Question about xp and level advancement?

Well I didn't play 4E but I played tons of 3.0 and 3.5 (and before that). We always generally leveled after a "long rest" (just the night not several weeks). Mainly because we didn't get XP until all the battles when that night's session was done (to save time).

Now in 5E we have been playing that if you level you can the additional HP max, additional spell slots (but not new spells if you'd gain a new level), etc. Since having a true rest might not happen for weeks if on the road or a campaign might not allow several week downtime for leveling, seems foolish to be stuck at a level due to circumstances like that. And online there isn't an "end of the session" like in person.

But really IMO a level is just some made up value for balancing and to show future advancement and see your character grow. My character from level 1 to 2 isn't drastically changed so if you leveled us after an encounter and we had a new one on the same day so what? As long as the encounter is balanced properly. Narrative wise (if I gained smites from leveling the same day) I didn't need to use that 2nd level smite in the first encounter but might use it in the next? I feel this is a narrative and while I can be a rules lawyer in some regards the levels aren't as important. I wouldn't hold back on leveling as appropriate to fit into story. If goblins are going to continue to raid it would seem foolish for us to stay level 1 the whole adventure. And I can't imagine my character studying for a few weeks when all these goblins need to be hunted down, etc. Maybe a good night's sleep before the final leveling? That way you don't enter and leave a room with a level but if you fought a dragon that day you learned something and the next day are wiser IE leveled?

Separately from above, I think the "no further experience points can be gained while waiting to level" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You suddenly stop learning because you don't have time to spend a few days downtime? Maybe for a wizard it seems odd he suddenly learned fireball between battles but a fighter would LEARN from battle (and the idea is the wizard knew fireball he just hadn't mastered it enough to test the spell). Witholding XP makes no sense to me. I don't mind how everyone wants to handle it for this adventure but i'd prefer to not do this one specific item. XP should be gained because there's no good reason you wouldn't from being in an event that should give it. If I fought a goblin and got enough xp to level but then fought 10 dragons and slayed them all did I really not earn any xp the rest of that day? Blows my mind.

In terms of my opinion i'd say just level us when you think it's appropriate. I really prefer being "3rd level" because it makes everyone less fragile AND my character Malik hasn't even taken the "Oath" that defines him until 3rd level. Just pointing out that at 1st level with how fragile we are it would seem futile to hold us at 1st in that regards.

I would add that XP shouldn't be given based on kills. It would tend to make a character like a healer not even heal a friend when killing a monster and letting the friend die would be more beneficial to said healer. Or giving more xp to a potentially more powerful character build, etc. 

My thought would be that, since this campaign was developed for 4E, it was made with 4E conventions of XP and such things in mind. As such, the way to get the experience closest to what was intended would be to follow the 4E rules of advancement. While I have nothing but respect for Gary, his statement really is more of a way to see how the nature of module design has changed. Every edition, game designers try to do more to avoid the "we fight one encounter then sleep the rest of the day" situation that plagued many early adventures, and thus impose various time constraints and other incentives to encourage players to progress with as few rests as possible. However, since they can't let the mechanics get dry, they also have to provide progression and keep combat interesting. Thus, while it is less realistic to have the wizard yell "I suddenly can conjure giant walls of fiery death!" or the cleric to declare "I just remembered how to resurrect dead people!" after killing a group of kobolds, it's done as a tradeoff to increase both the challenge and fun of the mechanical aspects of the game, with a tradeoff in narrative of the unrealistic progression removing the unrealistic "Welp, the town is on fire, but I just fought a dire wolf. I'm sure they'll still be fine after a nice, long nap." as a necessity to survive to the game's conclusion.

Still, I admit the quantum nature of levelling is a bit much, so I'm all for Sithramir's levelling after a rest, although I might let the new spells happen since, otherwise, we'd either have to restrict the other special abilities too, which could risk making combat a bit stale, or not restrict them and put spellcasters at a disadvantage. I'd also probably add levelling during situations of low activity but not full rests, like wandering down the halls of a dungeon, or, as I think is going to happen next in our campaign, following the trail of a goblin clan. The characters may not be sleeping, but they aren't actively fighting or negotiating, so they do have time to reflect, which could lead to growth.

Also, I 100% agree with sharing XP instead of XP for kills. One, it ruins the teamwork dynamic when in combat. Two, it would make support characters absolutely useless since they wouldn't level up even half as much as the killers, which would also make their healing insignificant as the killers gained higher max HP. Three, imagine if a group of heroes fought a massive dragon, brought it down to 1HP, and then the town drunk passed out on top of it for 1 damage. Does that town drunk deserve all the XP for an entire dragon? If so, I might want to create a character that's the Drunken Slob class.

Finally, I'd say that jumping multiple levels at once is okay since, well, it really shouldn't happen very much, so when it does, it should be properly rewarded. If I kill 50 goblins or 500 goblins, I shouldn't progress the same amount, since it's MUCH HARDER to do the latter than the former. The bottom line is that, if you've killed enough things in one sitting to level up multiple times, that was a BIG DEAL. Theoretically, that should be one of the biggest and toughest fights of the character's entire life, and one he/she will tell tales of forever. Thus, a multi-level jump really shows the massive impact it had. To put it into perspective, think of studying for a test. You can study (gain XP) for 3 hours, maybe pulling you from a 70% to an 80%. However, imagine if you study all night, going through 10 hours and looking over every piece of info presented over the entire length of the course. This will let you jump from a 70% to a 90%, IF you retain it. The risk is that, if you don't, you might do just as poorly or worse than not studying at all since you're worn out. The risk-reward is the same as D&D, since you'll progress more IF you survive that 2 levels worth of XP encounter(s), but doing so greatly increases the risk of you getting butchered because you didn't know when to call it a night and recover those HPs and spell slots.

To summarize for people who want the opinions without the justification (I didn't realize how much I just wrote until just now), advancing after a rest/low activity works for me, XP for kills is bad and hurts everyone involved, and gaining multiple levels should be okay since it only happens after major life events.

So Xp is split evenly
Characters gain levels and xp as they happen (hp increase and such) normally at the end of a scene
They do not gain new spells, prayers, proficiency, etc until they have a long rest.
Gary is sometimes wrong (THAC0 anyone!)