For games with levels like D&D, how frequently do you think PCs should advance, given typical play? HOw do you use the XP system to facilitate that, if at all (group XP, individual XP, level by GM fiat)?

I was just musing about how my 5e DMG suggests PCs should level up every 2-3 sessions, which seems very fast to me. I ran a Pathfinder AP (Curse of the Crimson Throne, converted) using Pathfinder Medium Track XP (party xp), the campaign went from level 2 to level 14, and for most of it the PCs were levelling up every 2 sessions on average, about 8 hours of play. This meant their power was doubling about every 4 sessions; I felt this rate really harmed the game, pushing the PCs up into the double digit levels where the system really breaks down. With my 5e tabletop 'Runelords of the Shattered Star' game (mashing up the Paizo APs Shattered Star & Rise of the Runelords) I'm aiming for a level-up rate about once per 5 sessions, or about 20 hours of play, about half the advertised rate.  I think this should work well for long term play; I would like this campaign to run maybe 4 years, about 90 sessions or so, at 5 sessions/level that should take the PCs to 20th, though I'm fine if they cap out lower or we play awhile using the Epic Boon rules in the DMG. The default 5e system seems to support this sort of progression rate ok just by using mostly lower level monsters, using individual xp, and not being too generous on bonus XP; currently the PCs are level 5 after 15 sessions, with rapid progression to 3rd then slow thereafter.

Both those campaigns (Crimson Throne & Shattered Star) run/ran fortnightly. My recently resumed 4e D&D Loudwater campaign runs fortnightly, evening sessions so shorter, 3 hours or so, and the PCs (using party xp) have levelled up about every 4 sessions/12 hours for a long time - currently just hit level 27 after 96 sessions. 4e is so slow that we only get 1 fight per session and I have to give a good deal of bonus XP to hit that rate; it's still slower than the recommended 1 level per 10 hours of play, or 2.5 typical sessions - same recommendation as 5e.

I also have a couple weekly games:
The Ghinarian Hills is an online text-chat 5e sword & sorcery themed game with individual xp, I use standard monster xp and a fair bit of xp from other sources. After 74 sessions the highest level PC is 15th, so a bit over 5 sessions to level. The other PCs are in the 12-13 range. This rate works pretty well for online game, maybe a bit fast.
Finally there's my weekly tabletop Classic D&D Karameikos campaign. After around 13 months of weekly play the PCs are in the 8-11 level range, though the highest couple had been played previously in an earlier campaign and came in higher. A recently retired Thief PC who'd played from the start at 1st level hit 10th level. Typical advancement rate is about 1 level per 5 sessions, which is the recommended rate in the Rules Cyclopedia. I find this works well; I tend to get this through bonus XP rather than huge piles of treasure, though.

Overall I'm finding in my games that about 1 level per 5 sessions seems to work best, which fits with the norms in older games (eg Gygax recommended that a year of weekly 1e AD&D play should get a successful PC from 1st to 9th), a bit quicker with 4e. But this is about half the default rate recommended by the GM guidance in 3e/PF, 4e and 5e, which all seem to recommend 2-3 sessions to level and 20 sessions in a year of weekly play.   What do you find? What works best for you?

It's a model that assumes going in: "X and Out."  You're going to stop playing these characters, the campaign will end.  You fit in the entire character arc of 1-20 inside of a school year and then you're done.  That's a stated 5e design goal.  If you want something other than that, you'll obviously have to adjust accordingly.

I much prefer a skill-based system these days instead of class/level, so that kind of takes care of advancement, because in a skill-system with enough granularity, minor advancement can occur every session.

Even if you're going with Class/Level though, remember characters also can advance the same way Traveller characters do - by gearing up not leveling up, and there's always advancement by actually accomplishing goals, gaining contacts, fame and glory.  If the PCs are kicking ass, have the world treat them like they're kicking ass.  If PCs have gold to party like rockstars and plenty of wanton wenches and/or likely lads to spend it on, then they might not care that nothing went *DING*.

For D&D these days I'd be much more likely to just use AD&D experience or toss it out entirely and do more of a time-based leveling like Dan was suggesting a while ago.

First, I only run OD&D.

Second, I stick with Gold=XP because it nicely slows down progression without an absolute cap.

Given that, I aim for player characters hitting 2nd level after about 4 sessions, 3rd in about six more, and after that, it should be eight to ten sessions per level.

Never! Pick a starting level for your campaign. If any of the PCs live long enough to level up, you are being too soft on them.

As a general rule of thumb I like to see characters level up every 1-2 adventures. A typical adventure taking 2-4 sessions to play out. Faster at lower levels, then slowing down.

I like to run 3-5 sessions for the lower levels, 5-7 for middlish levels and 7-10+ higher levels.

So if we played every week for a year, you'd come out somewhere between level 6 or 7. Nowhere near level 20, but shit, you'd have some great stories. And after the second year of similar play, you'd be in lord/name level territory.

20th would probably take a few more years. So a half decade?

Characters should level up often enough to keep the players interested. Too long without advancement and they'll start feeling "stuck."

How often is "often enough"?  If they're starting to get frustrated, you might want to speed things up just a little.

Every adventure.  How long an "adventure" lasts depends on you and your crew.

I'm good with 1 level per 2-3 sessions.

Heck, I'm equally good with 1 level per session for short campaigns.

Why? Leveling doesn't make sense to me, nor does any of the other forms of character advancement. It's a game thing. Batman, Superman and Sherlock Holmes don't really change in power / ability / stats / whatever, but its a really great idea for games.

I don't see why leveling should slow down either. Is it realistic? Realism is a weird concern for games about medieval elves using magic to fight demons.

Considering how many campaigns tank before mid-level, there's no reason to slow down the pace.

BTW, there is also the 13th Age method where you partially level after each adventure, and fully level every 4 adventures. I found that worked excellently in actual play. Everybody felt their PC was always getting better in a smooth ride upward.

I like the older versions of D&D, usually quick to level in the beginning, then flattening out; which I find levels 5-9 to be more fun as far as challenges and such.

I wing it. Roughly one level per 1-3 adventures or scenarios, depends on the length of each adventure. Some might take a single session to complete, others 3-5 sessions. It's a general "feeling" based on judging things like "Have the PCs killed enough foes? Have they solved some decent puzzles? Have they dealt with enough NPCs? Have they solved enough mysteries? Have they cleared the dungeon?" Yes, no, maybe?

But then I tend to prefer point based systems where one can hand out 2-4 XP per session anyway. But for AD&D campaigns the above applies.

Quote from: S'mon;894927Overall I'm finding in my games that about 1 level per 5 sessions seems to work best, which fits with the norms in older games (eg Gygax recommended that a year of weekly 1e AD&D play should get a successful PC from 1st to 9th), a bit quicker with 4e. But this is about half the default rate recommended by the GM guidance in 3e/PF, 4e and 5e, which all seem to recommend 2-3 sessions to level and 20 sessions in a year of weekly play.   What do you find? What works best for you?

Well, advancement rate is often baked into the game system, tied to combat difficulty. AD&D 1e for instance, at least at start, mostly has fairly wussy monsters (a carry over from OD&D). A Balrog/Balor had 8+8 hit dice, at most 72 hit points. A huge, ancient dragon would have 11 hit dice and 88 hit points. Those were about as tough as monsters got, early in, yet a 9th level party could take them out with relative ease. So advancement in 1e needed to be slow-ish, otherwise you would simply outpace the power level of most monsters.

In 2e, many of the monsters were beefed up. Balors now had 13 HD. Red Dragons now had 15 Hit Dice (and used d12, not d8), So the pace of advancement could be faster.

BECMI took a similar tack (going up to 36 levels). Didn't have demons until the Immortals set (and then they are really powerful, Immortal level), but Dragons had up to 22 hit dice. But you probably wouldn't face one until 20th level.

3e (and I guess later editions) really made monsters tougher (and also all characters kept gaining hit dice after 9th-10th level, not just weird ones like the Assassin, Bard, and Monk). Balors now had 20 hit dice and Dragons a ridiculous amount. So advancement needs to be quicker on those systems.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;894970First, I only run OD&D.

Second, I stick with Gold=XP because it nicely slows down progression without an absolute cap.

Given that, I aim for player characters hitting 2nd level after about 4 sessions, 3rd in about six more, and after that, it should be eight to ten sessions per level.

How many hours long are your sessions typically?

Good question.
Personally I am used to a relatively quick early levelling up. And then things start to slow down after a certain threshold.
5e still has that. In fact it mirrors the advancement curve of AD&D at about the median. But with about one or two zeros knocked off the AD&D progression.

I do not ascribe to "levels per session" as its too variable and deceptive a measure. A session could be wall-to-wall combat or treasure grabbing with EXP galore. Or a session could be the PCs spending the whole time wandering town, talking to people or political intrigues, investigations, or research, etc.

The PCs level at the speed of... whatever. That might mean big jumps across a series of session and then a point where no one levels up at all for one or more sessions.

example: going through the whole Tyranny of Dragons series took about a year and averaging maybee a session every week and a half. We all hit level 18-20 by the end. The early levels went by at about a rate of a level every session and a half till level 5. Then slowed down. Then all but stopped at three or four points before speeding up again. DMing it too was about the same thing, only a little slower as that group avoids as many combats as they can.

Quote from: Spinachcat;895033Leveling doesn't make sense to me, nor does any of the other forms of character advancement. It's a game thing. Batman, Superman and Sherlock Holmes don't really change in power / ability / stats / whatever, but its a really great idea for games.

You live, you acquire things.  Money, experience, friends, enemies, scars, etc...  Some form of advancement is the most verisimilar mechanic there is.  Why would you compare everything to Batman, Supers are probably the most absurdist genre that exists.  Conan from a God in the Bowl is not the exact same Conan in Hour of the Dragon.  Frodo in the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring is not the same Frodo that boards the ship in Return of the King.

Quote from: Spinachcat;895033I don't see why leveling should slow down either. Is it realistic? Realism is a weird concern for games about medieval elves using magic to fight demons.

Eh, that's always been a weird argument too.  Just because a world has dragons doesn't mean when I'm hungry I can grab a hamster and squeeze it to shoot Cotton Candy out of it's asshole.  Swords cut, they don't tickle; human genitalia are in the front, not the back; we breathe air and drown in water, not the other way around; and becoming the greatest surgeon in the world takes more time then graduating Med School.  It's the way everything works, it's axiomatic.  Now can magic overcome this? Sure, so can technology, but that's all part of the Natural Laws of the particular setting.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;895033Considering how many campaigns tank before mid-level, there's no reason to slow down the pace.

Why bet against yourself and go for the lowest expectations?  Who cares if you never get to high-level or even mid-level?  Some of the most fun sessions I've had were in campaigns that folded.  I still remember them fondly.

Quote from: Spinachcat;895033BTW, there is also the 13th Age method where you partially level after each adventure, and fully level every 4 adventures. I found that worked excellently in actual play. Everybody felt their PC was always getting better in a smooth ride upward.

Tying it to "adventures" is artifically aware of the framework of play (of course, I'd expect nothing less from 13th Age ).  If you're going to do something like that, I'd tie it to time played or time in game.  Otherwise you run the risk of players picking the shortest possible "adventure" because that is the best Return on Investment.

I prefer the "don't think about it, you're not getting there anytime soon" method. So far the AD&D 2e DMG recommendation of 'at least 10 sessions minimum' (as in any excess XP over 1/10th from current lvl to next lvl washes away) has been my favorite. I prefer the 'little to none improvement' rates of IN SJG and other games even more. Put the interaction with the gameworld first, who cares about the system power-ups and widgets?

I get bored with skyrocketing power, in both level and skill based games. I can craft character builds at home... I believe masturbating in public is normally in bad form, (unless it's in the proper adult entertainment district).

Quote from: JeremyR;895104Well, advancement rate is often baked into the game system, tied to combat difficulty. AD&D 1e for instance, at least at start, mostly has fairly wussy monsters (a carry over from OD&D). A Balrog/Balor had 8+8 hit dice, at most 72 hit points. A huge, ancient dragon would have 11 hit dice and 88 hit points. Those were about as tough as monsters got, early in, yet a 9th level party could take them out with relative ease. So advancement in 1e needed to be slow-ish, otherwise you would simply outpace the power level of most monsters.

In 2e, many of the monsters were beefed up. Balors now had 13 HD. Red Dragons now had 15 Hit Dice (and used d12, not d8), So the pace of advancement could be faster.

BECMI took a similar tack (going up to 36 levels). Didn't have demons until the Immortals set (and then they are really powerful, Immortal level), but Dragons had up to 22 hit dice. But you probably wouldn't face one until 20th level.

3e (and I guess later editions) really made monsters tougher (and also all characters kept gaining hit dice after 9th-10th level, not just weird ones like the Assassin, Bard, and Monk). Balors now had 20 hit dice and Dragons a ridiculous amount. So advancement needs to be quicker on those systems.

I think this explains why AD&D has advancement tend to top out at 9th, and apparently aimed for a 1-9 weekly campaign to take (at least) a year, where 3e aimed for 1-20 in a year, so that makes sense - the top level 3e monsters are designed to fight 20th level PCs where the top level 1e monsters are designed to fight 9th level PCs.

An 88 hp red dragon doing 88 fire damage on a breath attack remains pretty scary at least in pre-UA 1e, though.