Apparently, 4e is created so that a party of 5 PCs will need 10 encounters at their level in order to gain enough exp to go up one level. If you consider that a campaign may begin at level 1 and end at level 30, then that means a campaign will require 300 encounters in order to complete. From my experience, the average encounter lasts about one hour. That's just the average, I've had some that took 15 minutes and others that have taken longer. But, it seems that my group goes through about 5-6 encounters in our 5 hour gaming sessions. So, I figure that a campaign will take at least 300 hours of game play to complete. This is the minimum, it doesn't include other things that occur during a campaign such as recon, social encounters (which can be exp gaining encounters all on their own, or puzzle solving which doesn't really have a mechanic because its just up to the players' smarts). If you have a 6 hour game session once a week, it will take about 1 year to finish a campaign.
Personally, I think this is pretty cool. I like the idea that a campaign can be fleshed out and broken down into stages. I've been in some campaigns where they just seem to kind of go on and on because the DM wasn't able to plan things out very effectively. We would get stuck at a certain level and feel like we're grinding or just race ahead a couple of levels because we needed to get to the next stage fast.
Edit: The fact that 10 encounters are needed per level means that keeping track of exp really isn't necessary. If the DM is always creating encounters at the party's level, then you just have to count the number of encounters the party has completed. When they finish #10, then just tell everyone to level up. This helps because if the party gains levels faster than anticipated and then the planned encounters could be too easy. The opposite is also true. Again, if you're able to get through 5 encounters per gaming session, then the players will be leveling at the end of every other game session. As a player, I like this because I always like getting new levels, feats, powers, and ability score increases more than just more money and loot.
Good one DimitriX.
I was actually thinking that one might increase the experience needed to gain a level or reduce the EXP given to legthen the game.
But the ten parts of treasure could stay the same so the power level remains un-balooned. ;)
I hate to admit it but this part of the rules is nicely house-rule-able.
I also dole out (small) xp rewards for outstanding role-playing. The end result being that not everyone levels up at the same rate, but close enough so that there's no great disparity in power levels. (BTW, I've been gaming with the same group for quite some time, so I've established a baseline for each player. The xp rewards are given based on each person's "normal" performance.)
There is something which has always been a sticking point for me. It's not specific to 4E, but I'll put it in 4E terms since that's where we're heading.
*The 5-minute work day is no more. Characters are able to have more encounters between rests than in previous editions.
*It takes 10 encounters to advance from one level to the next. Epic destinies set the table for character retirement, which occurs at level 30. Therefore, a character will have 300 encounters over the course of his career.
*Thus the question "How long is the career of an average adventurer?" I looked at this in my 3E campaign (based on 266 encounters), and found it to be a remarkably short time. Even with all of the travel and kicking back between adventures. As a result, I went "slow growth" when awarding xp's,
halving the normal amount, but had to introduce other rewards to keep my players from feeling they were locked in a static campaign.
But I've seen the error of my ways, the trap of trying to bring realism to the game. Sure, in game terms, the career of a successful adventurer may last only about two years. But in the real world, based on gaming every other week with 4 encounters per session (a generous estimate), that's still about 3 years of gaming, playing with the same character, should he survive that long.
That's plenty. It's also why I no longer subscribe to the argument of bringing more realism to the game. Enjoy the moment. Don't worry so much about making the crunch crunchier, make the fluff fluffier. Live and learn, I suppose.
I agree. The most enjoyable part of a campaign is the fluff. That's one of the things that I like about 4e. It makes the crunch so much easier that as the DM I can focus more on the fluff, which is much more fun for me as the DM and for the players.
Generally though - and in 3e/3.5e - I'd give exp out based on session difficulty, length, and player accomplishments. It was fairly consistent between sessions and often had little bearing on the number of battles. A three-hour session that was intrigue, diplomacy and roleplaying would have a similar reward to a three-hour session full of brutal combat.
In a way, with the skill challenges, this has become more de-facto. Works for me
So, one of the recent excerpts got me thinking about campaign lengths.
Apparently, 4e is created so that a party of 5 PCs will need 10 encounters at their level in order to gain enough exp to go up one level. If you consider that a campaign may begin at level 1 and end at level 30, then that means a campaign will require 300 encounters in order to complete.
*clip*
Does anyone that has the Rulebooks have a confermation?
Originally Posted by DimitriX View Post
I agree. The most enjoyable part of a campaign is the fluff. That's one of the things that I like about 4e. It makes the crunch so much easier that as the DM I can focus more on the fluff, which is much more fun for me as the DM and for the players.
I guess I'm not seeing where the humor is. Care to enlighten us?
I guess I'm not seeing where the humor is. Care to enlighten us?
Nope