Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Herr Doktor 09-21-03, 10:30 PM	I was wondering if anyone out there has reduced the ammount of treasure and experience the give out? I've been following things pretty much by the book all through my DMing career... I didn't even consider house rules until 3rd Edition. However, I recently joined a friend in a game of 2nd Edition AD&D and was shocked at the difference in advancement time and such. I've been thinking about perhaps cutting experience and treasure earned to a small portion... but I think my players would not react too very well to that. If you've done this sort of thing, please share what you've learned. How has it worked out?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-21-03, 10:39 PM	Only thing I can say is talk to your players. The worse they can do is tie you to a propane tank and light you on fire. ;) It really doesn't matter what has happened with others if you players aren't happy with it. Talking to them is the best course of action. Personally, I like to level and get stuff. If the PCs don't level as fast as they'd like, they'll go hunting for trouble. If they don't get enought treasure, they'll strip every encounter area bare (I remember one poster mentioning his PCs started a logging firm). Either way, the PCs will satisfy their wants. The question is will they leave you pulling out your hair when they do.
blackprinceofmuncie 09-21-03, 11:18 PM	I don't especially like DMing higher level campaigns, so I've told my players that all PCs retire at level 12 and either become NPCs or just go away. I then gave them the alternative of regular advancement or slower advancement. Most of them wanted slower advancement so they could play their characters longer. A few wanted regular advancement. We finally reached a compromise between normal advancement and my first proposal. One player who wanted fast advancement has also agreed to run a separate higher level campaign for the PCs after 12th level and he's using normal advancement for the characters in that campaign, so we're all happy!:) With treasure, I'm using the old 1st edition training rules that require $$$ to advance in level. This allows me to give out a lot of treasure (which is fun for both the players and me) without wrecking the campaign. There have been some groanings, but for the most part everyone understands that it's necessary.
Kalidor 09-22-03, 12:55 AM	If a DM ever told me "Your character cannot progress past level 12 because I don't like (don't know how) to DM past level 12" he wouldn't be DM of our group for long. Just enjoy the mechanics of the game, let the players enjoy going from a guy with a stick to the Hero of a kingdom and later a plane and play the game for what its worth. Why ignore 50% of the printed material because you don't 'feel like' DM'ing at high levels. My group just hit level 12 and things are really starting to heat up -- if I told them "Alright, I refuse to DM these characters any further, time to roll up new ones" I'd be banned.
dafrca 09-22-03, 01:25 AM	There are some questions you have to ask: 1) How often do you play? 2) How long are your game sessions? 3) How many “combats” in a single session? 4) How many XP do you give out for “non-combat” related things? The answers will help you know if you have a problem or if you just play a lot. Our group played a campaign from 1st for a year real time (14 months really) and we were at 16th level. We play once a week, for about 3 hours average each session. So we were averaging about a level every three to four nights of real time. dafrca
JoAT 09-22-03, 01:56 AM	Well, as things go in my games, I'm also seriously considering freezing up advancement a bit. Once we're done the house rules (which is basicly going to be a big, long list of things that we're going to end up useing, in addition to the regular feats and such), I'm going to think about dropping the CR on most encounters by 2-3 points, to compensate for characters being somewhat tougher than the norm for thier level. After I finish up our 'Introduction to 3.X' campagin, I'm considering further reducing xp by 1/2... When I put things together, I was kinda thinking of the old advancements, where characters didn't aquire quite so much in the way of experiance and gold, and planning that I could run a whole segment of the campaign befoew my PCs got to level 7, rather than having them level after each adventure, and become powerful enough that the simple hobgoblin horde is going to be the equivelent of just another adventure, rather than an epic(story style epic, that is) cap on this part of the game, though at this rate, they might well be in epic levels before this part is done... Either way, it's going to be quite likely that I won't end up handing out 'bonus' awards for roleplaying and the like - they already go up far too fast.
Labyrsman 09-22-03, 04:29 AM	The way it seems, many of those in this group want to go back to the tables from AdnD, 2e, etc., where it took millions of points and years ofadventuring to advance. Fine with me but don't call it a 3.0 or 3.5 campaign. If you don't want to have a campaign where the characters level as they do in 3.5, then run a campaign where they don't, such as 2.0 or even ADnD.
kidjay76 09-22-03, 11:23 AM	I find the treasure and item pacing in 3x to be a bit Monty Haul. That table in the DMG that shows how much gold an encounter of a certain level should yield is absurd. I follow my own rules when it comes to allocating gold and magic items, and so far, it hasn't upset the balance of the game. "If a DM ever told me "Your character cannot progress past level 12 because I don't like (don't know how) to DM past level 12" he wouldn't be DM of our group for long." I certainly wouldn't retire the characters (who am I to do that, anyway?), but I can see his point. I actually like DMing lower-level characters. There's more of a sense of urgency and paranoia. The Raise Dead type of spell is the single most annoying aspect of D&D for me. It eliminates finality, story drama and the consequences of one's actions. At lower levels, Raise Dead spells are hard to come by, which I enjoy. If and when my players reach higher levels (they're level 4 currently), what I might consider is retiring myself as a DM and getting someone else to take over.
Kalidor 09-22-03, 11:45 AM	Well its all about personal preference, but the game is pretty tight in its design. As a DM, I know that 13 standard encounters will level the players. I know how much treasure 13 encounters will/should generate for players. When I write an adventure I might put 8 or 9 tough encounters in it or 15-20 small ones -- but no matter what, my players will advance with pretty much every adventure (not counting side treks). We play about twice a month, and the day we play we put about 6 hours into it on an 'average day'. It can take 2-3 sessions to finish an adventure. So at that rate, it would take almost 2 years to become 20th level, and we intend to progress past that. We've been playing these characters for well over a year (off and on, different campaigns, etc) and they are just now reaching 12th level -- the highest we've ever played. You think Raise dead is an easy way out? Well, maybe -- but I know the fighter who's died 3 times and lost 3 levels because of it appreciates 'staying alive'. Its not that easy when you lose thousands upon thousands of experience. And if you think your players abuse the raise dead option, slaughter them! The only reason we as DMs feel bad about killing player characters is because we know how hard they work, but if you know death is more of a inconvience than a drastic fate, then just be more liberal with the monsters. If you play the game right, which to me means having characters who were made properly and are balanced, given the appropriate amount of treasure for their level, and are facing monsters that vary in abilities (some magic, some melee, some rogue-ish) then you're going to have a solid campaign. Labyrsman is right -- this is not 2E where the highest you could ever hope to be is level 11 or 12. The scale has shifted. Level 12 in 3.x is practically the same as level 6 or 7 in 2E. Characters were MEANT to go to at least 20th level. Most of the coolest spells and abilities start to come in when you hit 9th, and then the characters really hit their stride for the next 3 or 4 levels. I don't know what its like to play past 12th level, but I'm learning and I will enjoy the ride. I am not going to look at the numbers and decide pre-emptively to can the campaign. I'm going to make the most of it and enjoy what its like to progress in the game as it is written.
PenderGrass 09-22-03, 01:41 PM	First, don't use 2nd Ed to compare stuff for the newer editions. I have been DM'ing since the White Box/3-Book Edition and have found that each one has PC progression set-up differently. Try to run the game thru as is - or use the XP variant out the FRCSB (which is wat I do), as this enables you to calculate XP for each individual PC. The lower level PCs gain faster. The higher level PCs gain slower. My game has been running for nigh on 2 years and what with PC death (reset new PC @ half your original XP - if not raised) the highest level PC comes out about 13th level right now. We game about 3 times per month on average. The power progression in the 3rd editions is waaaay different than in earlier editions - but so to is the flexibility given to the DM. As a DM I am totally stoked about the power progression now - at first it seemed fast for me as well. But, now, it seems fine and I have let it ride - just to 'give it a chance' (at least in the Forgotten Realms variant XP rule).
Gamecat 09-22-03, 02:05 PM	The way it seems, many of those in this group want to go back to the tables from AdnD, 2e, etc., where it took millions of points and years ofadventuring to advance. Fine with me but don't call it a 3.0 or 3.5 campaign. Why not? I don't think I've ever played a unique to one edition of the game, game in my entire gaming career. Save for running at conventions, and OD&D, and even towards the end of that we started incorporating AD&D rules. I say whatever works for your group. Personally I use the treasure amounts listed in the DM's GUIDE as just that. A Guide. Always have always will. Sometimes I'll hand out too little sometimes I'll hand out too much. It all works out in the end, and besides, no matter what, players will complain you're not giving them enough treasure. :-D
Kalidor 09-22-03, 02:14 PM	My players wind up with much more wealth than the 'starting treasure' guide anyway. I take that as being 'if you're just a green character with no history, you can 'start' with this 'average' amount of stuff. The reality is, characters will find and make their own items and get more 'wealth' over all. You may not think they need a +8 weapon at 8th level... but who's to say they shouldn't have 4 or 5 +2 weapons at their disposal. You really can't put a dollar amount on treasure that's appropriate... as long as nothing they have breaks game balance, they should feel free to indulge. After all, how many NPC aristocrats have you ever ran who have a mansion and servants and riches enough to hire the PCs but are only 4th or 5th level? Level cannot always dictate wealth.
Lord_Soto 09-22-03, 05:19 PM	Originally posted by PenderGrass First, don't use 2nd Ed to compare stuff for the newer editions. Oh, c'mon PG... if you aren't using something different as a reference point, it's not really a comparison. Of course, we would hate to show people a different way of doing things that they might like better. I still hold to my opinion that whatever edition you are playing, in 5 hour sessions, a person should level at a rate of n+1 sessions where n=their current level. Of course, that's much slower than some folks who reach epic within a few sessions...
Super Draco Whitewind 09-22-03, 05:50 PM	Personally, If i was a player, being asked to retire a character before 21st level, i'd be insulted, and would just leave. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the DM has no true expertise and true skills to DM properlly. I find that I tend to give the BBEGs the PC wealth as shown on the chart in page 145. I do have magic shops in major cities, and I am careful usually on what i give out. I do run mid magic games, and Do allow PCs to create whatever they want as far as personal items go. Heck, they can mix and match and create items not listed in the DMG, as long as they can make them by the rules. I run XP rules as normal. i've never seen an issue of leveling too fast, and don't know why people feel otherwise. It's not second edition anymore. Get over it. ~Draco
DrakathTheRatling 09-22-03, 06:15 PM	If a DM ever told me "Your character cannot progress past level 12 because I don't like (don't know how) to DM past level 12" he wouldn't be DM of our group for long. You're right. With 3ed leveling, he's be your DM for about 6 months (assuming you started at level 1). ;) Personally, If i was a player, being asked to retire a character before 21st level, i'd be insulted, and would just leave. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the DM has no true expertise and true skills to DM properlly. Personally, if I was a DM and I had a player who absolutely had to play epic, I would roll my eyes and tell them to find a different game. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the player is a powergamer/munchkin without the expertise and true skills to play a PC who can't annihilate a town during their lunch break. :P Does it sound any better coming from the other side of the fence? (edited to insert the correct smily)
Kalidor 09-22-03, 06:58 PM	Personally, if I was a DM and I had a player who absolutely had to play epic, I would roll my eyes and tell them to find a different game. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the player is a powergamer/munchkin without the expertise and true skills to play a PC who can't annihilate a town during their lunch break. =P Or it doesn't take a genius that the DM is too inept to provide a fun and interesting challenges and stories for characters of any level. Don't insult the players who simply want to.. you know... play the game... just because you find the only adventures you can produce involves 'annihilating towns' if the characters manage to overcome your 5th level caps.
Salla 09-22-03, 06:59 PM	I always thought 1e-2e advancement was too damn slow, myself. The characters didn't just level up slowly, they were stagnant.
PenderGrass 09-23-03, 02:10 PM	Oh, c'mon PG... if you aren't using something different as a reference point, it's not really a comparison. True enough - but if you DON'T compare and just use it on its own then it will run fine. If a DM does not feel that the PCs fought THAT hard to defeat the Hydra, then he is well within his rights to reduce the XP - and this can be done 'legally' - as it does point out in the DMG that XP should be modified by a factor equivalent to what the DM judges to be correct. But, if it were a tough fight - or one that seems to have been equivalent to what it 'should' be - then do NOT adjust the XP. The PC progression IS gonna be different - it was different from the White Box/3 Book edition to the AD&D version as well. We just didn't have a BB to post our thoughts on... and that is where I reallyEDITED FOR ILLEGAL CONTENT