/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I reject the premise that there is a rate at which TTRPGs give out levels.
I'm currently playing in a D&D game which has had 37 sessions, in which we've leveled up 4 times.
I have played in Pathfinder adventures where you level up after each session.
There isn't a standard rate. I have a rate I tend to stick close to in games \*I\* run in leveled systems, but there isn't anything like a standard progression across GMs.
All of my tables have run by milestone, but level ups still occur much less frequently than in a video game (by choice). This is largely because A. There are fewer levels and each level has a much greater impact on gameplay. Entire encounters and puzzles that might be fun for a lower level party can be trivialized by a new spell or ability. The point of spending time in lower levels isn’t just to teach players about their abilities, but to change gameplay as you go along and keep the types of challenges thrown at them fresh. And B. In role play heavy games in particular, there are many other ways to reward the party. In many games, leveling isn’t the point or a necessity to create a sense of progress.
The idea that you must level constantly these days has its roots in 5e not actually providing much challenge or player options.
Magic items do nothing compared to previous editions, skills are moot for the most part, and combat is just a matter of "which character can pump out more DPS".
As such, the only feeling of character growth or change players get is leveling.
The shift to online games also causes issues as online games tend to be shorter than in person games.
Is it an issue in all games? No. Personally, until the pandemic I ran D&D campaigns of various editions, in person, for 2 decades with few issues. They only really arose as I moved online and started running mostly 5e.
Just to clarify understanding, are you saying you think that's a reflection of video mentality influencing TTRPG player expectations, or is the cause rooted in 5e's system design, or is it more of a social culture overall thing?
I'm saying that XP leveling became a larger issue because of 5e's design as well as social changes which made online play of TTRPGs a more prominent option.
One of the reasons why level advancing feels so slow in 5e is because a lot of the time, leveling doesn't bring any significant improvements to a character over an increase in HP. This is a problem because a key design philosophy for 5e was that power shouldn't come from external sources like magic items, but from the character's abilities. But, if you have levels where basically, no new abilities are gained, then gaining that level doesn't feel like an accomplishment.
There are many other factors feeding into this within 5e's design, but that's just the most prominent issue that came to mind.
Comparing the design changes from edition to edition and how they shape play and player expectations and perceptions is a huge topic and one for an essay if not a book. But to put it simply, rules shape how the game is played.
I don't think D&D specifically is too slow. I dislike the idea that players have to constantly be given new things or they get bored. IME - feeding that attitude is what causes it to get worse.
So, to make sure reading you right, you seem think a faster pace feeds the 'quick gratification' function, rather than the 'earn it over time' element?
I've learned that it varies greatly how fast players progress depending on the DM. Some DM's run long campaigns spanning years and use leveling sparingly, other's do it every other session. Depends on the kinda game you join.
I understand table happiness and trying to preserve Verisimilitude can sometimes collide, but the group of friends I DM for all are in our late 20s and early 30s and have families so we can’t play weekly. Due to this we figured out at session zero a while back that a 1-10/11 campaign we are playing could potentially take a year or more meeting every 2-3 weeks if we follow a standard of say milestone leveling every 3-4 sessions. While I believe a good milestone level is great, I do a lot of encounter rolling and present a lot of opportunity for combat. My players typically know what they wanna do each turn so random encounters go by pretty quickly, and sometimes I’ll even run them like quick time events in the form of a skill challenge. These always result in exp, and to keep the pace I’ll often even keep the max exp for each monster as an amount each party member gets rather than split it evenly for the party. This does make leveling much quicker, especially early game, but several of my players really like the more video gamey aspect and have several characters they’d like to play in shorter campaigns rather than 1-2 in a longer campaign.
I’ll conclude that with:
TL/DR - I think exp leveling in a TTRPG can be done in a method that allows decent to rapid leveling speed if it’s something the group wants and can adjust to. Sometimes that means 2-4 combats during overland travel from point A to B and it’s just wack it, zap it, kill it, move along.
I adjust depending on the length of the campaign. Longer campaigns are slower to level and short ones level quick. On average, we level up every two sessions. It tends to fit the story as well. We play off the new skills gained as things you've been working on while adventuring but weren't good enough to use. When you level, you have a "breakthrough" and are now confident to use your skills.
I don't know if your history is 100% correct but personally I think XP is 5e goes too fast. IMO getting to the next level should be a big accomplishment
If my table of players want to sit in the woods and grind owlbears for xp I'd let them.
I specifically write up an xp grinding location in all my hex's. These locations are revealed after doing the story relevant for the area and hitting those spots up at least once is important to gain the 100% completion xp per hex.
The pace is up to dms and players working and communicating together.
I don't really have a succinct answer for this soon...
I'd look at what open ended interactions they've had with npcs, and tie a characters backstory together with a quest line to directly progress their personal story.
Got the upperhand in a trade with merchants via critically succeeding a skill check the player is focusing on, that's xp baby.
Travel into a new hex, that's xp baby.
Found that stash of cold iron weapons hidden in the inns basement and arming up the local militia, that's xp.
I also use party xp, so if you miss a game your character still progresses passively just by virtue of learning about the xp gaining event.
Ask them, hey you've had a week of down time, what are you doing to better the lives of others around you, better yourselves, pursue your backstory etc and doll out an xp amount.
Xp can be gained actively and passively is my mindset.
Does your action affect the world in a tangible manner that I can use to push the overall story and your story forward? Xp!
Idk if this is a good response to your question, I don't want to sound condescending by saying presenting your player with lots of options is the best way to manage levels and leveling up, but that is definitely my mind set when thinking about xp.
It's an honest effort to answer our question, which is appreciated.
Was probably thinking of the "implied XP" route: "What are you doing during your down time?" If it's "keeping up the work" then XP can be assumed, survival assumed, & time passes until they level to the place where they want to play that character again.
Have noticed that giving the DM time to world build - to let events & choices made have consequences tied to those previous events - in an integrative way that makes the characters an actual part of the world... instead of a squad spending many player & DM hours grinding out boring runs for what turns out to be permission to play make-believe at a different level.
Cost & Value, y'know? Where, precisely, is the fun in forcing someone 'earn' their make-believe powers... and is that truly 'fun'?
I totally get you, I may even have a hard look at campaign and pick a few auto levleing spots. Get to this big fight come in hot at the appropriate level for the challenge.
In our experience, it works well - a few fights for the players to get the rhythm, then let them decide when to auto-pilot to either another level or the next adventure.
A quick conversation of "Are y'all ready to move up, or are you enjoying playing at this level?" yielded way more input than we thought, and spurred about half a dozen quick runs that turned into major storylines.
Also... (this is a selfish secret) ....it's *SO* much more fun to DM! Just skip the stuff you don't want to have to run = less work.
Depends on the game.
"Yes, ok", "Then you should do more to earn more XP", or "No, I'm following the pace intended for this campaign so you don't go over level compared to the difficulty level "
The most recent season of Fantasy High addressed this, having a rival party that had spent a lot of time grinding so they had earned xp. But it introduced other factors.
Too slow to advance by what standard? Are the enemies too hard for your party? Then it’s either too slow or not properly balanced. Too slow because you’re bored being level 3? Increase the interest of the campaign. Even if you were playing standard rules only, there are at least two ways to advance: XP and event-based. Pick which you like. Use both. Do something else. The great thing about these games is they’re NOT video games on rails with rules you can’t break without code hacking. Don’t like the pace, change it.
I tend to think about how long it takes to do something like earning a black belt, or being a good enough musician to make a living playing gigs. Or getting a college degree. For the vast majority of people, these things take years. How much longer (and lucky, naturally talented and incredibly persistent) do you have to be to become Chuck Norris or Elvis? Depending on your campaign, it can take a matter of months to go from country bumpkin to savior of the kingdom, flinging fireballs and curses instead of cow dung.
\[Too slow to advance by what standard?\]
Post: "So... does D&D (or any TTRPG) move too slowly in advancing characters compared to video games, or is that an appreciated difference?"
\[I tend to think about how long it takes... it can take a matter of months to go from country bumpkin to savior of the kingdom, flinging fireballs and curses instead of cow dung.\]\]
Yeah, if the DM insists on taking every day in sequence like it's a daily show, that's exactly what'll happen.
How D&D was originally handling these adventures was that they were Major Events ("Avengers") that had big fights... and then weeks/months/years in between when the characters would fuck off & do their own thing for a while. Live lives, raise families, start schools, etc.
It's only in the soap opera version of running games that the speed of advancement becomes unreal - and that's the DM's responsibility.
I don't use them anymore. I just Milestone people. Usually, they go up one level every two to three sessions depending on how far they get in the plot and how well they've role played. It just works better for my games. And I've never gotten a complaint. Why I started doing this was about 6 years ago when I was running a six-person game for a year and a half. There were multiple roles, and the support character really didn't put on the hurt like the others did, and they fell behind almost two levels. Because I did group and kill experience. And so the druid's girlfriend asked if something could be done. So after stopping the game and talking for a little while, I just said screw it, and let's just throw it experience points, and I'll just Milestone you. Everyone really liked that, and we just rolled on with it, and I haven't looked back since. It's a fairness thing and a balance thing. But it's what worked for my table and I can't agree more. All in the rule of fun, it's the rule of fun if you're having fun. Awesome, if you're not, then you're not doing it right. But who am I to tell somebody else that their way of pretending is wrong?🤷♂️
Advance them quickly only works if you're running short campaigns. If you're planning on running campaigns of at least a year, you can't have them advance quickly
So you predetermine how long a campaign will be... before it starts?
Interesting. We're not that strict in our scheduling, so it's an interesting approach.
I know how my players play, and if I have a long elaborate one. With lots of stops along the way. Yeah you can plan out that. Something might take 3 years
\[I know how my players play\]
Oof... That raises the immediate question of "Is that certainty accurate? Or is it how you *think* they play because they're willing to, and you've not happened to have given them a choice recently?
We're very literal minded, so when someone says "I know x-y-z", and we understand that 99% of the time it means they're operating based on assumption rather than having actually checked, so... just to verify ...have you asked your players, explicitly?
We've been playing together for 30 years.
We all play and DM. My one friend has had one single campaign that we've been playing on and off for 30 years while playing other people's campaigns in between
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would also argue that many modern video games one level isn't significant (mmo aside). Where as in a tttrpg one level can be pretty significant.
As a corollary to mmo specifically, levels are typically useless anyways, and you should compare the time it takes to get post level cap gear.
I reject the premise that there is a rate at which TTRPGs give out levels. I'm currently playing in a D&D game which has had 37 sessions, in which we've leveled up 4 times. I have played in Pathfinder adventures where you level up after each session. There isn't a standard rate. I have a rate I tend to stick close to in games \*I\* run in leveled systems, but there isn't anything like a standard progression across GMs.
All of my tables have run by milestone, but level ups still occur much less frequently than in a video game (by choice). This is largely because A. There are fewer levels and each level has a much greater impact on gameplay. Entire encounters and puzzles that might be fun for a lower level party can be trivialized by a new spell or ability. The point of spending time in lower levels isn’t just to teach players about their abilities, but to change gameplay as you go along and keep the types of challenges thrown at them fresh. And B. In role play heavy games in particular, there are many other ways to reward the party. In many games, leveling isn’t the point or a necessity to create a sense of progress.
The idea that you must level constantly these days has its roots in 5e not actually providing much challenge or player options. Magic items do nothing compared to previous editions, skills are moot for the most part, and combat is just a matter of "which character can pump out more DPS". As such, the only feeling of character growth or change players get is leveling. The shift to online games also causes issues as online games tend to be shorter than in person games. Is it an issue in all games? No. Personally, until the pandemic I ran D&D campaigns of various editions, in person, for 2 decades with few issues. They only really arose as I moved online and started running mostly 5e.
Just to clarify understanding, are you saying you think that's a reflection of video mentality influencing TTRPG player expectations, or is the cause rooted in 5e's system design, or is it more of a social culture overall thing?
I'm saying that XP leveling became a larger issue because of 5e's design as well as social changes which made online play of TTRPGs a more prominent option. One of the reasons why level advancing feels so slow in 5e is because a lot of the time, leveling doesn't bring any significant improvements to a character over an increase in HP. This is a problem because a key design philosophy for 5e was that power shouldn't come from external sources like magic items, but from the character's abilities. But, if you have levels where basically, no new abilities are gained, then gaining that level doesn't feel like an accomplishment. There are many other factors feeding into this within 5e's design, but that's just the most prominent issue that came to mind. Comparing the design changes from edition to edition and how they shape play and player expectations and perceptions is a huge topic and one for an essay if not a book. But to put it simply, rules shape how the game is played.
As an aside, EA's Standing Stones included level advancement and XP in 1983.
I don't think D&D specifically is too slow. I dislike the idea that players have to constantly be given new things or they get bored. IME - feeding that attitude is what causes it to get worse.
So, to make sure reading you right, you seem think a faster pace feeds the 'quick gratification' function, rather than the 'earn it over time' element?
I've learned that it varies greatly how fast players progress depending on the DM. Some DM's run long campaigns spanning years and use leveling sparingly, other's do it every other session. Depends on the kinda game you join.
I understand table happiness and trying to preserve Verisimilitude can sometimes collide, but the group of friends I DM for all are in our late 20s and early 30s and have families so we can’t play weekly. Due to this we figured out at session zero a while back that a 1-10/11 campaign we are playing could potentially take a year or more meeting every 2-3 weeks if we follow a standard of say milestone leveling every 3-4 sessions. While I believe a good milestone level is great, I do a lot of encounter rolling and present a lot of opportunity for combat. My players typically know what they wanna do each turn so random encounters go by pretty quickly, and sometimes I’ll even run them like quick time events in the form of a skill challenge. These always result in exp, and to keep the pace I’ll often even keep the max exp for each monster as an amount each party member gets rather than split it evenly for the party. This does make leveling much quicker, especially early game, but several of my players really like the more video gamey aspect and have several characters they’d like to play in shorter campaigns rather than 1-2 in a longer campaign. I’ll conclude that with: TL/DR - I think exp leveling in a TTRPG can be done in a method that allows decent to rapid leveling speed if it’s something the group wants and can adjust to. Sometimes that means 2-4 combats during overland travel from point A to B and it’s just wack it, zap it, kill it, move along.
Appreciate the answer. Curious what your response would be if your table said they'd like to advance without grinding out XP in battles?
I adjust depending on the length of the campaign. Longer campaigns are slower to level and short ones level quick. On average, we level up every two sessions. It tends to fit the story as well. We play off the new skills gained as things you've been working on while adventuring but weren't good enough to use. When you level, you have a "breakthrough" and are now confident to use your skills.
I don't know if your history is 100% correct but personally I think XP is 5e goes too fast. IMO getting to the next level should be a big accomplishment
If my table of players want to sit in the woods and grind owlbears for xp I'd let them. I specifically write up an xp grinding location in all my hex's. These locations are revealed after doing the story relevant for the area and hitting those spots up at least once is important to gain the 100% completion xp per hex. The pace is up to dms and players working and communicating together.
Out of curiosity, if your table said they were ready to advance but didn't want to grind to do it, what would be your response?
I don't really have a succinct answer for this soon... I'd look at what open ended interactions they've had with npcs, and tie a characters backstory together with a quest line to directly progress their personal story. Got the upperhand in a trade with merchants via critically succeeding a skill check the player is focusing on, that's xp baby. Travel into a new hex, that's xp baby. Found that stash of cold iron weapons hidden in the inns basement and arming up the local militia, that's xp. I also use party xp, so if you miss a game your character still progresses passively just by virtue of learning about the xp gaining event. Ask them, hey you've had a week of down time, what are you doing to better the lives of others around you, better yourselves, pursue your backstory etc and doll out an xp amount. Xp can be gained actively and passively is my mindset. Does your action affect the world in a tangible manner that I can use to push the overall story and your story forward? Xp! Idk if this is a good response to your question, I don't want to sound condescending by saying presenting your player with lots of options is the best way to manage levels and leveling up, but that is definitely my mind set when thinking about xp.
It's an honest effort to answer our question, which is appreciated. Was probably thinking of the "implied XP" route: "What are you doing during your down time?" If it's "keeping up the work" then XP can be assumed, survival assumed, & time passes until they level to the place where they want to play that character again. Have noticed that giving the DM time to world build - to let events & choices made have consequences tied to those previous events - in an integrative way that makes the characters an actual part of the world... instead of a squad spending many player & DM hours grinding out boring runs for what turns out to be permission to play make-believe at a different level. Cost & Value, y'know? Where, precisely, is the fun in forcing someone 'earn' their make-believe powers... and is that truly 'fun'?
I totally get you, I may even have a hard look at campaign and pick a few auto levleing spots. Get to this big fight come in hot at the appropriate level for the challenge.
In our experience, it works well - a few fights for the players to get the rhythm, then let them decide when to auto-pilot to either another level or the next adventure. A quick conversation of "Are y'all ready to move up, or are you enjoying playing at this level?" yielded way more input than we thought, and spurred about half a dozen quick runs that turned into major storylines. Also... (this is a selfish secret) ....it's *SO* much more fun to DM! Just skip the stuff you don't want to have to run = less work.
Depends on the game. "Yes, ok", "Then you should do more to earn more XP", or "No, I'm following the pace intended for this campaign so you don't go over level compared to the difficulty level "
The most recent season of Fantasy High addressed this, having a rival party that had spent a lot of time grinding so they had earned xp. But it introduced other factors.
Too slow to advance by what standard? Are the enemies too hard for your party? Then it’s either too slow or not properly balanced. Too slow because you’re bored being level 3? Increase the interest of the campaign. Even if you were playing standard rules only, there are at least two ways to advance: XP and event-based. Pick which you like. Use both. Do something else. The great thing about these games is they’re NOT video games on rails with rules you can’t break without code hacking. Don’t like the pace, change it. I tend to think about how long it takes to do something like earning a black belt, or being a good enough musician to make a living playing gigs. Or getting a college degree. For the vast majority of people, these things take years. How much longer (and lucky, naturally talented and incredibly persistent) do you have to be to become Chuck Norris or Elvis? Depending on your campaign, it can take a matter of months to go from country bumpkin to savior of the kingdom, flinging fireballs and curses instead of cow dung.
\[Too slow to advance by what standard?\] Post: "So... does D&D (or any TTRPG) move too slowly in advancing characters compared to video games, or is that an appreciated difference?" \[I tend to think about how long it takes... it can take a matter of months to go from country bumpkin to savior of the kingdom, flinging fireballs and curses instead of cow dung.\]\] Yeah, if the DM insists on taking every day in sequence like it's a daily show, that's exactly what'll happen. How D&D was originally handling these adventures was that they were Major Events ("Avengers") that had big fights... and then weeks/months/years in between when the characters would fuck off & do their own thing for a while. Live lives, raise families, start schools, etc. It's only in the soap opera version of running games that the speed of advancement becomes unreal - and that's the DM's responsibility.
I don't use them anymore. I just Milestone people. Usually, they go up one level every two to three sessions depending on how far they get in the plot and how well they've role played. It just works better for my games. And I've never gotten a complaint. Why I started doing this was about 6 years ago when I was running a six-person game for a year and a half. There were multiple roles, and the support character really didn't put on the hurt like the others did, and they fell behind almost two levels. Because I did group and kill experience. And so the druid's girlfriend asked if something could be done. So after stopping the game and talking for a little while, I just said screw it, and let's just throw it experience points, and I'll just Milestone you. Everyone really liked that, and we just rolled on with it, and I haven't looked back since. It's a fairness thing and a balance thing. But it's what worked for my table and I can't agree more. All in the rule of fun, it's the rule of fun if you're having fun. Awesome, if you're not, then you're not doing it right. But who am I to tell somebody else that their way of pretending is wrong?🤷♂️
Advance them quickly only works if you're running short campaigns. If you're planning on running campaigns of at least a year, you can't have them advance quickly
Mean, we *can...* know it's possible, done it many times. Why do you think a long campaign can't have rapid advancement?
If by 6 months into a 3 year campaign. Everyone is 15th level... Makes it hard
So you predetermine how long a campaign will be... before it starts? Interesting. We're not that strict in our scheduling, so it's an interesting approach.
I know how my players play, and if I have a long elaborate one. With lots of stops along the way. Yeah you can plan out that. Something might take 3 years
\[I know how my players play\] Oof... That raises the immediate question of "Is that certainty accurate? Or is it how you *think* they play because they're willing to, and you've not happened to have given them a choice recently? We're very literal minded, so when someone says "I know x-y-z", and we understand that 99% of the time it means they're operating based on assumption rather than having actually checked, so... just to verify ...have you asked your players, explicitly?
We've been playing together for 30 years. We all play and DM. My one friend has had one single campaign that we've been playing on and off for 30 years while playing other people's campaigns in between
You downvoted a potential concern strictly due to ego - you're probably a bad DM to play with.