Yeah but it's D&D.  Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.

Quote from: Haffrung;1055557Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.

I agree. I'm loving my Stonehell campaign's advancement rate; after exactly 1 year of real time & 18 months game time, the longest lasting PC Mordred Midwinter of Avalon has gone from 3rd (went 1st-3rd over a few previous/prequel sessions & weeks) to just hitting 8th level, another PC Bright Star the catfolk started at 1st in November 2017, ca 16 months of game-time, and has also reached 8th level. Most PCs play about every 1-2 weeks (closer to 1 week than 2) and game time normally matches real time; a character like Bright Star has developed competency and renown at something approaching a credible (for fantasy) rate. I find doing it this way, as EGG recommended back in the 1e DMG, has had huge benefits for stability and longevity of the game, and it gets ever richer over time as more 'stuff' accrues.

This megadungeon/sandbox play at real time = game time feels the exact opposite of AP play, which has its roots in stuff like the AD&D Slavers series.

Quote from: TJS;1055564Yeah but it's D&D.  Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.

I don't think it has always been part of D&D. If you use Gygax's admonition that game time should equal real time you'll typically get a year or so from 1st to 9th level, assuming weekly play, in pre-3e and (I'm finding) in 5e too.

One of the main problems is the more or less removal of level training downtime and healing downtime. Though that has fluctuated from edition to edition. Level training for example is not in BX but is in AD&D for example. It is present as an option in 5e. Whereas healing downtime is present in most editions but is vastly underplayed in 5e to the point of practically being gone since a long rest heals all.

Quote from: S'mon;1055545A lot of GMs don't like calculating XP, but IME most players very much enjoy being awarded it and often (not always) quite resent GM-fiat levelling. Certainly I find that games with XP tend to be longer lasting and have a stronger sense of earned progression. People who think levels are a 'content pacing mechanism' rather than a player reward for successful play tend to have no use for XP. So eg Pathfinder Adventure Paths with an expected & required content progression benefit less from XP than do sandbox games.

I've run leveling about every way it is possible to run it.  One of the few things that my groups have insisted upon is that we use XP.  (They are usually up for whatever I want to try, in mechanics.)  They don't care about the exact formula, as they trust me to work that out in a satisfactory way, but they want to be awarded XP for things that happen in the game, and then level from that.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1055480The real problem is that many treat the books as a source of validation and legitimacy, which is why trans characters were apparently unwelcome in D&D until the book explicitly said they were. So having a book which explicitly gives them permission to adopt the political beliefs they already hold and expel anyone who doesn't share those views is exactly what they're after.

But the corollary of that very idea is precisely what spoils it. Because it's an individual(s) in a mental state filled with such self-loathing that they're using a political ideology to reverse that self-loathing for their own ends and ultimately project it out onto everyone that does not think or believe as they do.

It's evidentiary that the RPG industry is now like this, as are: movies, comics, academia, business etc.

When the reality is - inclusivity is not really what they're after. They want implicit representation as a *norm* which they're *not normal* in the sense of actual cultural or numerical reality. BUT nothing in the game prevents anyone from doing that at their table. The problem is that they take the stance that by not implicitly granting this non-reality everyone is against them. When in reality it's in their head.

I'm no more insulted or "oppressed" that every Fantasy setting doesn't have Asian content in it. I can make my own if I should so choose. I think they can too. But having to tell someone what they have a right to do/not do at their table by implicit mandate is a little insulting to the intelligence of those that require it...

Isn't this the "bigotry of low-expectations" that Mike Gershon was talking about in the Post?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055601I've run leveling about every way it is possible to run it.  One of the few things that my groups have insisted upon is that we use XP.  (They are usually up for whatever I want to try, in mechanics.)  They don't care about the exact formula, as they trust me to work that out in a satisfactory way, but they want to be awarded XP for things that happen in the game, and then level from that.

I think most players don't dare tell the GM that, same as many or most won't dare tell him her 'no fudging' or 'no railroading' - but I think all three are the most common attitudes, probably by quite a big margin. It always seems to be GMs who say "My players don't care about XP/fudging/railroading" - I pretty well never see anyone say "As a player I demand to be fudged, railroaded, and levelled by fiat!"

Quote from: TJS;1055564Yeah but it's D&D.  Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.

Training rules (1 week per level), or encouraging other downtime activity gives D&D campaigns a more natural pace. The 1st-16th level story driven epic campaign where the PCs are on the clock to save the world right from the get-go has only recently become the norm in D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;1055608I think most players don't dare tell the GM that, same as many or most won't dare tell him her 'no fudging' or 'no railroading' - but I think all three are the most common attitudes, probably by quite a big margin. It always seems to be GMs who say "My players don't care about XP/fudging/railroading" - I pretty well never see anyone say "As a player I demand to be fudged, railroaded, and levelled by fiat!"

  Speaking as someone who's mostly been playing, I can take either XP or milestones--but I've grown to hate the bloated, overly fiddly XP tracking of D&D.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055617Speaking as someone who's mostly been playing, I can take either XP or milestones--but I've grown to hate the bloated, overly fiddly XP tracking of D&D.

I thought you were the guy who never played? >

Quote from: Haffrung;1055609Training rules (1 week per level), or encouraging other downtime activity gives D&D campaigns a more natural pace. The 1st-16th level story driven epic campaign where the PCs are on the clock to save the world right from the get-go has only recently become the norm in D&D.

Least that wasn't the case in Tyranny of Dragons since the PCs do alot of travel and anywhere from weeks to months may be spent just getting from point A to point B. Then back.

Havent had a chance to look it over yet but how much of a deadline were the PCs on in Princes of the Apocalypse? Curse of Strahd doesnt seem to have a deadline though?

Quote from: S'mon;1055620I thought you were the guy who never played? >

  Well, the game has been on hiatus for about a year.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1055039The RIGHT!!! The worthlesss fucks at Paizo think imaginary people who aren't at your table have RIGHTS to control YOUR game!!!

I told you all this would happen.

Speed of Leveling is a big question that needs to be answered by the table.

In general, I find players like fast leveling, even when it makes little sense in game time. I really liked the solution from 13th Age where you got a piece of a level (HP, Atk bonus, Spells, Skills) after each adventure but you generally had 4 adventures per level getting 1/4th of the next level's goodies each time. Thus, you didn't have to wait for the big jump.

I don't use XP anymore. I haven't had a player group interested in tracking it. They much prefer either X adventures per level scaling upward in adventures required, or a flat X adventures = next level.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1055804In general, I find players like fast leveling, even when it makes little sense in game time.

What do you mean by fast?

I have had players comment when running Pathfinder that 1-2 sessions it was taking per level (up to about 9th) was too fast.
I have had players comment when running 5e that the 8-10 sessions it was taking to get from 5th to 6th (when other PCs were ca 3rd level, ie playing lower level stuff) felt slow.

Not seen any complaints at around 5 sessions/level, though I think people would prefer to level up from 1st after about 3-4 sessions at most.