For me, the 1st level should be done in 1 or max 2 sessions.
For 5E it's an introductory level really and you don't start feeling really different than other characters until you hit level 3ish, where class special abilities and class paths etc kick in.

It slows down a fair bit after level 4 yeah, but it's still moves along at a decent pace.
IMO 5E levels up much faster than say, ADnD and I quite like it as it gives people a chance to mess about with characters and race options.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827137Indeed.  Fits the long term games well.

Granted.  A short term or limited edition game, well ...

... but in that case, is character advancement anything to worry about at all?  If I'm doing a one-shot that'll last 4-5 sessions, why bother?

Excruciatingly slow, so all hope of grab bag, power-up, gimmies are but lost memories of a bygone era of naiveté. I've found the AD&D 2e DMG recommendation of 10 sessions minimum to the next level just about right. Works great for other games like In Nomine SJG where power should wear an even shorter leash.

Quote from: Opaopajr;827257Excruciatingly slow, so all hope of grab bag, power-up, gimmies are but lost memories of a bygone era of naiveté. I've found the AD&D 2e DMG recommendation of 10 sessions minimum to the next level just about right. Works great for other games like In Nomine SJG where power should wear an even shorter leash.

Ten sessions? I think LMoP gets them on track to level every other session.

Quote from: Omega;827169Found my old conversion graph.

Converting the AD&D EXP to 5e's 10% less got the following.

5e is positioned just about in the average between the fastest and slowest advancing classes. The Thief leaps ahead the fastest and the magic user the slowest.

From levels 1-5 AD&D and 5e advance about the same rate. From 5-10 5e actually advances slower. But then speeds up from 11 on. Closest to the Clerics rate. Not sure if that was intentional or accidental.

5e PCs generally need about 10% as much XP as 1e PCs to level, but monster awards are around 5-10 times as much, roughly, as in 1e, and certainly overall 5e XP gain is faster than 1/10 that of 1e, at worst it's about the same.

Quote from: Opaopajr;827257Excruciatingly slow, so all hope of grab bag, power-up, gimmies are but lost memories of a bygone era of naiveté. I've found the AD&D 2e DMG recommendation of 10 sessions minimum to the next level just about right.

I'd much prefer that rate of advancement to the fast track a lot of Players/GMs seem to favor. 'Leveling up' feels more signifigant when it's not happening every other session and slowing it down that way seems like it helps with a more be-here-now outlook vs. the constant hunger for whatever the next step in 'my build' is.

Quote from: Simlasa;827360I'd much prefer that rate of advancement to the fast track a lot of Players/GMs seem to favor. 'Leveling up' feels more signifigant when it's not happening every other session and slowing it down that way seems like it helps with a more be-here-now outlook vs. the constant hunger for whatever the next step in 'my build' is.

Yeah I hate it when players complain they didn't get enough experience for an encounter or accuse the GM of being stingy with experience.

Quote from: Ravenswing;827243Granted.  A short term or limited edition game, well ...

... but in that case, is character advancement anything to worry about at all?  If I'm doing a one-shot that'll last 4-5 sessions, why bother?

indeed.

Let's put this another way.  Maybe you don't have to run a system with slow growth for a short game.  But if you are hoping a game is going to do 50+ sessions, you'd better plan for a more granular advancement system.

Quote from: Simlasa;827360I'd much prefer that rate of advancement to the fast track a lot of Players/GMs seem to favor. 'Leveling up' feels more signifigant when it's not happening every other session and slowing it down that way seems like it helps with a more be-here-now outlook vs. the constant hunger for whatever the next step in 'my build' is.

I ran 3e Lost City of Barakus, which uses half-rate xp. This gives advancement about every 5 4-5 hour sessions, which I think works well for 3e (or PF), much better than the default xp rate of levelling every 2 sessions, maybe 3.

I don't think 4e would work well with levelling every 10 sessions, 4e advancement is pretty incremental and the system & narrative is designed for slowish but steady progress. But Name Level AD&D is certainly fine at that kind of rate, or slower really.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827365Let's put this another way.  Maybe you don't have to run a system with slow growth for a short game.  But if you are hoping a game is going to do 50+ sessions, you'd better plan for a more granular advancement system.

4e D&D and Classic Mentzer D&D are both designed for 100+ sessions campaigns (1-30 and 1-36), but neither uses the Runequest style of granular & lateral growth, they're designed to support long term vertical growth.

Quote from: Simlasa;827360I'd much prefer that rate of advancement to the fast track a lot of Players/GMs seem to favor. 'Leveling up' feels more significant when it's not happening every other session and slowing it down that way seems like it helps with a more be-here-now outlook vs. the constant hunger for whatever the next step in 'my build' is.

I agree, though I can't entirely fault players for wanting to advance their "build," much as I hate to use that term in reference to tabletop. To some extent it's simply the nature of the beast in level-based games, unfortunately. If I'm playing Earthdawn and I have a pile of unspent LP I can decide my character does a lot of studying and practicing in his downtime and put another rank in his melee weapons skill, f'rex, or he decided he wanted to learn some acrobatics and put a couple ranks in that. In D&D, if my rogue wants to improve his knowledge of history, he can read and study all he likes and nothing will change until he levels and can put another rank in the skill or his proficiency bonus increases.

Quote from: S'mon;8274654e D&D and Classic Mentzer D&D are both designed for 100+ sessions campaigns (1-30 and 1-36), but neither uses the Runequest style of granular & lateral growth, they're designed to support long term vertical growth.

Indeed.
I was incomplete and made the mistake that people were familiar with earlier posts.  My mistake, really.

Both of those games are designed for longer term, or try to.  This is perfectly true.  
They are not designed for my sort of game (My main live campaign is about to crest 160 sessions) where the pcs are still challenged by the mundane and political.  And after all that time, PCs still don't want to mess with dragons.

What I try and do is be clear to the players about what earns experience, and then allow players to choose their path through the sandbox as much as possible.

How fast or slow someone levels is not really important to me, but if players feel they have enough information to manage (for the most part) the risk-reward ratio (and leveling is part of the rewards) that they enjoy it seems to make everyone satisfied.  If players don't feel like they have information to make meaningful decisions about what they take on or don't take on, that might change the dynamic.

Quote from: EOTB;827501What I try and do is be clear to the players about what earns experience, and then allow players to choose their path through the sandbox as much as possible.

How fast or slow someone levels is not really important to me, but if players feel they have enough information to manage (for the most part) the risk-reward ratio (and leveling is part of the rewards) that they enjoy it seems to make everyone satisfied.  If players don't feel like they have information to make meaningful decisions about what they take on or don't take on, that might change the dynamic.

Yeah.
Might work for you.  I don't like it defined as loosely.  I prefer it when I can actually point to the decisions made, actions taken, and results.  

My players seem to like concretely earning their progress.  Crazy, I know.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827507Yeah.
Might work for you.  I don't like it defined as loosely.  I prefer it when I can actually point to the decisions made, actions taken, and results.  

My players seem to like concretely earning their progress.  Crazy, I know.

I don't define it loosely, I think we have a miscommunication.

My players know exactly how to earn experience.  They know that 1 GP of treasure taken back to home base = 1 XP (generally, possibly modified for challenge) and that monster XP will be awarded based on the values in the rulebooks.

So if they choose to chase a rumor about a vast treasure horde guarded by undead, they know that it could pay off handsomely or end in their deaths.  High chance of level advancement.

Or they could choose to end a threat of some humanoid tribe threatening a town.  Probably less risk, less treasure, and slower advancement.

But having made their own choice, they're not usually unhappy because everyone knows going in, in general, what the experience gained is likely to be from their choice.