Skip to content

Progression Track Threshold Scaling

Status: Open for discussion and playtesting feedback — drafted here for review, not yet applied to 08 Professions, 16 GM Guide, Glossary.md, or 07 Factions

Current System

Progression Track XP Thresholds (08 Professions/Index.md, AX.C.08.01):

Stage XP Required Recovery Scope
Stage 1 10 XP earned Short Rest Self or single target
Stage 2 25 XP earned Long Rest Nearby allies or enemies
Stage 3 50 XP earned Full Rest Area, group, or unusual effect

These thresholds are flat across all three Generation Packages (6D/9D/12D) and are restated, unchanged, in Glossary.md ("Progression Track": "Perks awarded at 10, 25, and 50 XP earned") and used directly by 16 GM Guide.md's (AX.C.16.08) session-pacing table, which maps them to ~3–4 / ~8–9 / ~17 sessions at the documented 3 XP/session baseline.

These numbers were set early in the system's development and, per the table's own retrospective, were never revisited once the rest of the system (Advancement costs, XP baseline, session-length expectations) solidified around them.

The Problem

Real-table finding: average session count per adventure has dropped — GM burnout and shorter attention spans mean campaigns run fewer, shorter sessions than the thresholds assumed. Against that reality, 10/25/50 is a steep climb.

This is measurable against the system's own structure, not just anecdote. 16 GM Guide.md defines an Arc as "3–6 sessions unified by a shared dramatic question" — the game's own mid-size structural unit. At the documented 3 XP/session baseline, a full Arc generates 9–18 XP total. Under the current thresholds, that's not reliably enough to even clear Stage 1 (10 XP), let alone approach Stage 2 (25 XP). Players can complete an entire Arc — a complete dramatic unit by the system's own definition — and see at most one small Stage unlock, often none. That reads as the Progression Track limiting advancement rather than rewarding it, which is the opposite of its intent.

The existing documented fix is the wrong tool. 16 GM Guide.md currently offers only one lever: raise the XP-per-session rate (e.g., to 4–5 XP/session to compress the timeline). But XP is a single, shared, fungible currency — the same pool that buys Attribute +1D (current value × 3 XP) and Talent +1D (current value × 2 XP) per AX.C.14.02. Turning up that tap to unstick Progression Track Stages also accelerates raw Attribute/Talent/Focus growth, which is a much bigger and less contained change than "Stage abilities arrive a bit sooner." A fix that's decoupled from the XP economy is the correct, surgical answer — this proposal is that fix.

The Proposal

Scale the Progression Track thresholds by Generation Package, and lower the baseline overall. Keep the current curve's shape — 10:25:50 is a 1 : 2.5 : 5 accelerating ratio, matching how every other advancement cost in the system scales progressively (not linearly) and matching Stage 3's explicitly larger power jump per the Stage Design Guidelines. Compress that same ratio, and split it across packages using the same 2:3:4 package ratio already established by the sibling proposal PROPOSAL - Generation Package Health Scaling.md (Health package bases 10/15/20 for 6D/9D/12D) — reusing an existing convention rather than introducing a fourth, unrelated scaling ratio.

New Threshold Table

Package Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Ratio check
Gritty (6D) 4 XP 10 XP 20 XP 1 : 2.5 : 5 ✓
Standard (9D) 6 XP 15 XP 30 XP 1 : 2.5 : 5 ✓
Advanced/Cinematic (12D) 8 XP 20 XP 40 XP 1 : 2.5 : 5 ✓

Every row preserves the original curve's exact proportions — this is a rescale, not a redesign. The package split itself is also proportional: 4:6:8 (Stage 1 across packages) and 10:15:20 (Stage 3 across the same, matching Health's existing bases exactly) both reduce to the same 2:3:4 ratio.

Naming note: package names here follow 05 Character Creation.md's actual terms — 6D "Gritty, common heroes," 9D "Standard, heroic adventurers," 12D "Advanced, champion heroes." ("Heroic" is already the 9D/Standard tier's own descriptor, not a name for the top tier.)

Worked Examples

Sessions to reach each Stage at the documented 3 XP/session baseline (rounded up to whole sessions):

Package Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 2 lands within...
Gritty (6D) 2 sessions 4 sessions 7 sessions a single Arc (3–6 sessions)
Standard (9D) 2 sessions 5 sessions 10 sessions a single Arc
Advanced (12D) 3 sessions 7 sessions 14 sessions just past a single Arc

Compare to today: Stage 2 at ~8–9 sessions and Stage 3 at ~17 sessions, regardless of package — both land outside a single Arc entirely, and Stage 3 sits well into "long campaign" territory even for groups who never intended to run one.

Under this proposal, Stage 2 becomes a realistic within-one-Arc payoff for Gritty and Standard groups, and Stage 3 becomes a two-Arc, mid-campaign payoff instead of a distant 17-session horizon — while a group running a longer, Advanced-tier campaign still gets a proportionally longer climb, which is the differentiation the original package-scaling question was after.

Faction Standing (AX.C.07.02) was built after this system last session, deliberately copying the flat 10/25/50 so a GM already running Profession advancement could reuse the same pacing intuition. Discussed and agreed: Faction Standing should not scale by package the way Profession Progression does — a Faction's trust in a member isn't tied to that character's dice-pool ceiling, so a Gritty and an Advanced character should earn it identically. Faction Standing instead adopts the flat Standard row (6/15/30) regardless of package, once this proposal is settled. This keeps Faction Standing's original design intent (mirror Profession pacing so a GM has one intuition, not two) while still getting the same pacing relief.

Why This Works

✓ Fixes the actual complaint. Stage 2 becomes reachable inside a single Arc instead of requiring one and a half to two Arcs' worth of play. ✓ Doesn't leak into other systems. No change to the XP baseline (AX.C.14.01), so Attribute/Talent/Focus purchase rates are completely unaffected — the power-creep risk in the existing "raise XP/session" guidance doesn't apply here. ✓ Same curve, not a new one. The 1:2.5:5 ratio — and the escalating-cost philosophy it represents — is preserved exactly at every package tier. ✓ Reuses an existing convention. The 2:3:4 package ratio is the same one already proposed for Health, rather than a fourth unrelated scaling rule for GMs to learn. ✓ Resolves the Faction Standing question cleanly, without redesigning that system a second time.

Playtesting Questions

  1. Does Stage 3's new pacing (7/10/14 sessions by package) still feel like a meaningful "late-game" payoff, or does it now arrive too early relative to how the abilities themselves are described ("Major, encounter-shaping")?
  2. Is the Gritty/Advanced spread (2/4/7 vs. 3/7/14 sessions) the right amount of differentiation, or should the package ratio be wider/narrower than Health's 2:3:4?
  3. Should Stage thresholds round to different numbers if a table finds 4/10/20 too fast for Gritty specifically (lower-power characters leaning more heavily on Perks, as discussed) — or is that leaning-on-Perks effect actually the point?
  4. Run the session-count math above through rules-testing before treating it as validated — it's simple division against the documented 3 XP/session baseline, not a simulated or playtested figure.

Next Steps

  1. Playtest the new table against a real Arc (3–6 sessions) and compare Stage-unlock pacing to feel.
  2. If it holds up, apply to:
  3. 08 Professions/Index.md (AX.C.08.01, the XP Thresholds table and surrounding prose)
  4. 16 GM Guide.md (AX.C.16.08, "XP Pacing and Advancement as a Campaign Rhythm Tool" — needs a per-package table in place of its current single row)
  5. Glossary.md ("Progression Track" entry, currently restates the flat 10/25/50)
  6. 07 Factions/Index.md (AX.C.07.02, Standing Track — adopt the flat Standard row 6/15/30 per the decision above)
  7. Confirm no individual Profession sample file (08 Professions/Warrior.md, Diplomat.md, etc.) hardcodes a Stage's XP number in prose — checked during drafting, none currently do, only the Cross-Genre Profession Example and the main threshold table reference numbers directly.