# How often should PCs level up?



## S'mon (Apr 30, 2016)

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 levels in about a year of weekly play. What do you find? What works best for you?

Edit: I posted in 'General D&D Discussion' since this is not edition specific, but it occurs to me that poll result may be biased by this also being ENW's "old school/non-5e/non-PF" forum. Hopefully there'll be a mix of 3e, 4e and old school people reading.


----------



## Dandu (Apr 30, 2016)

I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.


----------



## delericho (Apr 30, 2016)

It depends on the edition, and the campaign, and personal tastes, and a bunch of other factors. But I've found once every three sessions (regardless of session length) to be about right.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 30, 2016)

Dandu said:


> I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.




Me too, generally (a big political achievement should get decent XP IMO) - but think of it more as how many levels you'd expect the PCs to advance in 20 sessions, say.


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket (Apr 30, 2016)

I scraped the concept of XP a while ago while DMing 4e. Until a few years back I had a 4e campaign where I wrote down every single XP the group got from encounters, quests, skill challenges etc. When they were at a point in the story where I wanted them to fight against, let's say, Zombie hulks I realized they haven't been gaining enough XP in order to level up and the episode with the higher level zombies would have been too tough. So I tried to squeeze in some additional fights to let the group earn their XP. It felt very forced and the additional fights/encounters were needlessly hindering the party to move the story forward. 
Now I just listen to my party and discern the right time to allow them to level up. Sometimes they wait 5 sessions for a level up, sometimes only 2. It also depends heavily on the story side of things.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 30, 2016)

The Fighter-Cricket said:


> Now I just listen to my party and discern the right time to allow them to level up. Sometimes they wait 5 sessions for a level up, sometimes only 2. It also depends heavily on the story side of things.




If it's 2-5 sessions per level about even distribution then you should be averaging around 3.5/level over time.
BTW 4e is designed so you can level up or level down your zombie hulks to make a 
decent encounter.


----------



## The Fighter-Cricket (Apr 30, 2016)

S'mon said:


> BTW 4e is designed so you can level up or level down your zombie hulks to make a
> decent encounter.




Yes, that is one of many things I learned back then when I was figuring out 4e.   It falls right into the same time when I realized that I don't have to be so strict about XP and don't have to worry so much about leveling and the proper amount of fights/encounters.

And sure: my average should be 3.5 sessions per level, you're right.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 30, 2016)

For me it depends on the pacing of the game, and the theme of the game.  There will be times when leveling should be really fast (once per session), and times when it should be really slow (once every 8-10 sessions.  Most leveling happens somewhere in the middle (3-6) sessions.

I like real quick progression at levels 1-4 (1-2 sessions per level).  Moderate and long progressions as the meat of the game is happening at levels 5-15 (3-10 sessions), and back to real fast progressions for the end cap at levels 16-20+ (1-2 sessions per level.

Mostly it depends on the particular campaign.  I like that 4e was so adjustable and still allowed the DM to keep a "danger zone" for the characters no matter the level.


----------



## ccs (Apr 30, 2016)

The last PF game I ran I used the milestone method.  Each AP has a chart in the front of the book that tells you the party should be x lv going into the next section.  So I just used that & never counted a single point.

For our current Sunday 5e game I'm (currently) setting the advancement rate at # of sessions = to current lv.
The first few levels will zip by.
If I stick to this though the later lvs will take forever as we only play every other week.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 30, 2016)

100 4 hour sessions = 400 hours / 9 levels (highest a PC has obtained) = 45 hour, or every 10-12 sessions (every 5-6 if you have 8 hour sessions).

I actually hold to the belief that the time to level up should slow down as you get higher in level.  I have no problem level up a 1st level character after 4 sessions or so, but going from 10th to 11th might take 25 sessions or so.  This is partly because the pace of challenge relative to the level slows down as you increase in level, and partly owing to the fact that as you move into higher levels more and more of your characters adventuring time is related to things like politics, where the XP is earned more solely (in both game time and real time) than in combat.

In general, the pace of leveling should be such that a player gets an opportunity to explore the new abilities of his character before gaining additional abilities.  That's part of the reason I think that in general, characters should get some tangible new ability every level - a new feat, a new spell, a new class ability, an ability score boost, an extra attack, a more reliable skill usage, or whatever.  I can remember being in games as a player where my PC spellcaster leveled up so fast, I never got a chance to cast my new spell slots or spells before hitting the next level. 

Another aspect of the ideal pace of leveling is that a high level character should have a sense of scale and history.   A character should never reach 10th level and look back and say, "Do you remember when we were 1st level... Oh wait a minute, in game that was last week."   A high level character should have the sense that a huge amount of living has transpired, and a lengthy series of adventures is now behind them, and that indeed something significant has been obtained.

There are other good reasons for adopting a slow pace of leveling.  For example, D&D in every edition can be observed to have a 'sweet spot'.   That's true of most other systems as well.  There is no good reason for quickly leveling out of your system's sweet spot.  If you find high level play a headache, why were you in such a hurry to get here?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (May 5, 2016)

.


----------



## Janx (May 5, 2016)

I think everybody hit good points.  As Celebrim noted, maybe it should take longer to get to the next level, than it did for the last level.

I think the best answer should consider the pacing the GM wants to have, the time between sessions, duration of play, and elapsed in-game time.

A group that only plays 6 hours once a month should probably level up faster than a group that plays once a week for 6 hours.  That's not intuitive.  The reason for it is that the bigger the real-time gap in getting to play will increase the perception of lack of progress, and leveling up is the most obvious sign of progress in the game.

That's not to say that if Gygax suggested you can reach level 10 in a year, that if your group only plays twice a year (ex. holiday gatherings), you should gain 5 levels right then and there.  But you should probably consider making sure the PCs level up once a year or per session in that extreme case.

The weekly players should slow the pace down.  Getting to level 4 in a months' real time might be a tad bit fast, considering where you'll be in a year's time at that pace.

At the monthly rate or slower, I think there's a stronger case for advancing a level every session (or 2 sessions), just to reinforce the signal that progress is being made.  It will help keep those interested in the numbers to see there's a payoff.  You can imagine that after a year's worth of playing at 5 games per level, only being Level 2 is a bit pokey to a good many players.  Whereas to the once a week crowd, that's a level every other month or so.  You've got to keep the real-time clock in mind as it affects player perception.

I'd also raise the point that in-game, you need to run the clock as well.  If you played D&D like the TV show 24, where each session followed onto the last with no natural break, with a fast leveling, a PC could go from peon to level 20 in a week's worth of in-game time.  That's nuts, in my opinion.

So a GM should make sure some natural time elapses between sessions, days, weeks, even months as seasons change, wounds need to heal, etc.  Set some basic guideline that maybe a week should go by in-game before the PCs should level up.  Not a hard rule, more of a guideline that where possible, you should allow for time to go by in a non-intrusive or harmful way.  At the simplest, unlike 24, don't make every moment be critical to not be wasted so that players aren't trying to rush to the next thing they have to do before time runs out.

Lastly, my first item on the list of criteria was GM's preference for pacing.  Which means pick what you want, but I feel it should be more nuanced than that.  I wouldn't be happy if the GM just decided "now you level up", or handed out "500 XP" because he know's that's half of what I need to Level 2.  Personally, I look at the pacing I'd like to have, say 2-3 games per level.  I then look at how much XP that would be.  I then look at the mechanics of how I determine XP (say 300 times CR divided by number of players).  I look at the amount of encounters I have and I see if that would align with the goal.  If not, I adjust the formula I use for calculating XP.  Probably a bit of work, but on the other hand, if the PCs lose all the encounters, the math gets them less XP which means the slower than expected rate is their fault.  They get my expected XP schedule because they succeeded on earning the XP doing things I give XP for.  That might also mean getting more than I expected for XP because they did more things worth XP.

I don't know that every GM wants to do all that forward and backward math, but I like having a system, and knowing if that system will meet the pace I'd like to have.    That's better than desiring 2-3 levels per session, and getting 1 level per session because I didn't understand how the system works in practice.


If I had to make a list of guidelines I'd use:
never level up more than once per session (or 8 hour period if it's a marathon weekend session).
Require at least a week in-game time to elapse between level ups
Level up at least once per year, if not 3 months if you are infrequently playing
don't level up faster than once per month

I might consider a metric of # sessions per level = next level divided 2, rounded up.  

So it only takes one session to get to level 2, 2 sessions for level 3 and 4.  It will take 10 sessions to get to level 20 (from level 19).

Still to fast for some, but you can see where the idea could be tweaked to reach a desired preference and reflect Celebrim's idea that higher levels take longer.


----------



## S'mon (May 6, 2016)

Janx said:


> At the monthly rate or slower, I think there's a stronger case for advancing a level every session (or 2 sessions), just to reinforce the signal that progress is being made.  It will help keep those interested in the numbers to see there's a payoff.  You can imagine that after a year's worth of playing at 5 games per level, only being Level 2 is a bit pokey to a good many players.  Whereas to the once a week crowd, that's a level every other month or so.  You've got to keep the real-time clock in mind as it affects player perception.




Yes, I recently played in a 5e campaign with up to 3 months between sessions (nominally monthly) and levelling up about every 3 sessions there felt rather too slow, where it would have been fine with fortnightly play.


----------



## Psikerlord# (May 6, 2016)

Janx said:


> I think everybody hit good points.  As Celebrim noted, maybe it should take longer to get to the next level, than it did for the last level.
> 
> I think the best answer should consider the pacing the GM wants to have, the time between sessions, duration of play, and elapsed in-game time.
> 
> ...




For me personally it depends on real life time, not so much game time. Frequency of play sessions matters most to me - I want to see progress being made. 

When we played once every month or six weeks, for 6 - 10 hours at a time, we leveled about once a session or every second session, and that felt about right. Now that we mostly play weekly (online for 2 hours), we still level about every four to six sessions (so, again, about a month or six weeks in real time). So that seems to me the time frame that suits us. 

If I was leveling only every 3 or 4 months or more, it would be way too slow for me. 

Having said all that - I REALLY like the incremental advancement rules from 13th Age - we use those in our current games every 2 sessions or so (being quick 2 hr sessions). This very much helps keep that feeling of progress front and centre.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2016)

Update

My weekly Classic D&D Karameikos game is around 5 sessions to level, but I've pretty much gone over to arbitrary XP at this stage (PCs are 9th-14th level) so unsurprising.

My fortnightly 4e Loudwater game ended recently with the PCs at level 29 after 103 sessions, most of the campaign having been 4 sessions/level.

My 5e Runelords/Shattered Star game the PCs are level 7 after 25 sessions, highest PC nearly 8th. Using the rules as written it seems to be 5 sessions/level 5-10 but I'm a bit concerned the XP rules will take it to 3/level from 11th and that might be too quick.

My 5e online Wilderlands game, highest PC is 16th after 81 sessions, a session being about half a tabletop session.

I'm happy enough with all these rates, the one I wasn't happy with was Pathfinder Crimson Throne and seeing PCs level every couple sessions.


----------



## Sunseeker (Sep 24, 2016)

I have typically found that once a month is a good rate, this speaking from an average of 3 sessions a month, average 6 hours per session.  I usually use a milestone system, because I have typically strong groups who I have to run higher-XP challenges for, which tends to increase the rate of leveling to almost once per 2 sessions and that is way too fast for me.


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 24, 2016)

Why isn't "adventure completion" one of the options?


Dandu said:


> I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.



Ouch.  That hurts.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 24, 2016)

Can't answer because the poll doesn't include the correct answer, namely, "There is no "should" for leveling up."

When you have the XP, you level up. If you an do that in 2 sessions? Kudos! If it takes you five months of games? That's all good too.

There is no and absolutely should be NO expectations of levels after "X" sessions or "hours of game time" or any other ridiculous, meaningless, completely arbitrary count/number when a player becomes "due" a level.

Get the XP. Level up.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 25, 2016)

I require PCs to not only acquire enough XP, but also to complete the required training in order to gain levels. This takes one or two weeks of game-time in my campaigns.


----------



## joshinminn (Sep 25, 2016)

The DM ruining the 5e campaign I'm playing in has a unique way of having us level. If you attend and survive a session, you get 1 XP. Once your total XP equals your current level number (i.e., 2 XP at level two, 3 XP at level three), you level up. We play twice a month. So the first few levels went pretty quickly, but nope that we're around five and six, it takes a few months. Might get tedious soon, but it's working pretty well now. 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sunseeker (Sep 27, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> Can't answer because the poll doesn't include the correct answer, namely, "There is no "should" for leveling up."
> 
> When you have the XP, you level up. If you an do that in 2 sessions? Kudos! If it takes you five months of games? That's all good too.
> 
> ...




Well that's a completely meaningless, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who _don't even use xp_.


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2016)

Dandu said:


> I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.




I usually give milestone XP instead of encounter XP.  So building political alliances (to advance the story) will often bring more than combat unless that's specifically directed.

I also give out a pool for good RP in sessions outside everything else.  I let players reward each other with poker chips.  Shares of a pool, so they can't just inflate each other.


----------



## Blue (Sep 27, 2016)

When I DM, I like low levels to go faster - start people with a taste of weakness so they can appreciate when they go up, but get them to a point where they can enjoy more options and toys as well as allow me a wide range of challenges to throw at them.  Part of that is that I cut my teeth on AD&D and AD&D 2nd and remember spending a literal year of weekly 12 hour sessions to get a level once we were in the teens.

Hmm, for my 13th Age game, to translate it to 5e terms, is about 4 levels per RL year, which is about 20ish 3-3.5 hour sessions.  So I guess that's 5 sessions per level.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 27, 2016)

shidaku said:


> Well that's a completely meaningless, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who _don't even use xp_.




Which is a completely meanings, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who "want to level up."


----------



## Sunseeker (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> Which is a completely meanings, ridiculous, arbitrary statement for the many people who "want to level up."




I wager it's not, given that milestones are a well-used way of leveling up.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 28, 2016)

shidaku said:


> I wager it's not, given that milestones are a well-used way of leveling up.




As are XP. With a whole lot more legacy behind them (for people that care about such things).

"Milestones" are used, of course. That is an indisputable statement. Whether or not they are "well-used" (or used well, for that matter), is a matter of preference and personal experience.

So what makes my statement any more "meaningless," "ridiculous" or "arbitrary" than yours?


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 28, 2016)

I personally find milestones meaningless, ridiculous, and arbitrary. You level up after playing 1 session? 2? This is, of course, achieved simply by having a character in the game...So, why do players even need to show up? Here's my character sheet, tell me when we've "won."

We had 5 sessions! Everybody go up another level! The heroes thwarted the evil overlord! You [or your character] didn't actually DO anything or even have to be there. But just take a level, so we keep everybody advancing together. It's nonsense, completely voids player agency. Anyone concerned with player choices or player knowledge/system mastery or how their PC's impact the game/events in the game world (and any combinations thereof), would want to avoid "milestone" games like the plague, as I see it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> As are XP. With a whole lot more legacy behind them (for people that care about such things).
> 
> "Milestones" are used, of course. That is an indisputable statement. Whether or not they are "well-used" (or used well, for that matter), is a matter of preference and personal experience.
> 
> So what makes my statement any more "meaningless," "ridiculous" or "arbitrary" than yours?




Because you prephased it by assaulting all ideas to the contrary.  The fact that you made a secondary, ranty post repeating your assault on those ideas really just demonstrates my point.

I really don't understand why you came in here to do nothing but make combative posts.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 28, 2016)

I didn't. The question was "How often should PCs level up."

To that, I responded. My answer, my preference, my opinion on the topic at hand.

I was done in this thread...nothing else, really, to say on the matter.

Until, then, you wanted/decided to take exception to it and assert that your way of playing is somehow "better" or more acceptable than mine. Mine being, to quote you yet again, "a meaningless, ridiculous, [and] arbitrary statement."

So...who came here to be "combative?"


----------



## Sunseeker (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> I didn't. The question was "How often should PCs level up."
> 
> To that, I responded. My answer, my preference, my opinion on the topic at hand.
> 
> ...




I used those words, because they are _your _words, in case you forgot, emphasis mine:


steeldragons said:


> There is no and absolutely should be NO expectations of levels after "X" sessions or "hours of game time" or any other *ridiculous, meaningless, completely arbitrary* count/number when a player becomes "due" a level.
> 
> Get the XP. Level up.




You could have stated that last part without any commentary on alternative means of leveling, without your clearly biased opinion on those alternatives, indeed without any commentary at all.

If you feel that the only way a character should level is "by getting the XP" then all your post really needed to say was "When they have gained enough XP to level."  But as the post below demonstrates, that wasn't your real goal, otherwise the followup post would have been unnecessary.  You didn't want to make your sentiments known about how often _you_ think players should level, you wanted to make an attack on how often other _other_ people who hold different opinions than you are wrong.



steeldragons said:


> I personally find milestones meaningless, ridiculous, and arbitrary. You level up after playing 1 session? 2? This is, of course, achieved simply by having a character in the game...So, why do players even need to show up? Here's my character sheet, tell me when we've "won."
> 
> We had 5 sessions! Everybody go up another level! The heroes thwarted the evil overlord! You [or your character] didn't actually DO anything or even have to be there. But just take a level, so we keep everybody advancing together. It's nonsense, completely voids player agency. Anyone concerned with player choices or player knowledge/system mastery or how their PC's impact the game/events in the game world (and any combinations thereof), would want to avoid "milestone" games like the plague, as I see it.




If I seem a little personally incensed, I am, because I don't particularly like XP but you don't see me trashing it here, but I have been on the receiving end of people like you for years. XP Master Race types.  Who think that they are so right because of history, because of experience in gaming, because *reasons* that it entitles them to berate, deride and denigrate those who do not agree with them.

And no, your signature does not give you a free pass to shitpost.  IMO is not a shield from social repercussions.  Your goal here is to incite, inflame and insult.  It is harassment and little more than pseudo-intellectual trolling.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> So...who came here to be "combative?"





Right now, you are being very confrontational, combative, and focused on making this discussion personal - none of which passes muster.  Your answer, as stated, was pretty dismissive and condescending.  

And, "But he did something wrong first!" is an excuse children try to use in a schoolyard.  You are always responsible for your own behavior, no matter what the other person says or does.  If you thought his statements were that problematic, you should have reported them, but you didn't.  You do not have license to get in people's faces and make matters worse.

I suggest each of you get your perspectives in order, and leave each other alone going forward.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 28, 2016)

Well, since you're personally incensed from your own personal experiences and, naturally, that's somehow my fault/responsibility to coddle, as every confrontation I end up with on this site seems to be. 

When it is the other person telling me what my "goal" here was, and that MY posts should be made without any opinion or commentary [that they don't like]...but theirs is somehow sacrosanct...Right. In the wrong again. What a shock.

Apologies I don't find it appropriate to hit the ignore or report button on a moment's notice. I'll remedy that now. Shouldn't be cause for upset to you or your preferences anymore shidaku. Congrats.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> Can't answer because the poll doesn't include the correct answer, namely, "There is no "should" for leveling up."
> 
> When you have the XP, you level up. If you an do that in 2 sessions? Kudos! If it takes you five months of games? That's all good too.
> 
> ...




IME even in a By the Book game the GM has a lot of control over XP awards and thus rate of advancement. I remember an online Basic D&D game where my PC returned from a successful dungeon delve, several hours long, having defeated several fearsome foes, and gained a whopping 23 XP - where a level needed ca 2000 and PCs died at 0 hp. I didn't feel as a player that I had much ability to increase the rate of XP gain. Maybe there was 1000gp gem somewhere in that dungeon, but I doubt it.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> I personally find milestones meaningless, ridiculous, and arbitrary. You level up after playing 1 session? 2? This is, of course, achieved simply by having a character in the game...So, why do players even need to show up? Here's my character sheet, tell me when we've "won."
> 
> We had 5 sessions! Everybody go up another level! The heroes thwarted the evil overlord! You [or your character] didn't actually DO anything or even have to be there. But just take a level, so we keep everybody advancing together. It's nonsense, completely voids player agency. Anyone concerned with player choices or player knowledge/system mastery or how their PC's impact the game/events in the game world (and any combinations thereof), would want to avoid "milestone" games like the plague, as I see it.




Are you trolling? A milestone is an in-game accomplishment by the PCs. Defeat the BBEG, finish the dngeon level, that sort of thing.


----------



## Lwaxy (Sep 28, 2016)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding about what milestones are. Milestones are usually points in the game where the adventure has thrown out enough XP for the group to justify a level. 

I do agree that the poll, as is, misses the obvious and, to me, most sensible "whenever they are ready." As this is done by XP tracking - whether you level everyone up together because you use group XP or "milestones" as in "done with this part of the AP" doesn't matter, because that still calculates XP, if only by adventure total. I have no idea how anyone could ever measure leveling in hours or game sessions. Sometimes, the group does nothing XP-worthy but fluffing all evening, or planning without getting to the matter at hand. If they do that 5 sessions, why should they level up?

So it would be very helpful indeed if the poll would include "when they got the experience" - whether you give them out in points or in milestones.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 28, 2016)

S'mon said:


> Are you trolling?




Anyone who's been on this site for any amount of time knows [or, I certainly hope, _should_] I do not "troll."

Though I will say, it seems, in recent years(?)/months it has become the norm that any disagreement of sensibilities -and a click of the "report" button- is cause enough to cry [or be labeled], "Troll!"

_-self-deleted soapbox on that tangent. Brought to you by: Self-Censorship - Building a more comfortable internet for your future, today.-_



> A milestone is an in-game accomplishment by the PCs. Defeat the BBEG, finish the dngeon level, that sort of thing.




One would think, wouldn't one? Does the poll make any claims to amounts of in-game accomplishment assumed in these amounts of time/# of sessions? [Wait. Is asking questions considered trolling or "combative" now? If so, I rescind the question.]

The poll I see lists "# game session" and/or "# hours." There is no reliable calculation on these factors one can use as a consistent measure of when leveling is appropriate.



Lwaxy said:


> I do agree that the poll, as is, misses the obvious and, to me, most sensible "whenever they are ready." As this is done by XP tracking - whether you level everyone up together because you use group XP or "milestones" as in "done with this part of the AP" doesn't matter, because that still calculates XP, if only by adventure total. I have no idea how anyone could ever measure leveling in hours or game sessions. Sometimes, the group does nothing XP-worthy but fluffing all evening, or planning without getting to the matter at hand. If they do that 5 sessions, why should they level up?
> 
> So it would be very helpful indeed if the poll would include "when they got the experience" - whether you give them out in points or in milestones.




Thank you for saying that.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> One would think, wouldn't one? Does the poll make any claims to amounts of in-game accomplishment assumed in these amounts of time/# of sessions? [Wait. Is asking questions considered trolling or "combative" now? If so, I rescind the question.]
> 
> The poll I see lists "# game session" and/or "# hours." There is no reliable calculation on these factors one can use as a consistent measure of when leveling is appropriate.




My very first line of the OP is _For games with levels like D&D, how frequently do you think PCs should advance, *given typical play*?_ ie whatever you regard as typically skilled & successful play. Obviously actual rate will vary depending on player skill & accomplishments.

Re milestones, I don't use them myself. But a milestone is an accomplishment, not an amount of time played, and "1 level for clearing the dungeon" is not that different from "10,000 xp for finding the 10,000gp gem".


----------



## Lwaxy (Sep 29, 2016)

S'mon said:


> My very first line of the OP is _For games with levels like D&D, how frequently do you think PCs should advance, *given typical play*?_ ie whatever you regard as typically skilled & successful play. Obviously actual rate will vary depending on player skill & accomplishments.




But... typical play? Since when do groups do anything "typical" anymore? 

My group from tonight, for example, cut a whole big part of the adventure short. While they don't get all the group xp they would have gained from defeating everyone (which would have taken several more sessions) they did get enough to level up relatively soon. On the other hand another group spent the last 7 sessions traveling and just getting to know the land and the people, living off their loot. So no level up in sight for them. Thus, counting hours/sessions really has little meaning.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lwaxy said:


> My group from tonight, for example, cut a whole big part of the adventure short. While they don't get all the group xp they would have gained from defeating everyone (which would have taken several more sessions) they did get enough to level up relatively soon. On the other hand another group spent the last 7 sessions traveling and just getting to know the land and the people, living off their loot. So no level up in sight for them. Thus, counting hours/sessions really has little meaning.




The first case isn't an issue - the group is just unusually successful. In the second case, if gaining XP and levelling up is not a goal of play for the group then the question might be meaningless, though I know many GMs use levels as a "pacing mechanism" re the kind of content that can be experienced. In which case the latter group is just setting a slower pace than usual.


----------



## Lwaxy (Sep 29, 2016)

Exactly, but that's what makes counting hours or sessions pointless. There is no "typical" for my groups. Never has been. Same groups that's slow now may barge through the next adventure in 2 sessions instead of 4. 

And before you say it all evens out - yes, most likely it does. The time in which they gain levels can certainly be averaged. But the poll doesn't ask for average. Nor does it take into account that while in an individual group things most likely average out, every group is different. 

I am currently running 11 groups (yes, as I am stuck in the house most of the time I run a lot of online games and a table group). If I go by the poll, I could click all the options and then some because they are all at a different pace.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 29, 2016)

Lwaxy said:


> Exactly, but that's what makes counting hours or sessions pointless. There is no "typical" for my groups. Never has been. Same groups that's slow now may barge through the next adventure in 2 sessions instead of 4.
> 
> And before you say it all evens out - yes, most likely it does. The time in which they gain levels can certainly be averaged. But the poll doesn't ask for average. Nor does it take into account that while in an individual group things most likely average out, every group is different.
> 
> I am currently running 11 groups (yes, as I am stuck in the house most of the time I run a lot of online games and a table group). If I go by the poll, I could click all the options and then some because they are all at a different pace.




I generally run 3-4 groups (2-3 table & 1 online) in various systems and they do have different levelling rates, but 5 sessions/level seemed most typical.
If you read my comments below the poll you'll see I was asking for an average over the campaign, not a mandated amount for each individual level.
I think it's ok not to have a discernible typical levelling rate; back in the day my 1e games didn't - individual xp, I recall PCs who would solo a big monster and go up 2 levels (I hadn't noticed the 'only 1 level' rule...)


----------



## Storminator (Sep 30, 2016)

In my game I let the players tell me when they level. We're around 30 sessions in (only 2 hours per session tho) and they're 5th level. I doubt they'll want to level before we get 4 or 5 more sessions.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 12, 2016)

shintashi said:


> well in old school, it could take millions of XP to reach some levels, so you might go several sessions without leveling.




If by old school, you mean 1e AD&D, the pace of leveling is entirely a function of what percentage of a character's XP is expected to be treasure.  A good way to look at it is to compare the following methods:

a) A wilderness campaign which is built directly from the tools 1e Monster Manual, using the '% in lair', number encountered, and treasure types to set the amount of treasure.
b) A dungeon campaign which is built directly for the tools in the appendix of the 1e Dungeon Master's guide to randomly generate a dungeon, using the random treasures described in those tools to place treasure.
c) An adventure path campaign which is built directly from published modules like the G series.

In the case of the strict treasure type campaign, about 2/3rds of the XP will come from treasure and about 1/3rd from killing monsters.  Pace of leveling will be glacially slow by modern standards, and will tend to decrease over time as hauls of treasure large enough to make a big dent in your XP needs get rarer and rarer.  By 10th level, pace of leveling will be years of weekly game play per level.   Magic items are extremely rare and make you cheer when you find one.

In the case of the random dungeon delving campaign, more than 4/5ths of the XP will come from treasure and less than 1/5th from killing monsters.  Pace of leveling will still be fairly slow by modern standards, but not as slow as in the first campaign, nor will the slow down as you gain levels be anywhere as large since finding high level foes and rich treasure hordes is just as matter of efficiently getting down to the lower levels of the dungeon.  Getting magic items will still be somewhat hard.

In the case of playing published modules, more than 9/10ths of the XP will come from treasure and less than 1/10th from killing monsters.  In effect, the monsters in this campaign are all several times richer than the ones in the treasure type campaign.  Pace of leveling will be extremely rapid and comparable to modern adventure paths.  Magic items will be super abundant, so abundant that the players may consider selling them to gain additional XP.



> Then, at lowest levels, the monsters were worth about 1/150th-175th what you needed to level, so the earliest levels were really slow too.




This sentence is actually the reason I'm responding, because it seems a bizarre misunderstanding of old school.  Sure, a goblin might be only 13-20XP, and a party of 6 might need nearly 12000 XP level up.   But this in no fashion implies that 1st level parties had to kill 600 goblins to level up.  Since a tribe of goblins on average had treasure worth 2 times the XP of the tribe itself, that drops it to 200 goblins for a party to level up.   Which means that even lowly goblins supplied about 1/30th of the XP you needed to level in even the strictest by the book campaign.   But as I said above, if you played with published modules or dungeon delves, that pace increased tremendously.  In a dungeon oriented campaign, goblins would be holding treasure worth 4 times their worth in XP, meaning goblins supplied perhaps 1/15th of the XP you needed to level.   By the time you get to something like a published module, those goblins held treasure worth 10 times their own worth, which means each goblin was perhaps 1/9th of the XP you needed to level.  




> We ran something like 1-2 encounters every 4 hours. At level 1, 1-2 bad guys per party member, is really only like 14-30 xp per person, so in an 8 hour Mt Dew session, you have what? 56-120 xp? How is that going to level you when you need 1200-3000? Like if your bad guys are orcs, and they are worth 15xp a piece, and you have 4 party members, needing 1250, 2000, 1500, and 2500 xp, how many orcs do you have to kill? 484 orcs. That's a pretty effective Lord of the Rings scene- probably several scenes. But if you are level 12, you need 250,000+ a piece right? so that's like 20 dragons per player character PER LEVEL.




Err... treasure.... the single biggest source of XP in 1e no matter how your DM ran the game?   (Also, if those orcs have javelins or other ranged weapons, they are worth more XP.)  Also, again, orcs on average have treasure worth several times their XP, not counting any XP that you can get for hauling a wagon load of discount/slightly used weapons and armor back to the haven.  I assure you, no 1e AD&D party ever had to kill a 100+ orcs each to reach 2nd level.  For one thing, they'd never have survived.

As for what a level means, I agree with you that post 1e, the meaning and value of being high level took a nose dive.  A 15th level character in 1e AD&D who'd earned it, was a major global mover and shaker.   The same character in 2e was a mid-level manager in a world were all the good things were owned by NPCs, and most the important things were done by NPCs.   The same character in later editions was a gerbil on the leveling treadmill, still doing the exact same things at higher level that he did at lower level, fighting foes that were just scaled of versions of their lower level foes.

ADDENDUM: Based on your mention of things like Dark Sun and Planescape, it seems likely your idea of "Old School" is my idea of New School, and you were playing 2e AD&D.   

In that case, if you are playing strictly by the book, substitute character, session, roleplay, problem solving, and story awards for treasure, with the exception of the thief class which still earns XP from treasure.   In this case, how fast you level is entirely a function of how much XP the DM is choosing to award for things other than killing the monsters.   XP is largely a matter of fulfilling the DM's story goals, and playing your role.   Pace of leveling is story oriented.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 13, 2016)

Short answer: (by the standards set in the posts in this thread) very, very infrequently.

Given regular weekly play and no odd effects (e.g. sudden level gain or level loss), I'd consider myself to be doing extremely well if my character bumped three times in a real-world year.

Then again, when the game system tends to wobble itself to bits around 12th level and you want the campaign to go on for many years, slow level-bumping is essential.

Lan-"I think this poll, and this discussion, have been done several times before - check the archives"-efan


----------



## Galandris (Jan 5, 2020)

I read on this forum (but I can't source who said that, it might be in the several threads about who is playing high-level characters) that the designing team intended the 1-20 journey to spread around 18 real-life monthes, as it was the average length of a campaign according to their market research. I don't know if it's true, but then the intended answer would be once every month, or once every 4 sessions assuming weekly schedule (which could fit the "adventuring day" recommanded XP. However, given the fact that very few people seem to actually have high level characters in the DNDbeyond database, it seems that people actually level up less often than intended or play less often than intended. 

In my games, I've dropped monster XP and level up the group wholesale after a significant goal as been achieved and the character can have some downtime.


----------



## kenada (Jan 5, 2020)

Pathfinder 2e still assumes about four sessions per level. I find this takes way too long at lower levels (and not long enough at higher ones) for my taste. I like the accomplishment-based XP system it uses, but I’ve tweaked the XP from a static 1,000 XP per level to something based on the next level (spend 200 XP × next level to gain a new level).

Edit: I should add that I use group consensus to determine accomplishments. The players nominate things they think are accomplishments, then we go down the list and determine collectively whether they are minor, moderate, or major accomplishments. I don’t actually get a vote, so it removes GM fiat from accomplishments as written in PF2.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 5, 2020)

I don't really have anything to add to this conversation other than I find it odd that it is in the Pathfinder/Starfinder forum now.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 7, 2020)

S'mon said:


> 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)?
> 
> 
> (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 levels in about a year of weekly play. What do you find? What works best for you?




I eschewed XP years ago and just use milestones.  I don't have any set agenda for leveling up.  I prefer low level games, so it goes slower than default. I think I had my party at 3rd level for 7 sessions.  They'll get to the Lost Mine around 5th.  A year of play to reach 9th, that sounds about right to me, and about when I would want to stop the game as I don't like D&D much more beyond that.


----------



## Octiron (Jan 7, 2020)

I'm going to go with the probably unpopular idea that leveling should be super fast at first and then taper off to almost never. Higher leveled characters are encouraged to make a mark on the game world itself (the domain-building phase) after spending their early career developing their powers. That way the game changes focus and it doesn't turn into a stale grasping for dopamine-dings with leveling the way MMORPGs do.


----------



## MPA2000 (Dec 28, 2020)

I know this is dated, but the question is still relevant no matter. According to the Rules Cyclopedia, the late Aaron said "on average" leveling should occur once every five adventures, not sessions. Unless we are talking about different things, a session is a break in time during a campaign right? So three hours into the adventure, you break to play next week for another couple of hours or to complete the adventure for a total of two sessions, right?

Aaron goes on to say that leveling up once every two games, should happen especially when players get bored/frustrated from how slow they are progressing. 
Admittedly, finding GM's and players to play solid adventures are almost uncommon, so I think most players would like to see their character move up faster, since they don't always know if there will be a game next week, month, never or with a new GM and new players?

I would go with one level every two adventures.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 28, 2020)

Depends on what edition you are playing.

When I initially answered the poll (years ago) it was based upon how often I levelled up in the  primary game systems of D&D that were my preference (OD&D, BX, BECMI, 1e, and 2e).

If it is 1e or even 2e, I'd probably say it could be a very slow rate, at probably 10+ sessions generally.  Perhaps even more so.

If you are playing 3e, that game levelled very quickly, and I'd say 1 or 2 sessions per level.

If you are playing 4e, that was the changing per level.  At first it could be 1 session per level, but by the time you get to 6th or 7th level with all the time to battle and other complications I'd say it could be 3 or 4 sessions.  By 14th level and higher it could be as much as 5 or 6 session.  It seemed the higher level you got, actions (such as combat) could take a lot longer to resolve.

If you are playing 5e, once again, it depends on the level.  At 1-3 level it can be 1 session per level, to 3 levels per 1 session.

After that for the next few levels up to around level 6 it could be 1 or 2 sessions per level.

Beyond that, it goes up to 3-5 sessions at least. 

I feel it varies depending on which edition  you are playing.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 1, 2021)

MPA2000 said:


> I know this is dated, but the question is still relevant no matter. According to the Rules Cyclopedia, the late Aaron said "on average" leveling should occur once every five adventures, not sessions. Unless we are talking about different things, a session is a break in time during a campaign right?



Moldvay Mentzer & Allston used 'adventure' to mean 'session' - the idea being you'd complete a delve into a dungeon in 1 session.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 2, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> Depends on what edition you are playing.



I'd say it primarily depends on the adventure.

If you're playing a level 1-5 adventure and the GM doesn't really have any plans for further content, it makes sense to level up quickly if the players burn through the content quickly (ignoring sideplots, not introducing any ideas of their own, etc) and level up slowly if the players smolder through the content slowly (not getting the clues, getting sidetracked every step of the way, etc)

The GM might have a looser campaign in mind but where the overall threat is suitable for perhaps tier II heroes (but where certain level 6 or 7 spells might short-circuit the challenge). In this case, the group might enjoy faster leveling at first, while accepting the fact that levelling might slow to a crawl at the end if the GM would otherwise "overshoot" the target end game.

What it all boils down to is that older editions has always tried to create the illusion of XP as something objective and pseudo-scientific, which is just that: a falsehood, an illusion.

In truth, you are always going to *be the level the GM needs you to be*. Counting XP and juggling encounter budgets etc is just a smokescreen that has fooled many a gamer (and GM!) into forgetting that the only truth is that you will *be the level the GM needs you to be*.

So it depends on the adventure. Or rather, it needs to and it would be silly (and needlessly laborious!) to change the story around the levelling pace instead of the other way 'round.

PS. I'm GMing an official Adventure Path, and for the first time in my D&D history I feel confident I will take my players all the way up to 20. I'm just a low- to mid-level plot creator, and can't maintain interest when the fantasy morphs into superheroics. But with a prewritten scenario I can.


----------



## Tyler Pickering (Jan 4, 2021)

Every 3 sessions is about where my players like it so I try to adhere to that.


----------



## nevin (Jan 5, 2021)

i find it's a strange thing to mess with.  If the DM is awarding levels every so many sessions you end up with games where you have 3 sessions of RP solve nothing and level, or have a session and kill one of the BBEG and all his henchmen and don't.   

I prefer just awarding XP per encounter and letting them level when it happens.  I'm going to set up encounters for them that are the appropriate difficulty anyway.  I think it just feels more rewarding when you get your XP at the end of every game.   But I've played at tables where levels were just awarded whenever and it worked ok.


----------



## qbalrog (Jan 17, 2021)

I usually do about 3 sessions between levels, because that works with our 2-3 weeks between game and 18-24 month campaign lifetime to get us into end levels that we like.

I long ago stopped rewarding individual XP and these days don't do party XP. Advancement is by fiat, with some variance depending on my judgment on how well they played. This saves bookkeeping and more importantly does not incentivize players to showboat or hog game time for bonus XP. What they do in game as an individual is for their fun and the fun of the group not a chase of some, in the end, arbitrary reward points. Additionally, it makes it easier for new players or players retiring a character for something else, either due to death or a desire to try a different PC.

We're playing our first 2E campaign and we agreed it would be a shorter one so we can learn the system. Because of that we have an end goal for the game of May-June this year (about 15 months from game start). I just agreed with my players that we will move the leveling rate to every 2 sessions so we can try out level 5 and 6 spells and such.

We're enjoying the system a great deal so far. Things like the new action system make the game much more fluid again and the creature design, with everything having some interesting quirk, provides a great deal of variety. Not seeing any of the "only one action makes sense each round" certain youtubers have complained about but I suspect that comes down a lot to encounter design (and this is based my own scenarios, not an AP). Perhaps its also because we aren't at level 10+ yet either.

TL;DR: I think refs should set advancement rate based on the needs of their campaign and players, which is usually a function of games per month and desired end level. Refs should feel free to ignore XP rules if they find them fiddly or counterproductive.


----------



## corwyn77 (Jan 17, 2021)

Dandu said:


> I can't say that there's a good answer to this. For me, it depends on the sessions: a session packed with combat and exploring is going to contribute much more to leveling up than one spent building political alliances, crafting weapons, and managing settlements.



Because why should we encourage role-playing in a role-playing game?


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 17, 2021)

If the heroes faff about chasing windmills or hesitating all the time so they aren't progressing - then they don't level.

If they resolve things, and generally get a move on, they do.

If the next dungeon (or whatever) is listed as intended for level 7, then the heroes level up to 7 when they reach it. If that takes three sessions, then they level after three sessions. If it only takes one session, they level after one session. If it takes seven sessions, they level after seven sessions.

tl;dr: the concept of fixing the level pace to "every X sessions" is silly.

The secret is: *you're gonna be the level the GM needs you to be.* Spending time to rewire monsters and encounters because the heroes leveled up "unexpectedly" fast or slow makes no sense - that's just meaningless busywork.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 17, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> In truth, you are always going to *be the level the GM needs you to be*.




But if I'm running a sandbox game like my current one  then I don't need the PCs to be any particular level, at least within the 1-13 or so range my sandbox is built to accommodate. There's plenty of stuff for PCs to do at any level.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 17, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> If the next dungeon (or whatever) is listed as intended for level 7, then the heroes level up to 7 when they reach it.




I think most people's mileage varies on that!


----------



## willrali (Jan 19, 2021)

Time is precious. People want to progress. I loathe endless fluffing around on each level as a player (a game isn't a job for pete's sake), and when I run games, I try to make sure players level up each session (though our sessions are long).

I don't give story awards though. XP is awarded _as we go_ for doing stunts, for coming up with good ideas, for planning and strategy, for killing things, and for the value of loot gained.


----------



## zztong (Jan 20, 2021)

This is a tough question to answer. It depends on what I've envisioned for the game. I guess for the survey I'll focus on "typical" though it still isn't easy. Typically, we level when the story calls for it. Time playing isn't a factor.

One of my favorite games was for a university club. Your level depend on your academic rank. Freshman=5, Sophomore=6, Junior=7, Senior=8, Grad Student=9, so you leveled once a year.


----------

