When players have gained enough experience for a new level, some GMs just let the players gain the level immediately. For me that just seems too unrealistic and 'gamey'.
What I do is let the players know they have gained a level once they have rested for 8 hours. This seems more realistic to me for a few reasons.
Firstly, it ties in well with other game mechanics such as replenishing ki or spells.
Secondly, when you sleep (in REM or non-REM - I can't remember which) apparently your brain sorts through the jumble of activity for that day to help you resolve and sort through issues in your subconscious. That's why people say "I'll sleep on it" when they have a major decision to make. I feel the revelations that come from this tie in with gaining experience and a level.
Thirdly, it is well known that body builders will sleep around 10 hours a day as the extra sleep helps their muscles to grow. Body building tears the muscle fibres up and sleeping repairs them so that these muscle fibres become stronger and bigger. This sort of ties in with gaining an attribute point every 4th level.
For all these reasons, I make my players rest 8 hours before gaining a level.
In the old D&D days, I remember for some classes you had to find and pay a trainer once you had the experience before you could gain the new level. This was expensive and could take days or weeks and seems a little heavy handed and disruptive to me. I also remember that Druids had to have some sort of battle to the death over a higher level Druid in their coven to gain a level in some sort of natural selection process which seems very harsh to me.
So I'm curious. What do all you GM's out there enforce as your means for allowing players to go up a level?
.
..
...
....
.....
We run a 'ROCKY TRAINING MONTAGE'
(complete with lovingly-chosen sound tracks)
The quantity of time expressed can vary from a day, a week or longer.
Only the highlights are covered.
In more 'fast paced/constant pressure' adventures - the characters simply don't level until they can find 'quiet time' or an appropriate moment for leveling is introduced.
Example: After spending the evening at the Baron Barrow's table the party found themselves in a contemplative state, musing on their earlier (two) days of battle whilst sipping various quantaties of their favoured tipple.
The next day, after a sound sleep and a some vivid soul-lifting dreams, they awoke leveled.
::
Essentially, we don't like to make the method/setup for leveling 'mundane' by making it a standarised occasion/routine, preferring to work such events into the campaign/story in the hopes of keeping them 'special'.
*Ding*
|
c873788
i dont do ep, it is a worthless system that has no basis in real life. its something that was made for GMs to make it easier to determin when to let players level.
in my games i chose to do an event based leveling system, basically once you complete something of worth you gain a level. " you cleared out that den of kobolds, GREAT you hit level 2!!!" as they get higher in levels, leveling becomes a harder achievement. now you cant just kill some level 1 orcs.. you need to purge the grove of the 10 headed ice hydras, gratz you hit level 15. the main reason i do it this way is due to the fact that all: feats, spell, and class abilities are achieved while in downtime.
Appeals to realism in this game are usually ineffectual.
I don't use XP, so my players usually level up after some great accomplishment. This conveniently side-steps the mid-dungeon leveling problem. After they kill the BBEG or a reasonable medium threat boss, we are usually between adventures anyway.
The sudden manifestation of a new power doesn't strike me as any less realistic than the acquisition of said power during a single night's rest. Either way, the level curve comes way too fast in most PF campaigns, especially APs where the players go from 1st to 10th in a matter of weeks or months.
My approach to fixing issues with levels stops at exactly the point where my players get irritated or disappointed with the change; so they still level mid-dungeon (if they need to) on occasion, and they still level much faster than I think they should. But players like leveling, so you can only screw with it so much.
|
I take a split position on leveling in my home campaign. Characters who level immediately gain BAB, saves, hit points, and any gains in skills or abilities they already have (so if a rogue gains an odd level, they would get a bonus die to their sneak attack), but not new skills, feats, or abilities. For the new stuff, they have to rest at a town or similar place; no getting new spells in the middle of a dungeon crawl. I also require prestige classes to be gained through training from a guild or organization, which allows me to add more roleplaying potential and complexity.
On a related note, I've got a house rule that no one may be more than one full level behind the highest-level character (for balance reasons), so when the highest-level character gains a level, everyone else automatically gains enough XP to put them at the next lower level (if they're not already there). That way I don't have to worry about challenging the higher level characters with encounters that'll kill lower level characters.
When players have gained enough experience for a new level, some GMs just let the players gain the level immediately. For me that just seems too unrealistic and 'gamey'.
It's the best way really. The other big doable option is even worse: have them adventure, risk their lives, do new stuff, gain experience - and learn nothing from it. Only when they return from weeks of arduous experiences and then go into a training hall and let some guy tell them how to hold the sword a little better will they significantly improve their abilities.
The level-up immediately is still too grainy for being realistic, but at least it's not as bad as the training thing.
And a non-grainy solution just doesn't work. Gaining a level usually means +1 to a number of things, and that +1 represents all the improvements the character has made since the last level-up. In "reality", every repetition improves you. Every new insight, experience, fight, situation makes you a bit better at things.
If we want the system to simulate that, we would either put up with improvements of +0.1, +0.01 or even smaller - or boost up the numbers. Instead of 20 levels, the game will have 20000 levels. You level-up each time you do something.
No, levels that "round down" the numbers, even if that means that on paper you don't change for a long time only to become significantly better all at once at one point, are the best way.
What I do is let the players know they have gained a level once they have rested for 8 hours. This seems more realistic to me for a few reasons.
That isn't bad, either. Not a problem for me because I did away with XP and just tell the players when they get a new level.
Before that, I used to award XP after each combat (or, if it came from other sources, they'd get it at the end of the scene when it was awarded).
They could level-up at once, and get some of the abilities at once: New spells known, the usual level-dependant stuff (BAB, saves, new skill points, feats, class abilities). The only thing you don't get is to fill the new spell slots at once.
Secondly, when you sleep (in REM or non-REM - I can't remember which) apparently your brain sorts through the jumble of activity for that day to help you resolve and sort through issues in your subconscious.
I think it's REM. REM sleep is the only kind of sleep that really does something for you. The other time you're asleep you're mainly lying around killing time. That's an oversimplification, but the really important stuff happens during REM sleep.
That's why people say "I'll sleep on it" when they have a major decision to make. I feel the revelations that come from this tie in with gaining experience and a level.
The thing is the real improvement, as I mentioned earlier, isn't really a leap. It's gradual. The problem with gradual is that it doesn't fit well with a level-based system using a d20 as its base.
I might see a free-form system where you roll 1d100, 1d1000 or something even bigger (I have a 7-dice set of ten-sided dice - 0 through 9, 00 through 90, 000 through 900, 0000 through 9000 as well as .0 through .9, .00 through .09 and finally .000 through .009) whenever you decide over success or failure. Then, whenever you get to do a check, you get to raise your bonus by a bit (basic increase is +1. If you made your check, it doubles. It also doubles if it's a difficult check. So if you make a difficult check, you get as much as +4)
For all these reasons, I make my players rest 8 hours before gaining a level.
The best justification for "You only get to level-up after a rest" is that it is neater.
(And neater still is orchestrating things so the level-ups occur at the end of the session.)
So I'm curious. What do all you GM's out there enforce as your means for allowing players to go up a level?
As I said earlier: No more XP. Levels happen when the GM says so.
Before that: XP after the combat/scene, level-up as soon as you go over the threshold, you immediately get everything except to fill/use your new spell slots.
In short, it's all about the roleplaying. It makes sense a fighter would go to bed, and wake up realizing "you know what, I really like swords, I bet I could do better with swords". It makes no sense a wizard would go to bed, and wake up realizing "wow, I think I just figured out how to cast fireball, let me prepare that now and cast it without making sure I have it down pat and trying it out first". It makes sense that a sorcerer would go to bed, and wake up realizing "YEEHAW FIREBALLS F-YEAH!". It makes no sense a monk would go to bed and wake up realizing, "I just spontaneously figured out how to use the Four Corners Wind-Blown Snapping Turtle Exploding Spleen Strike". Know what I mean?
Your method seems very realistic and makes alot of sense. However, I could see potential problems between the classes as far as game balance goes. Sorcerers and fighters suddenly get an edge over monks and wizards when leveling which might railroad some players into picking the classes that level easier.
We run a 'ROCKY TRAINING MONTAGE'
(complete with lovingly-chosen sound tracks)
The quantity of time expressed can vary from a day, a week or longer.
Only the highlights are covered.
Lol. I love it. Your players are lucky that you bring so much atmosphere to your gaming sessions.
...and i have to train 10-21 weeks depending. that's a lot of down time! seems a bit over the top to me.
But it's better than last campaign. we had to spend the time AND spend money. 1000gp*level earned. that one really sucked!
This seems to be the trade-off, realism versus player fun. To me, having to spend all that gold and waste all that time would dampen my roleplaying experience.
I did it like KaeYoss did - immediate experience and leveling after combat but it was a bit too much fuss so I switched to you level when I want you to level. Levels are given between the sessions to give players time to decide what they want - however rest to acquire them is required in cases when there is no free in-game time between the sessions (like we finished one just after the battle in the middle of the day and next session started with sharing the spoils and returning to the inhabited part of the city so they gained the level on the next morning).
PCs can pick skills and feats that are logical extension of their current abilities but need to find a trainer to gain something different, like adding new class or more exotic feats. Note this is not the old school training for level - for example, if the player announces that he want to multiclass in the future he can fulfil training requirement a few level earlier just by training with appropriate npc or studying the appropriate books - he does not have to take new class level/feat immediately after learning.
When you do require more downtime for some classes to get their new levels, do you make sure to arrange for it?
And, if you're to the point of injecting level-up points into the campaign ahead of time, why use XP? At that point, you're doing a ton of math to reach a conclusion that you've already reached: when will the PCs level?
There's no one solution. Some games are very "sandbox" and so the GM wouldn't need to plan ahead of time to make downtime work. Other campaigns, like Adventure Paths, are so clearly planned out that using XP is not only unnecessary, but it can cause problems, and having the players level up at the wrong time can be deadly indeed.
So, to revisit the OP's query, I think it is really dependent on the campaign, the players, and the GM.
I did away with XP and just tell the players when they get a new level.
Yourself, Evil Lincoln and TheSideKick have all done away with XP which is quite interesting. I wonder if that goes hand in hand with being an experienced GM who is more confident in their homebrew systems.
I am still too new at GMing and quite happily rely on using the standard XP rules as my guide for leveling. I'm not confident I could put in place my own system for leveling that would be fair and balanced. Also, just following the standard process allows me to focus my creative interests in other areas of the game.
Yourself, Evil Lincoln and TheSideKick have all done away with XP which is quite interesting. I wonder if that goes hand in hand with being an experienced GM who is more confident in their homebrew systems.
I am still too new at GMing and quite happily rely on using the standard XP rules as my guide for leveling. I'm not confident I could put in place my own system for leveling that would be fair and balanced. Also, just following the standard process allows me to focus my creative interests in other areas of the game.
As said, it depends on the campaign.
If you're running an adventure path, I would recommend that even a novice GM should ditch XP and go with the level-up points instead. For APs, XP are sort of an unnecessary trap, since compared to level-up points they can only really ever put you off-track.
Furthermore, the APs are plot driven, so there's usually a plot point to accompany each level.
My advice for a homebrew campaign might be completely different — if the GM is dreaming up the campaign one or two weeks before each session, then XP might well be the superior system. For sandbox games, or for games where the "video-gamey" aspects are celebrating, XP might be too good to pass up. Players like the feeling of control they get from earning XP.
.
..
...
....
.....We run a 'ROCKY TRAINING MONTAGE'
(complete with lovingly-chosen sound tracks)
The quantity of time expressed can vary from a day, a week or longer.
Only the highlights are covered.
In more 'fast paced/constant pressure' adventures - the characters simply don't level until they can find 'quiet time' or an appropriate moment for leveling is introduced.
Example: After spending the evening at the Baron Barrow's table the party found themselves in a contemplative state, musing on their earlier (two) days of battle whilst sipping various quantaties of their favoured tipple.
The next day, after a sound sleep and a some vivid soul-lifting dreams, they awoke leveled.
::
Essentially, we don't like to make the method/setup for leveling 'mundane' by making it a standarised occasion/routine, preferring to work such events into the campaign/story in the hopes of keeping them 'special'.
*Ding*
Have you considered instead of the Rocky theme?
Greg
I favor leveling at appropriate points in the story. As such, for the most part I've done away with xp. The current campaign I am running, I am begrudgingly giving out xp due to a player request *coughitsmywifecough*. But, I'm sort of cheating. I'm giving out enough xp that they'll level when I feel like they should, regardless of whether that's the "correct" amount of xp.
Leveling always happens between sessions, due to time constraints. And honestly, would still happen between sessions if we had plenty of time. It just takes WAY too long to level in my experience, especially with the amount of options there are these days.
As far as character downtime...well...to be honest characters in my campaigns rarely HAVE downtime. That's 'cause most of my campaigns tend to go towards "the world is going to end unless you stop this" end of the spectrum, so downtime is usually a good way for Really Bad Things™ to start happening. My theory is that the characters are learning as they go. Martial characters are getting better at fighting, arcane characters are gaining more insight into magic, divine characters are earning more favor from their gods, etc.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I did away with XP and just tell the players when they get a new level.
Yourself, Evil Lincoln and TheSideKick have all done away with XP which is quite interesting. I wonder if that goes hand in hand with being an experienced GM who is more confident in their homebrew systems.
I am still too new at GMing and quite happily rely on using the standard XP rules as my guide for leveling. I'm not confident I could put in place my own system for leveling that would be fair and balanced. Also, just following the standard process allows me to focus my creative interests in other areas of the game.
Count me amongst those who have done away with XP entirely and simply award level-ups as the story warrants. I usually aim for a level-up every 3-4 sessions, but depending on how much story progression has occurred, I may adjust that up or down.
I have never viewed it as OMG I know how to use a XYZ better or "I just figured out how to cast ABC and put it in my spellbook" Rather it has always been my thought that as acharacter gains experience they simply get better at whatever it is they are doing and thus gain the bonus from a new level. This would mean that the get their bonuses to BAB, saves, skills, even feats (as most takes feats regarding something they currently do), passive abilities, ect.
In regard to new abilities, I have looked at that much like spell caster's meditation for their spells, where they gain a new awareness from their experience (or diety) and thus gain a new ability (such as wildshape for druids, or a paladin learning that he can imbue/summon a special mount).
Spells are a tricky thing but I always used the understanding that a spellbook actually containes more spells than you can cast and you just don't have the understanding to cast them. Another possibility is that you know that you don't the physical strength to cast it therefor you just don't "memorize/prepare" it. So its not that you suddenly get a new spell in your book but that the spell was always there and you just finaly gained enough insight (or strength) to understand how to cast it.
Getting a brand new skill generally requires downtime (usually a week) and I we would generally be restricted to 1 level in any new skill but once we had the skill, we could improve it as we wanted when we leveled again.
I usually declare level up at the end of session, preferably after the end of story arc (I track XP and just tell PCs when they level. Usually my way they actually end up leveling earlier than they would because I'll often see they're at like, 500 XP shy of leveling but the story arc is finished, so I'll throw in a "story arc bonus" and call it leveling time.)
Once they level, they just start the next session at the next level--all that practice and training is finally visibly showing in their abilities.
The only thing I require as far as training goes is if you know you plan on taking a new class, or putting ranks into a skill you normally don't use, I expect you to RP (briefly) what you're doing to "train" this ability over a period of time. So for example, a fighter who wants to multi wizard is going to have to take ample time to seek some instruction in magic, or pour over the other party wizard's spellbook, etc. If they spend the whole time hitting things with their sword and then suddenly say, "I'm a wizard," I won't allow it. (Mind, this has never actually happened.)
Actual in game example---party rogue wanted to go Shadowdancer. He planned this well ahead of time. He sought out a friendly NPC to teach him how to dance (because otherwise he wasn't going to be dancing much while dungeon crawling). He also early on started picking up on the trail of who in the area was capable of teaching the art of the Shadow-dance, a rare group of individuals he'd heard of in his travels. I just wove his quest into the greater adventure, and had him meet one of the masters of the Shadowdance not long before they'd level, and roleplayed out a little test for him to join the group and learn the secrets (I also had some stuff for the other PCs to do.
But once he gained the level, it just popped into place, because frankly--roleplaying that out more than that starts to get in the way of getting on with the campaign.
My group levels up at the end of game session as a group, mostly so that questions can be answered (Does spell x do such and such). Not so much because we feel like not leveling up mid-game doesn't make sense but it just makes booking keeping easier.
I did away with XP and just tell the players when they get a new level.
Yourself, Evil Lincoln and TheSideKick have all done away with XP which is quite interesting. I wonder if that goes hand in hand with being an experienced GM who is more confident in their homebrew systems.
Well it does go hand in hand with being a cheating bastard. I run Adventure Paths, and they have advancement tracks ("They start as level 4. By the time they sneak into the cheesecake factory, they should be level 5, and should reach level 6 before they face the Big Bad Evil Fatcats.") Instead of juggling optional encounters to make sure their actual level isn't too far off the recommendation, I just let them level at the mentioned milestones.
But beyond that, I say that doing away with XP makes it actually easier for the GM: Instead of making prediction about when they level-up and going with the predictions (and having to plan that they might lag behind because they skip too many opportunities - and the opposite, i.e. that they get too far ahead, is less likely but also possible), you know exactly what level they will be at what point, since you tell them when they gain a level. Takes a lot of guesswork out of the equation.
It also lets you set the exact pace at which the campaign progresses. Want to have one level-up per session, or one for every 2 sessions? Want to have a four-part adventure with 4 areas that are for levels 7,8,9 and 10, respectively?
Without XP, you just do it! You don't have to have to think about how many encounters (enemies, story milestones you want to reward, traps and other hazards, etc) you are going to need to have them level-up at the right time, or whether you are putting too much into an adventure and they'll run away from you with the XP.
Of course, it's still possible to overwhelm them with too many encounters when they can't rest in between to get their daily resources back, but you can easier see (and paint) the big picture.
And you can also easier adjust things if you and/or your players find that the level progression is too fast or too slow.
|
|
I'll typically have characters working on their next level during the present one. 'A-HA FIREBALL' doesn't jive with me, but 'finally figured it out' does. The only time I'll require training is when picking up a new class.
I'm another that gives out XP only at the end of segments, though, not sessions. Once we reach a 'new chapter' sort of a thing. Usually every other game or so.
I will also often tell the players exactly what accomplishment will give them the level, as soon as it makes sense to do so. For example, if the adventure opens with the home town being attacked by surprise, I will tell them "You will level when you find and defeat the architect of the attack."
You would be amazed at the change in tone this evokes for the game in general. With XP, players are anxious to defeat as many encounters as possible, sometimes taking avoidable encounters on so as not to lose out on XP. With this kind of plot-driven fiat, suddenly the PCs are considering subterfuge and assassination, and avoid encounters if it is logically beneficial.
I highly recommend this, at least for the APs.
Of course, sometimes, they take the scenic route or they need another level to really accomplish the goal... in those cases I might level them up in between for some lesser goal, but keep my promise when they eventually meet the original goal.
When players have gained enough experience for a new level, some GMs just let the players gain the level immediately. For me that just seems too unrealistic and 'gamey'.
What I do is let the players know they have gained a level once they have rested for 8 hours. This seems more realistic to me for a few reasons.
Firstly, it ties in well with other game mechanics such as replenishing ki or spells.
Secondly, when you sleep (in REM or non-REM - I can't remember which) apparently your brain sorts through the jumble of activity for that day to help you resolve and sort through issues in your subconscious. That's why people say "I'll sleep on it" when they have a major decision to make. I feel the revelations that come from this tie in with gaining experience and a level.
Thirdly, it is well known that body builders will sleep around 10 hours a day as the extra sleep helps their muscles to grow. Body building tears the muscle fibres up and sleeping repairs them so that these muscle fibres become stronger and bigger. This sort of ties in with gaining an attribute point every 4th level.
For all these reasons, I make my players rest 8 hours before gaining a level.
In the old D&D days, I remember for some classes you had to find and pay a trainer once you had the experience before you could gain the new level. This was expensive and could take days or weeks and seems a little heavy handed and disruptive to me. I also remember that Druids had to have some sort of battle to the death over a higher level Druid in their coven to gain a level in some sort of natural selection process which seems very harsh to me.
So I'm curious. What do all you GM's out there enforce as your means for allowing players to go up a level?
I use the Chrono Cross method of levelling. They level up when they beat a boss.
I agree with Evil Lincoln. I have given up on adding to even trying to relate realism with this game. The best time (for my group) to level up is at the end of a gaming session. Players have time to read up and email me their new character sheets with inproved skills, feats, and HP. This is USUALLY how it works, but sometimes I wait a little longer until they have bested one of my bosses or done something great. As long as your group is cool with what you are doing then that is what will work best...
If I am using the traditional experience point system then they get their points every time they lay down to sleep/and or make camp for whatever reason.
However when I run home brew adventures I tend to break the module into chapters. Chapter 1 expects the party to be 1st level. Chapter 2nd, 3rd level 3, and so on. In this case the players level up once they have completed the chapter.
Using this chapter based level system made it a lot easier to design adventures given I knew what everyone's level was. It also helped speed up my game play as the DM given I didn't have to keep a running tally on CRs killed and then do the experience point math in the middle of the game.
