Quick answer: I pretty much run 1e AD&D RAW. Anecdotally, I can't think of anyone I gamed with back in the day who didn't. Granted, sometimes, over the years, I experiment with this or that. But I think beginners to the system should give RAW a good, long test-drive before fiddling with it. Otherwise what's the point?

Quote from: SHARK on February 06, 2024, 04:10:25 PM
Greetings!

In my Thandor campaigns, I always use training costs, as well as requiring special Professional Trainers. At various level choke points, special instructors are required to seek out so as to learn advanced skills and knowledge.

The Players need to get used to this idea, whether they like it or not. Just like Chesterton's Fence, and the rules for encumbrance, torches, supplies, armour and weapon maintenance, spell failure, magical spell components, all of this stuff goes into simulation, and also the game challenge.

Like Steven mentioned, take that stuff out, and then you wonder why the game is no longer challenging, and the Players are bored! Or the DM is bored. Or both, as likely.

And remember, the Players do not often really understand the deeper system mechanics and dynamics of what makes the campaign run. DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT. They think they know what they want, but they do not. By getting what they want, the game and the campaign, and the fun, is ruined.

Always remain in control. The DM needs to read, and study, and think about all of these things, and really know this stuff backwards and forwards.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks Shark! I definitely agree, and don't get me wrong I think all the elements of simulation work together to create the game's challenges and you can't really dicker with them until you've got a grasp on the rules. I'm just curious about something like training because it did come off as very constricting, but granted I came from 2e/3e so it was never really there as a rule.

I guess I'll have to give the whole thing some more thought. How would you go about adding trainers into a frontier setting? As of now I have it so that the main city has several guilds with trainers, as well as some druids, rangers, and wizards throughout the countryside that will also serve the same purpose but with a bribe added in.

My argument is that giving gold for XP and then charging gold for training is redundant.  For a really good downtime and training mechanism see High Fantasy which gives really tangible advantages for training time.  A big part of training time is that it uses up time and ages the characters.  Aging is an important mechanic in AD&D.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 06, 2024, 07:14:27 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 06, 2024, 04:10:25 PM
Greetings!

In my Thandor campaigns, I always use training costs, as well as requiring special Professional Trainers. At various level choke points, special instructors are required to seek out so as to learn advanced skills and knowledge.

The Players need to get used to this idea, whether they like it or not. Just like Chesterton's Fence, and the rules for encumbrance, torches, supplies, armour and weapon maintenance, spell failure, magical spell components, all of this stuff goes into simulation, and also the game challenge.

Like Steven mentioned, take that stuff out, and then you wonder why the game is no longer challenging, and the Players are bored! Or the DM is bored. Or both, as likely.

And remember, the Players do not often really understand the deeper system mechanics and dynamics of what makes the campaign run. DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT. They think they know what they want, but they do not. By getting what they want, the game and the campaign, and the fun, is ruined.

Always remain in control. The DM needs to read, and study, and think about all of these things, and really know this stuff backwards and forwards.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks Shark! I definitely agree, and don't get me wrong I think all the elements of simulation work together to create the game's challenges and you can't really dicker with them until you've got a grasp on the rules. I'm just curious about something like training because it did come off as very constricting, but granted I came from 2e/3e so it was never really there as a rule.

I guess I'll have to give the whole thing some more thought. How would you go about adding trainers into a frontier setting? As of now I have it so that the main city has several guilds with trainers, as well as some druids, rangers, and wizards throughout the countryside that will also serve the same purpose but with a bribe added in.

Greetings!

My friend, you are very welcome! In considering adding trainers for classes within the scope of a "Frontier" region, let me encourage you to get out of the whole "Urban Professional Mindset." Yes, I am biased. Two out of three campaigns I am running right now are more rural focused, primarily involving Norse Viking Barbarian characters in one campaign, and Slavic, Russian, and Kazakh barbarian characters in another campaign. It is helpful and sometimes amazing to learn how phenominally skilled, trained, and very professional, rural, harsh, barbarian tribal peoples can be. They had very highly trained warriors, sailors, rangers, horsemen, archers, explorers, healers, and mystics, shamans, and bards. These characters usually lived of course within the tribal area, but sometimes, lived way the fuck out, isolated in some cabin, or moss-covered compound. Likewise, some of them get older, and go into semi-retirement. Which usually means they don't normally participate in the wars and goings on, unless it is very imprtant or special.

That is something to think about.

Likewise, you could have some recent immigrants that have set up a ranch or rugged home surrounded by a stand of trees, where they are making their way. Perhaps one or more of them is some kind of classed professional, and can be persuaded to provide training to the Player Characters. (And the NPC's, too!).

Think about creating interesting, motivated NPC's. Then consider the Players developing different kinds of relationships with these characters. Consider that some of these trainers might also be epic heroes or champions themselves! Some of them may have outstanding reputations, for their knowledge, wisdom, and skills. Being trained by Mr. Ragnar actually means something, you know? Or a well-known Witch providing training to a Player Character. Maybe she has knowledge of a special selection of interesting, unusual spells? Suddenly, being trained by this Witch is not just going through the motions of spending gold, being trained, and levelling up.

These kinds of enduring relationships, more in the role of Mentors, can be far more than the mechanical checklist or the cursory fulfillment of Character Advancement minutia.

Can you imagine being a young, Viking Warrior recruit, fresh from the fiord, that a veteran member of the elite bodyguard warband of King Harald Hardrada might take a liking to? Just think about how such a young Viking recruit would get trained by one of Hardrada's elite champions?

A real world example, as testified in history, is a Viking champion, of Harald Hardrada, that held the bridge at Stamford against the English. One Viking champion killed 50 Enhlish warriors that day, before finally being killed. That is pretty well historically documented, by multiple testimony--from the English, as well as the Vikings themselves. ONE Viking champion said go on, escape and regroup, and I shall hold the bridge and give you time.

Valhalla calls to me this day!

Class trainers are a fantastic opportunity for creating interesting, dynamic relationships that are very meaningful to the Players themselves, but also to the immediate campaign environment. Class trainers also provide you, the DM, with excellent opportunities to set out campaign lore, rumours, myths, and other kinds of knowledge.

Even more ordinary class trainers that are not otherwise epic champions, could none the less become hugely influential people and very meaningful to the Players for example. Just being excellent people, excellent instructors, people that are strong, honourable, dignified, and worthy. The kind of people that motivates you to want to serve them, to help them, to make them PROUD of YOU. That quality of character right there can be priceless, my friend.

These kinds of characters can add very rich depth and dimension to your campaign. In my experience, such relationships have been very prized and memorable for the Players!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think training time and cost were a nod to verisimilitude.  I don't care how many orcs a character kills, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that he walks into a mega dungeon as a callow youth and walks out a month later as a demigod.  And because you helped kill that last ogre you suddenly can cast fireball?  Sure.  There's a certain logic to the training thing too - the character's experience in the dungeon didn't teach him to cast a fireball, but he gained enough insight into his magic that he can now learn it when it becomes available.  That said, if I ever used training cost it was early enough in my DMing experience that I no longer recall it.

And on the other topic, clearly a money sink is needed, but I don't much care for it to be something necessary for advancement like training.  And I hate the idea of taxes etc as money sinks, unless you're trying to motivate the players to burn the kingdom down.  Buying magic items is even worse, as I want those to be something cool, not something everyone with a few gp can buy at the local Walmart.  Buying magic items is essentially buying advancement, which can cause all kinds of problems if you're not very careful as a DM - been there, done that, not going there again thanks.  Things that open up new adventure are good.  Buying a pirate ship to go raiding.  Buying a castle.  Buying a knighthood.  Buying a merchant caravan headed to far lands.  Forming a mercenary company.  Things that offer flexibility but not necessarily more power are also good.  Things like spells and fighting maneuvers not found in the players handbook.  And some games have a fame mechanic, where you can invest money in fame, which I think is neat. 

Keep in mind that in AD&D one magic item you have no use for could be sold off for enough to likely get you well towards paying off your training.

Hello, new to this site. I have most of my online conversations about D&D on FB.

I did use the leveling rules, including ratings and multiplying the cost, in my first years of DMing. I was fairly generous with my ratings and before long I was dropping any decimal values (2.9 weeks became 2), so the training costs were almost always 2 weeks and 3000 gp/level.

My players responded to this by treating treasure as a pool, the party had however many thousand gp and it didn't matter how much any individual character had. This allowed them to pay for those first level ups from 1st to 2nd. They also knew how much their next level up would cost (like I said, the rating was almost always 2) and planned for it.

Add the cost to revive dead characters (once they could afford it, around midlevel) and the result was that they were always counting their cash. They got to name level and couldn't afford a stronghold, they had to go looking for a dragon hoard, which made for a very good adventure.

But having played BTB or close to it, I decided I didn't like 1E's philosophy of throwing gold at the PCs so they level up only to take it away five minutes later. So now I give less gold, give XP for things other than gold, and charge less for training and monthly expenses.

Quote from: SHARK on February 06, 2024, 10:17:29 PM
My friend, you are very welcome! In considering adding trainers for classes within the scope of a "Frontier" region, let me encourage you to get out of the whole "Urban Professional Mindset." Yes, I am biased. Two out of three campaigns I am running right now are more rural focused, primarily involving Norse Viking Barbarian characters in one campaign, and Slavic, Russian, and Kazakh barbarian characters in another campaign. It is helpful and sometimes amazing to learn how phenominally skilled, trained, and very professional, rural, harsh, barbarian tribal peoples can be. They had very highly trained warriors, sailors, rangers, horsemen, archers, explorers, healers, and mystics, shamans, and bards. These characters usually lived of course within the tribal area, but sometimes, lived way the fuck out, isolated in some cabin, or moss-covered compound. Likewise, some of them get older, and go into semi-retirement. Which usually means they don't normally participate in the wars and goings on, unless it is very imprtant or special.

Think about creating interesting, motivated NPC's. Then consider the Players developing different kinds of relationships with these characters. Consider that some of these trainers might also be epic heroes or champions themselves! Some of them may have outstanding reputations, for their knowledge, wisdom, and skills. Being trained by Mr. Ragnar actually means something, you know? Or a well-known Witch providing training to a Player Character. Maybe she has knowledge of a special selection of interesting, unusual spells? Suddenly, being trained by this Witch is not just going through the motions of spending gold, being trained, and levelling up.

Class trainers are a fantastic opportunity for creating interesting, dynamic relationships that are very meaningful to the Players themselves, but also to the immediate campaign environment. Class trainers also provide you, the DM, with excellent opportunities to set out campaign lore, rumours, myths, and other kinds of knowledge.

Even more ordinary class trainers that are not otherwise epic champions, could none the less become hugely influential people and very meaningful to the Players for example. Just being excellent people, excellent instructors, people that are strong, honourable, dignified, and worthy. The kind of people that motivates you to want to serve them, to help them, to make them PROUD of YOU. That quality of character right there can be priceless, my friend.

Thanks again Shark. As of right now I know there are various villages across the map plus there are some random individuals living in hexes across the map. Sprinkling in these mentors would be pretty easy with how I have it set up. The Magic-User in the party did learn of another wizard not far away that is willing to take on apprentices for a cost, so that could definitely be the trainer for mages. I've also got nomads, ranger camps, and other wilder men across the map as sort of random encounters and features.

As for setting up some sort of background, I think it could be a fantastic way to sprinkle in some intrigue and build rapport between players and the different organizations in town. I guess in that way they're not just dealing with, "the fighter's guild" but with an actual individual with a personality. As with most of my notes I like to jot down anything that seems like a good idea and keep it loose so it's always open-ended, so I'll have plenty of opportunities to slip in these kinds of characters.

  I do 100 gp/level.  1 week of training.  I do not think a 9th level fighter really learns how to be 10th level by paying someone a fortune and spending two months training.

If you are placing as much gold as God and Gary Gygax intended, then yes, use the training costs. If you're skimping at all, if you've ever toned down a random roll for treasure instead of always taking the rolls except when you place still more by hand, then training costs should be the first thing to be cut.

Drop the player rating system that requires extra weeks in either event.

Quote from: Dave 2 on February 07, 2024, 06:55:03 PM
Drop the player rating system that requires extra weeks in either event.

That's not something I can agree with. If you are playing 1e AD&D as a whole, which includes the concept of the ongoing struggle between alignments as underlying everything. I wrote about that here:
https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/09/08/alignment-in-role-playing-games/

Betraying your allegiance to one alignment or another must be punished somehow.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 05, 2024, 08:39:43 PM
Regardless, I've established there are some factions the players belong to, such as thieves guilds and fighter guilds, and so most classes have a trainer and some of the others like Rangers and Druids have people on the map they can go to for training. That said, should I use these rules?

I definitely recommend building those in-setting ties for the PCs:  it helps engage the players more in the game, and lets them see who/where the benefits of their training $$ are going.

I use the training costs/times as outlined in the DMG, and it's a helpful reminder to me as DM if I've been too skimpy with treasure when the PCs are really scrimping to level up.

Quote from: Corolinth on February 06, 2024, 11:33:30 AM
TSR era D&D really does seem to be based around making sure the PCs suck as much as possible for as long as the DM can manage.

Having seen run-away Monty Haul campaigns, I understand the many changes made from OD&D to make AD&D campaigns more sustainable.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 06, 2024, 04:27:30 PM
The best part of the game is level 1 to level 5, and then comes god mode and it sucks.  Being afraid of dying is what makes the game great and usually it was the earlier levels that were the most deadly.  When you see an ogre roll a crit, did you live or did you get smashed to a red smear.  I like that worry as a player.

For me the sweet spot in AD&D is from levels 7-14 or so:  PCs are sufficiently robust you can start to take the gloves off to really challenge the players without fear that they'll die to a couple of bad rolls (and even if they do, the PCs can probably afford to raise them even if they can't cast the spells on their own yet).

Those are the levels where you can begin to use the full range of fun monsters like demons, vampires, rakshasas, barghests, devas, shoggoths, golems, elementals, githyanki, drow, etc., etc.

Allan.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 06, 2024, 09:32:00 AM
I always thought that was kind of stupid because isn't adventuring itself your training? 

No.

The end of year exam is not studying a subject. Studying a subject is studying a subject. The exam is the exam.
The sports match is not practicing the sport. Practicing the sport is practicing the sport. The match is the match.
The marriage proposal is not dating. Dating is dating. The marriage proposal is the marriage proposal.

The training for the level is the studying, the practice, the dating. The adventuring is the exam, the match, the proposal.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 12:35:13 PM
I certainly appreciate Chesterson's fence. However, I've never seen anyone rate their players E, S, F, P for purposes of leveling up. Does anyone do actually do this? It is intertwined with the training and cost after all.

Yes, I have done this. It tends to make the most poorly-rated players quit the game. But the poorly-rated players tend to be annoying in other ways, such as always late, never bringing snacks, arguing minor irrelevant points, and generally slowing down play - it's all about them. So when they leave everyone's happy.

It also makes the mediocre players try to play better. Sometime during the level they realise they're on a poor course and try to do better.

It rewards the good players, who then decide to stick with the game group. This of course helps make the game group as a whole better - they lift up the mediocre players.

Kyle, that's actually a good conceptual realignment for what training is. Training costs are to get you at that next level ready to collect meaningful experience. You train to graduate to the next level empty of exam credits, your exams are surviving applied practice of such training in the 'real world' of adventures, and if you pass enough exam credits you might be ready for more formal training for the next level. Instead of thinking of it as a fee to cross a marathon race tape at the end, it is a prepatory school to help you make meaningful sense of reality's challenges at the next stage.

Way way back in the day when I ran AD&D, I would not deny a player a level if they had earned it.  But, I would put them in debt to the guild/temple and I would gin up some nasty side quests as one way of paying off those debts.