|
Post by Scott on Jul 29, 2018 22:39:27 GMT -5
That doesn’t really match the game sessions he used to post.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jul 30, 2018 8:07:08 GMT -5
6 to 12 game sessions to reach 2nd level sounds about right if you are playing by the book AD&D. But I agree with Scott -- that is tedious. The reality is most people don't play that way. Most DMs will find a way to let you reach 2nd level sooner than that. For most characters to reach 2nd level after 3 sessions would be about an average of 700 XP per character per session, which is a lot of XP when they are only getting it from slain monsters and treasure found. I've always suspected the "story goal" or "role play" XP award in 2nd edition had its roots in a house rule most people were already using. There has always been a bit of hand-waving to sometimes advance characters a bit faster and/or bypass the laborious calculation of precise XP earned. I love the precise quantification in AD&D, but it is easier and faster to do an estimate, and if you've been DMing for a while you can usually get it pretty close. The DM is the final arbiter on this.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jul 30, 2018 9:47:23 GMT -5
6 to 12 game sessions to reach 2nd level sounds about right if you are playing by the book AD&D. But I agree with Scott -- that is tedious. The reality is most people don't play that way. Most DMs will find a way to let you reach 2nd level sooner than that. For most characters to reach 2nd level after 3 sessions would be about an average of 700 XP per character per session, which is a lot of XP when they are only getting it from slain monsters and treasure found. I've always suspected the "story goal" or "role play" XP award in 2nd edition had its roots in a house rule most people were already using. There has always been a bit of hand-waving to sometimes advance characters a bit faster and/or bypass the laborious calculation of precise XP earned. I love the precise quantification in AD&D, but it is easier and faster to do an estimate, and if you've been DMing for a while you can usually get it pretty close. The DM is the final arbiter on this. I've not imagined newbie characters starting a campaign at first level achieving beyond name-level PCs throughout the party in less than a year, given weekly four-hour gaming sessions. I could see that happening with highly experienced players, perhaps... If this current campaign party gets through the learning curve to play more effectively together at the campaign's one year mark in November of this year, attaining a mix of low to mid level characters in the party, say 2nd to 4th level, that's probably success for this party, as they have had some PC deaths along the way... Maybe by that time they'll be headed to Bone Hill...?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 30, 2018 11:49:50 GMT -5
6 to 12 game sessions to reach 2nd level sounds about right if you are playing by the book AD&D. But I agree with Scott -- that is tedious. The reality is most people don't play that way. Most DMs will find a way to let you reach 2nd level sooner than that. For most characters to reach 2nd level after 3 sessions would be about an average of 700 XP per character per session, which is a lot of XP when they are only getting it from slain monsters and treasure found. I've always suspected the "story goal" or "role play" XP award in 2nd edition had its roots in a house rule most people were already using. There has always been a bit of hand-waving to sometimes advance characters a bit faster and/or bypass the laborious calculation of precise XP earned. I love the precise quantification in AD&D, but it is easier and faster to do an estimate, and if you've been DMing for a while you can usually get it pretty close. The DM is the final arbiter on this. For a long time I was guilty of not giving enough treasure, and as a result the PCs didn't advance as fast as I believe the game assumes they should. My PCs were always poor, and that is nothing like how Gary and crew played. When you take assumed expenses into account, things like clerical healing/raising, identifying, training, and the big one: PCs should have enough gold to build a castle around the time they reach name level, the players should get much more gold than most DMs give, and more than most published modules give. Gary was different though. I've seen big long dissections of how much treasure he gave away in his adventures, with the implication that he was a Month Haul, o r munchkin, but that's the way the system was designed. You needed that much treasure to keep up with the expected rate of advancement and expected expenses. It's one of the reasons why I think T1 is such a good adventure. Not only is it a great setup/story, but it covers all of the mechanics like few other adventures do. There's enough treasure to level, pay for training, and a few other expenses, with enough left over to get them on their way to the next part of the adventure. I've ran T1 multiple times, and it seems like 3 sessions to finish it seems like an average.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 30, 2018 13:18:12 GMT -5
One thing I've started doing with the encounters I design is using more gems/jewelry and not assigning the value until I'm calculating treasure haul and experience. I'll adjust the value to keep the players on the pace I want for the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 3, 2018 14:43:39 GMT -5
True, most DMs don't give out enough treasure. Considering XP in AD&D is primarily treasure driven, there should be a lot of treasure. With 1st level player characters, however, what usually happens is that DMs try to match up treasure commensurate with the threats, and it's hard to justify a few giant rats, skeletons, kobolds, etc. with mounds of gold and gems. If a DM goes by Monster Manual treasure types as guidelines, that can be one cause for low treasure adventures. That is why the random dungeon generation tables in the DMG are a good counterbalancing resource here, as some of the treasures rolled in that section can be large for such minor monsters and even appear in empty rooms. So that provides another Gygaxian example for what was intended, or what is "about right."
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Aug 7, 2018 8:51:50 GMT -5
6 to 12 game sessions to reach 2nd level sounds about right if you are playing by the book AD&D. But I agree with Scott -- that is tedious. The reality is most people don't play that way. Most DMs will find a way to let you reach 2nd level sooner than that. For most characters to reach 2nd level after 3 sessions would be about an average of 700 XP per character per session, which is a lot of XP when they are only getting it from slain monsters and treasure found. I've always suspected the "story goal" or "role play" XP award in 2nd edition had its roots in a house rule most people were already using. There has always been a bit of hand-waving to sometimes advance characters a bit faster and/or bypass the laborious calculation of precise XP earned. I love the precise quantification in AD&D, but it is easier and faster to do an estimate, and if you've been DMing for a while you can usually get it pretty close. The DM is the final arbiter on this. For a long time I was guilty of not giving enough treasure, and as a result the PCs didn't advance as fast as I believe the game assumes they should. My PCs were always poor, and that is nothing like how Gary and crew played. When you take assumed expenses into account, things like clerical healing/raising, identifying, training, and the big one: PCs should have enough gold to build a castle around the time they reach name level, the players should get much more gold than most DMs give, and more than most published modules give. Gary was different though. I've seen big long dissections of how much treasure he gave away in his adventures, with the implication that he was a Month Haul, o r munchkin, but that's the way the system was designed. You needed that much treasure to keep up with the expected rate of advancement and expected expenses. It's one of the reasons why I think T1 is such a good adventure. Not only is it a great setup/story, but it covers all of the mechanics like few other adventures do. There's enough treasure to level, pay for training, and a few other expenses, with enough left over to get them on their way to the next part of the adventure. I've ran T1 multiple times, and it seems like 3 sessions to finish it seems like an average. After looking into DMG experience points rules and reading EGG posts regarding experience points, I realized that I have lacked giving out some experience points due to the party... Following monster encounters, I had been simply dividing monster experience points between all participants in the encounter: fighters and thieves, magic-users and clerics who cast useful spells whether offensive or defensive (often healing). Yet the rule intent as I now understand better, is to award 100XP per spell level cast in useful ways throughout the entire adventure, and also give out experience point awards for class skills like tracking, thieving, etc. performed throughout the adventure in useful ways? So this means the spell casters (or other classes) unless using physical weapons during an encounter, gain all of their experience via spell or class skill used in a beneficial way, while only the physical combatants split the monster experience points, whether slain or overcome in some other way? Is this how all of you guys award experience points? Any other recommendations? How do you all determine specific experience points awarded per each time a PC performs class skills in useful ways?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Aug 7, 2018 9:16:19 GMT -5
I think this will somewhat alleviate the slower advance rate the party has had so far (to the extent PCs survive!)...I feel that there is adequate loot contained in the adventures, but I'm not going to find it for the party! If they don't search and find, and/or don't realize they are passing over magical items, that's on the PCs!
I'm sure this correct understanding of how to award experience points for useful spell casting and class skills performed is basic stuff you guys already use, I'm just late to grasping this correctly!
|
|