kingmaker game this fall and I think I will borrow it.
I will like to run a lot of side adventures/miniquest in that game and to make the passage of time more perceptible.
|
|
I don't worry to much about the rate of advancement in terms of play time, but as far as in-game time is concerned I always make sure to slot in "forced" down-time, which gives the campaign room to breathe.
For example: after completing a quest, I'll say to the players "Okay, nothing much is going to happen for the next week/month/season, so we'll gloss over it. Your characters will have the next six weeks off in the city. Is there anything you'd like to do/research/craft, etc?" Also, any plot hooks tend to take at least a week of travel or research before they can be acted upon.
My party has just reached level 7 after a bit over 10 months of in-game time. They will probably hit level 9 before the quest they are just starting ends, which should round out the first year of in-game time. At that point, I plan to impose a 1-2 year in-game "downtime" before starting the next set of story-lines. At about level 14 or so I'll probably impose another long downtime of 3 or more years.
Not using XP but rather leaving it to GM discression is a great idea i hadnt thought of previously. Has anyone had any experience with this?It works fantastically in an Adventure Path where you can give the players page-counts, chapter titles, and concrete goals that represent their level-up points. They really focus on achieving those goals, and the whole thing feels more organic and story-like.
In a total sandbox game, though, it would fall to the GM to control the pacing, and I wouldn't trust myself to get it right, so XP become a more tempting option.
This is the real potential pitfall of removing xp. Most players, myself included like to feel their character is progressing. In an adventure path even without xp, you know every time the dm turns a page you are one step closer to your goal. The psychological effect is still there if reduced from the effect you get when you get an xp total at the end of the session.
When I am writing my own material though, there is too much impusle to keep the players low. Sometimes its not even about wanting to keep power low, its that I usually have too many ideas for a sandbox game that eventually get set aside because we dont get to them before the party is too high a level to be challenged by them. And if you are not careful that impulse could alienate your players who feel like they are stagnated.
I also think there is the risk reward factor that gets lost without xp. Under the normal system, if a dm throws very challenging (and potentially dangerous) encounters against a party, the reward is greater in xp. Without it, there is no balancing factor for harder or easier encounters, the end result is the same whether there was 1 goblin gaurding the magic doohicky or 20. And that takes away a certain sense of fairness I think ought to be in the game.
For example: after completing a quest, I'll say to the players "Okay, nothing much is going to happen for the next week/month/season, so we'll gloss over it...
Next time around, this.
Right now, though, one quest is spanning multiple levels. Three and counting. It's a big quest. Ironically, the whole thing started as a side quest. And I've been taking the J.J. Abrams approach, dropping hooks left and right, lots of loose threads, any one of which they could pursue and I would have to respond to by figuring out the details of that thread and what it all means as I go.
I just had a brainstorm over lunch and pounded out a one-pager of fluff that ties three major threads and a few smaller ones together into one cohesive whole. I was really worried I wouldn't be able to connect them all and the whole thing would come crashing down like a house of cards, but once again I got lucky. Long story short: I think I see the end of the quest in sight. Ten sessions away, maybe?
Yeah, heck of a side quest, and no way to break it up for downtime. Note to self: next time think smaller. Or not, depending on how well it goes over with the players. Not sure I can deal with the pressure again, though.
|
|
Just a thought: even when the players are trapped in an underground lost city, you could still enforce some downtime. Just turn a few existing doors/passageways into Secret Doors and tell the players:
"You've collected clues which point to where the next part of the complex is hidden, but it will take some time to find the hidden passages and excavate your way to the next section - possibly 4 to 6 weeks. We'll gloss over that time. You can either go back to town to research your leads and hire diggers before returning, or you can remain in the complex and work on it yourself, using your survival skills to scrounge food and supplies from the surrounding are while you work.
In either case, if there's anything you'd like to research/craft/do during the downtime..."
Perhaps I should define my terms when I say "lost city."
It is "lost" in the sense that the outside world hasn't had contact with its inhabitants for 500 years, and so it is, in the minds of outsiders, lost, and perhaps even a myth. Much like our Atlantis.
There is no hand-waving excavation and exploration: there is no excavation to be done, and they're exploring a war zone. By being there, they are automatically involved. No rest for the weary.
I have also used the term "megadungeon," which was correct in terms of the city's size (and if uninhabited it would be a true megadungeon), but incorrect in the traditional sense of the megadungeon as a place delvers repeatedly return to in their ongoing explorations. They are also miles and miles from outside civilization, and they got lost on the way in, so returning to town to rest and regroup would be a non-trivial matter, and a course of action they have rejected.
As further "proof":
- in a 8 years 2 ed champaign the maximum level reached was fifteen;
- in a 7 years 3-3.5 campaign the maximum level reached was 23.
- in a 2 years 3.5 AP (Crimson throne plus a modified Second Darkness) the players are level 16.It is circumstantial proof, but the best one I have on a personal level.
The time it took you to reach level 8 in each case would be more interesting to me, personally.
|
|
Perhaps I should define my terms when I say "lost city."
Ah - given those conditions, you should probably continue as you are. However, if you wanted the option, you could do an "action montage" and just describe to the PCs how their latest round of information and resource gathering takes several weeks, as they fight their way across the war zone and the conflict rages around them, they suffer setbacks and battle on heroically, and, as William Goldman said in "The Princess Bride", what with one thing and another, three weeks pass. :P
I suspect it's an issue of the DM giving out less treasure compared to published modules.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.More probably it is that people rarely found all and every treasure present in a module while the guy doing the comparison has taken that as a granted thing.
Even when you did found all the treasure, moving it away wasn't a granted thing.
I recall the module with the 3 millions of copper pieces (plus assorted more interesting treasures) in the dragon turtle hoard at the bottom of a lake. I doubt most players groups did recovered them.Plenty of treasure XP were lost in hidden chambers never discovered, out of the way lairs and so on.
As further "proof":
- in a 8 years 2 ed champaign the maximum level reached was fifteen;
- in a 7 years 3-3.5 campaign the maximum level reached was 23.
- in a 2 years 3.5 AP (Crimson throne plus a modified Second Darkness) the players are level 16.It is circumstantial proof, but the best one I have on a personal level.
I actually just got to that part of the thread and there wasn't a whole lot of hidden treasure, and it wasn't particularly cleverly hidden. About the most obtuse was a +1 Shield hidden in the belly of a giant lizard, everything else could be turned up by searching the room after combat. And he wasn't including XP for using or selling magical items, which more than offsets any hidden treasures that get missed.
I'm going to have to echo the sentiment that DMs usually ignored the treasure = XP rules, and/or gave out far less treasure than the published modules. I know my 2nd edition...
It was a very, very common houserule, perhaps to the same level as Free Parking getting you loads of cash in Monopoly.
|
|
The time it took you to reach level 8 in each case would be more interesting to me, personally.As further "proof":
- in a 8 years 2 ed champaign the maximum level reached was fifteen;
- in a 7 years 3-3.5 campaign the maximum level reached was 23.
- in a 2 years 3.5 AP (Crimson throne plus a modified Second Darkness) the players are level 16.It is circumstantial proof, but the best one I have on a personal level.
Hard to judge for the older campaigns after so many years. (Note the years are true life years, not game years)
Crimson throne - probably 3 months, four at most.
The 3.0-3.5 campaign - 8 months, even a bit more.
The second ed campaign - hard to judge, more than a year I would say.
I actually just got to that part of the thread and there wasn't a whole lot of hidden treasure, and it wasn't particularly cleverly hidden. About the most obtuse was a +1 Shield hidden in the belly of a giant lizard, everything else could be turned up by searching the room after combat. And he wasn't including XP for using or selling magical items, which more than offsets any hidden treasures that get missed.
I'm going to have to echo the sentiment that DMs usually ignored the treasure = XP rules, and/or gave out far less treasure than the published modules. I know my 2nd edition...
As I was the GM I am fairly sure that the GM was giving out the treasure XP.
As I was the GM I am fairly sure that the GM was giving out the treasure XP.
And this was playing using published modules only, not a homebrew campaign? 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.
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.
Well put; in AD&D (after 8th level or so) you had to play for *years* to gain a level, even if you gamed regularly (unless you had a very generous DM). In 3E, it was indeed a shock to realize how rapidly you would level up -- I think we gained a level or two during *every* session, at least in combat-centric campaigns. It's a bit better in PF, but I've noticed that even though we're using the medium progression, PCs do still gain a level at every other session or so. These days we don't game as often as we used to, so I think it's fine; but in some ways I feel that gaining a new level used to to mean a lot more back in the days of AD&D.