I've been tinkering around with AD&D 1e after I got the core books. Threw together a hexcrawl and the players (namely the thieves) are about halfway to 2nd level. I read that in order to level up (RAW) you spend 1,500gp and 1 week training per prior level (so in this case 1,500gp and 1 week of training). I've thought about using the 2e rules instead, which are just 100gp and 1 week per level.
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 get the purpose to help spend gold players acquire since 1xp per gold piece means they'll be floating in money at that point, so I get why it is so expensive. I did mention to the players that there would be some sort of cost at the beginning of the campaign, but that I was working out the details since I didn't want to spring it on them out of nowhere. Do any of you use the training rules and/or recommend them?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes
I stopped giving out xp for treasure* decades ago, so I don't have an issue requiring training as a gold sink.
So yeah, we used both rules when first starting out in RPGs, but those rules got dumped eventually.
*Well, sometimes. It's not the primary source of xp unless the treasure is exceptional or interesting in some way.
I would probably use them if I were going for a retro campaign, just to be authentic.
What I do is require gold to be spent on training to turn it into XP. I'm told Adventurer Conquerer King requires gold to be spent on debauchery to turn it into XP. I suppose a balance of the two systems might be possible. The DMG method seems like a weak and dare I say arbitrary cludge. As I intensely dislike arbitrary XP awards, I'm also bound to dislike arbitrary cash costs for training based on DM fiat.
I don't like the 1e DMG numbers or the "rate their roleplaying" system. The numbers are too high at low level, for one thing.
I do use level training costs & time in my current 5e campaigns, but I went over to 1 week to train up and the 5e listed costs with a mentor, double without. The 5e costs are as follows, but I would x10 these for 1e:
Level Cost
1-4 20gp
5-10 40gp
11-16 60gp
17-20 80gp
2e's 100gp per level sounds fine to me too. I don't think PCs should generally be prevented from levelling through lack of funds, and numbers should be plausible in the wider game world economy. A few hundred gp may be plausible, many thousands is not IMO.
For time to train, I don't generally want PCs taken out of play through training time. I do use 1:1 time but I prefer that PCs can level up in the week or two between sessions.
Training is a money sink; the PCs will be swimming in money unless you throw costs and taxes at them.
OTOH it will take longer for PCs to level up if they have to pay for training; they often lack sufficient funds in the first few levels.
I dislike the whole dynamic so I just give away less gold and let them level-up without paying.
My main issue with the by the book AD&D rules is that there is no player decision in it (at least not on the surface). I've worked around that two different ways at times, though it's been a long time since I used either. I haven't played AD&D in years, so take it all with a grain of salt and adjust to preferences. I've done similar things in other games, however:
1. Stick with the rules as written, but make sure as as GM to include ways to mitigate, which the players can take advantage of if they are engaged and paying attention. The most obvious one is getting favors from someone who can either train some of the PCs or arrange for it, such as local baron. This might cut the money significantly or even altogether. That is, the trainer still gets paid, but the PCs aren't the ones doing it. If you are actually playing out finding the trainer, it cuts the time as well. There's a lot of implications in those training rules that aren't fully spelled out, left for you to adapt to. This is a way to go if you want to use the rules as a framework infer from.
2. Treat the costs and time as an "Or" instead of "And". It's pay the money for do the time. Presumably, paying the money gets a trainer that you've been working with all along. Doing the time is sparring and figuring things out on your own. Sometimes players have more time than money or vice versa, and this reverts back to no choice. However, there will be other times when it becomes a real decision. I would probably up the base time slightly if going this route to make it stick, perhaps 1 week per level sought, instead of leaving. For a less extreme variant, you could have reduced costs when doing the time, as much as half, and/or perhaps half time when paying full money.
I always thought that was kind of stupid because isn't adventuring itself your training? I know nowadays all kinds of professions use "continuing education" requirements as money-making schemes, but c'mon man this is FANTASY!
There are other ways to relieve PCs of excess treasure like taxes, adventuring license fees, rent, carousing, tithing, guild fees, and just general upkeep. Not to mention saving up for that stronghold, tower, monastery, etc. And once you have that, it's just a money pit anyhow.
Now if you want your wizard to learn a special difficult spell or want your fighter to learn some entirely new technique, sure go ahead and hire a trainer or whatever. But not for simply leveling up.
Quote from: S'mon on February 06, 2024, 03:55:52 AM
I don't like the 1e DMG numbers or the "rate their roleplaying" system. The numbers are too high at low level, for one thing.
I do use level training costs & time in my current 5e campaigns, but I went over to 1 week to train up and the 5e listed costs with a mentor, double without. The 5e costs are as follows, but I would x10 these for 1e:
Level Cost
1-4 20gp
5-10 40gp
11-16 60gp
17-20 80gp
2e's 100gp per level sounds fine to me too. I don't think PCs should generally be prevented from levelling through lack of funds, and numbers should be plausible in the wider game world economy. A few hundred gp may be plausible, many thousands is not IMO.
For time to train, I don't generally want PCs taken out of play through training time. I do use 1:1 time but I prefer that PCs can level up in the week or two between sessions.
That's what I thought: 1,500gp per level seems pretty extreme, especially considering they need the gold, someone to train them, AND the time to do the training, all for what usually amounts to another Hit Die and maybe an improvement in some abilities.
As for the lack of pay, I thought about adjudicating that you can level up without a trainer, spending less (100gp/level) but taking longer (2 weeks per level). So the trainer actually has a use, but isn't required.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 06, 2024, 09:06:56 AM
My main issue with the by the book AD&D rules is that there is no player decision in it (at least not on the surface). I've worked around that two different ways at times, though it's been a long time since I used either. I haven't played AD&D in years, so take it all with a grain of salt and adjust to preferences. I've done similar things in other games, however:
1. Stick with the rules as written, but make sure as as GM to include ways to mitigate, which the players can take advantage of if they are engaged and paying attention. The most obvious one is getting favors from someone who can either train some of the PCs or arrange for it, such as local baron. This might cut the money significantly or even altogether. That is, the trainer still gets paid, but the PCs aren't the ones doing it. If you are actually playing out finding the trainer, it cuts the time as well. There's a lot of implications in those training rules that aren't fully spelled out, left for you to adapt to. This is a way to go if you want to use the rules as a framework infer from.
2. Treat the costs and time as an "Or" instead of "And". It's pay the money for do the time. Presumably, paying the money gets a trainer that you've been working with all along. Doing the time is sparring and figuring things out on your own. Sometimes players have more time than money or vice versa, and this reverts back to no choice. However, there will be other times when it becomes a real decision. I would probably up the base time slightly if going this route to make it stick, perhaps 1 week per level sought, instead of leaving. For a less extreme variant, you could have reduced costs when doing the time, as much as half, and/or perhaps half time when paying full money.
That's a really good point, I mean it's sort of just thrown at the players like, "hey so all your loot is spent leveling up" and it just seems unnecessarily harsh. Especially when you consider they likely got close to death several times just to secure it. I don't mind the idea of taking time to level up, I did it in 3e but it was 1 day per new level plus cost of upkeep (so it was just a time sink).
I mentioned it in another reply, but I like the idea that you can forego the trainer but take time instead of paying. I get why the trainer exists, to siphon gold back, but it would be nice to present them with the option to keep more gold while also getting to level up.
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? I know nowadays all kinds of professions use "continuing education" requirements as money-making schemes, but c'mon man this is FANTASY!
There are other ways to relieve PCs of excess treasure like taxes, adventuring license fees, rent, carousing, tithing, guild fees, and just general upkeep. Not to mention saving up for that stronghold, tower, monastery, etc. And once you have that, it's just a money pit anyhow.
Now if you want your wizard to learn a special difficult spell or want your fighter to learn some entirely new technique, sure go ahead and hire a trainer or whatever. But not for simply leveling up.
I do agree here, but I like the idea of players training to advance their abilities like you mentioned. AD&D has no weapon mastery rules, so I thought about bringing in some sort of basic system (perhaps from BECMI) wherein the players can spend gold to gain new weapon proficiencies and advance existing ones.
I also like the idea of a wizard only starting with proficiency in say, a sling, but being able to pay to learn how to use a crossbow. Sure it breaks with the rules, but it makes sense that if a wizard wanted to, they should be able to learn how to use another weapon. Just because they didn't train with them during their apprentice years doesn't mean they can't take the time to learn now.
I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.
How difficult should it be to find a teacher? If they're commonplace, there must be lots of adventurers about. There should be rival parties in every dungeon. If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.
It also suggests that you can't level up during a long wilderness campaign, unless you happen upon some brilliant hermit.
Also, teaching seems like a risk free and lucrative career, so could the PCs become teachers? Sounds easier than raiding dungeons.
Leveling up by carousing is interesting. But Gorak the barbarian spending 1354 gp during a night of debauchery in a place where the average monthly wage is 2 gp seems more like a once-in-a-campaign event, rather than a regular thing.
I'd rather the players buy real estate, buy large or fancy items, buy titles/honorifics, or hire men. All those things are useful and can be lost or stolen.
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 06, 2024, 10:01:14 AM
That's a really good point, I mean it's sort of just thrown at the players like, "hey so all your loot is spent leveling up" and it just seems unnecessarily harsh. Especially when you consider they likely got close to death several times just to secure it. I don't mind the idea of taking time to level up, I did it in 3e but it was 1 day per new level plus cost of upkeep (so it was just a time sink).
Well, I always took the default rules to be that way because getting a level was deliberately hard(er). Not only do you need to survive by avoiding fights, you also need to get the treasure, not only for experience but to pay for the level. It's taking the whole "wizard at 1st level with 2 hit points and 1 spell" thing and ramping it up another notch or two. Point being, it's more about the game than the setting in some ways. Given that, you either like that aspect, and thus need to rationalize how it works in the setting in a way you can accept, or realize that maybe if you want to change things, it's because you are not entirely comfortable with that part of the game play. As long as the changes are done with a clear view of balancing game and setting in a way that you can enjoy, it's all good.
That would be distinct from, just to pick a recent example, how some GM's "dislike" wandering monsters, training costs, encumbrance, casters having limits, yada, yada, yada--and then wonder why all the challenge goes out of the game or it can only be challenging by artificially inflated the monster numbers. Changing things has side effects, some of them possibly unintentional. That's not an argument not to change, but it is an argument to think about the change, and maybe if you want to keep something the change is undermining, determine what additional change will be needed to keep it.
This is yet another practical example of Chesterton's Fence. Once you understand why something is there, then you can adjust it with some hope of the side effects being tolerable.
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.
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.
I said the same thing many years ago when I used to play AD&D. After seeing the incredible power creep of 3rd, 4th,and 5th editions I understand the wisdom behind those early rules. Gygax must have been fighting hard to undo all the "accidental" perks that pc's get in the game like rolling mondo stats and finding really good randomly generated magic items.
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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 06, 2024, 11:22:24 AM
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 06, 2024, 10:01:14 AM
That's a really good point, I mean it's sort of just thrown at the players like, "hey so all your loot is spent leveling up" and it just seems unnecessarily harsh. Especially when you consider they likely got close to death several times just to secure it. I don't mind the idea of taking time to level up, I did it in 3e but it was 1 day per new level plus cost of upkeep (so it was just a time sink).
Well, I always took the default rules to be that way because getting a level was deliberately hard(er). Not only do you need to survive by avoiding fights, you also need to get the treasure, not only for experience but to pay for the level. It's taking the whole "wizard at 1st level with 2 hit points and 1 spell" thing and ramping it up another notch or two. Point being, it's more about the game than the setting in some ways. Given that, you either like that aspect, and thus need to rationalize how it works in the setting in a way you can accept, or realize that maybe if you want to change things, it's because you are not entirely comfortable with that part of the game play. As long as the changes are done with a clear view of balancing game and setting in a way that you can enjoy, it's all good.
That would be distinct from, just to pick a recent example, how some GM's "dislike" wandering monsters, training costs, encumbrance, casters having limits, yada, yada, yada--and then wonder why all the challenge goes out of the game or it can only be challenging by artificially inflated the monster numbers. Changing things has side effects, some of them possibly unintentional. That's not an argument not to change, but it is an argument to think about the change, and maybe if you want to keep something the change is undermining, determine what additional change will be needed to keep it.
This is yet another practical example of Chesterton's Fence. Once you understand why something is there, then you can adjust it with some hope of the side effects being tolerable.
Oh I hear ya, I usually don't like to tinker with rules until I've tried them. I like the idea of paying to level up since the players will acquire a lot of gold due to xp = gold. My only real issue is keeping it so that certain classes can still train without a teacher since the game is set in a frontier setting. There is a home base (a small city) they can go to that has guilds with trainers, but only for some classes. There are other NPCs they can go to, which involves an adventure in and of itself.
Now I really dig that idea, I think it's cool to go adventuring to find some old druid to level up. However, I get the feeling the players might think it's fairly lame and these are guys that have a tolerance for difficulty. I guess at this point I'm trying to figure out how to keep training and training costs, while removing the need for a teacher/keeping the teacher optional but beneficial.
I've always thought that the reason the training costs escalated so much was that at higher levels, the teacher does less. At 2nd level, it's almost entirely pay the guy and do what he says. At 9th level, your training costs might be assembling a cadre of like-minded people, some lower level than you, to do advanced sparring.
Does that great master start the school to teach others, or does he doe it because that's the only way to assemble enough journeymen and apprentices to collectively push him to the next level? ;D
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.
A level 2 Thief needs 1250 XP for 3rd.
GM says he Roleplayed poorly. Maybe he bravely fought the monsters, rescued a friend, didn't steal from the party. He needs 2x1500x4=
12,000gp for training.
Yeah, no, never used it. ;D
Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.
If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. How many fantasy stories revolve around trying to gain the favor of some wizened entity or institution, to prove something to achieve a goal? Look at Luke and Yoda. He had to go all the way to Dagobah.
Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".
I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.
The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?
Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 02:12:00 PM
Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".
I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.
The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?
Well, that's just up to the DM. You could say the same thing about any village or city. What if there's no healers anywhere? What if there's nowhere to sleep? What if you run into a Dragon at level 1? It can change game to game. Some games might be very high magic, Harry Potter style, in which case, trainers would be everywhere and it's just about paying them. In other cases, the trainer is an adventure to itself. It could even be part of the quest reward.
For myself, I make the "normal" classes have easy to find trainers -- Fighters, Rogues. But a Paladin will have to put in some work.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.
If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. How many fantasy stories revolve around trying to gain the favor of some wizened entity or institution, to prove something to achieve a goal? Look at Luke and Yoda. He had to go all the way to Dagobah.
Totally agree. Quest for it. But that's best used occasionally rather than each level, IMO.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 02:12:00 PM
Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".
I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.
The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?
Well, that's just up to the DM. You could say the same thing about any village or city. What if there's no healers anywhere? What if there's nowhere to sleep? What if you run into a Dragon at level 1? It can change game to game. Some games might be very high magic, Harry Potter style, in which case, trainers would be everywhere and it's just about paying them. In other cases, the trainer is an adventure to itself. It could even be part of the quest reward.
For myself, I make the "normal" classes have easy to find trainers -- Fighters, Rogues. But a Paladin will have to put in some work.
I agree with you. It's up to the GM.
I'm complaining more about the DMG being overly specific on some things and completely silent on other, related things. "Use the DMG" is often good advice, but it almost always needs clarification because nobody uses it as written. Rating your players for training purposes being a relevant example here.
It would be nice if there was more demographic information like that.
I vaguely recall there being information out there somewhere Gygax wrote about how much of the population was each level. Something like a level 1 Fighter was in 1 in 10 people, a level 2 Fighter was 1 in 20, etc.
Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
Leveling up by carousing is interesting. But Gorak the barbarian spending 1354 gp during a night of debauchery in a place where the average monthly wage is 2 gp seems more like a once-in-a-campaign event, rather than a regular thing.
It's insane. Dumping thousands of gold worth of loot into an economy for beer and chickens and wenches is going to have all kinds of crazy consequences unless the DM handwaves it all away.
IIRC, the economy in D&D is supposed to already be at maximum inflation. Think of gold rush towns.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 03:16:55 PM
IIRC, the economy in D&D is supposed to already be at maximum inflation. Think of gold rush towns.
IIRC I think you are right.
But then, it would be amusing to role play the phenomenon out. The economy crashes and it takes thousands of gold to buy a mug of beer. People throwing gold away because it's cluttering up the place. Hell, they could have a bin on the outskirts of town overflowing with treasure and not even the goblins will touch it.
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/ (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.
Quote from: zircher on February 08, 2024, 04:45:07 PM
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.
That seems like a neat side effect: if you don't have the gold (or don't wanna cough it up) you can exchange training for a quest. That's how I figured a lot of character types like paladins and druids would go about it since they don't tend to collect wealth like the other classes.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 07, 2024, 11:34:18 PM
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.
Hm, then shouldn't the training come
before the adventuring, and the leveling immediately following the adventuring, and preceding the next training?
Quote from: Zalman on February 09, 2024, 06:45:29 AM
Hm, then shouldn't the training come before the adventuring, and the leveling immediately following the adventuring, and preceding the next training?
Apart from 1st level, it does.
At the end of 1st level, you do the training that takes you to 2nd level which prepares you for the exam of the adventuring of being 2nd level.
At the end of 2nd level, you do the training that takes you to being able to try out for the exam of being a 3rd level adventurer. And so on.
What precedes 1st level is a mystery. How do 1st level characters get created? Are they 1st level as infants? If they are 0-level children, how do they become 1st level fighters or clerics? It's a mystery.
But once you're 1st level it's as I said: at the end of level X, you do the training that takes you to level X+1, which prepares you for the adventuring-exam of being level X+1 out in the wild. It's a practical exam, not written. Did you survive the dungeon and emerge with phat l3wt?
Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 08:51:52 PM
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes
So I read through all the answers in this thread...here's why I say use them.
AD&D assumes treasure = experience. You HAVE to give out a lot of treasure or the characters will never level up. I am perfectly fine with this because honestly getting the treasure is what's important, not killing monsters. Monsters can hurt you and make your life miserable, so if the PCs can figure out a way to take their stuff without a direct confrontation, why SHOULDN'T they be rewarded?
If you change to AD&D 2nd style story awards, then of course treasure must be adjusted, but I'm assuming you're playing BtB AD&D which means lots of treasure. How the characters get it is irrelevant, they MUST have lots of treasure to gain levels and buy strongholds, pay hirelings, etc.
The training costs aren't just literal training costs, they're all sorts of stuff. Clerics have to grease the wheels in the church to gain audience with higher ups to gain more divine favor, magic-users need to pay for spells, thieves have to buy off the town guard, and fighters need balms for the inevitable weird STDs they're going to get from all the whores they're banging. Training costs are literally in-genre. Pulp consists of Conan and Fafhrd and Kull (and even dudes like Zorro and Buck Rogers) making a shitload of money and blowing it in a single night of hedonistic extravagance. If a fighter needs to spend two weeks "training," that might actually be a couple lessons from a local swordsman and a fortnite of hanging around the very best brothel. Throw in countless rounds bought in the tavern, the finest haute cuisine for every beggar on the streets to show off, and and utter lack of giving a single fuck about blowing 5000 gold pieces for a new sword hilt and the PCs will quickly run out of money. Walking around in a fur coat and throwing gems (benjamins) at bartenders for a shot of $500 Scotch is what celebrities do, and then they go broke. Just like high level characters. 1st level characters are usually broke, and 10th level characters should also be broke. They are adventurers because they like money solely to buy stupid shit and show off, not because they want to become kings. And just like Conan, they MIGHT become the king, but then they go off adventuring anyway because they're the real badasses and want to show their hotass queen how cool they are by building a million gold piece addition to the castle. Go kill a dragon and steal it's stuff; taxing the people is what tyrants do, not heroes.
Exactly so, Brad.
Adventurers are basically trailer trash who won the lottery.
In the monthly costs section, the DMG uses the word 'largess' to explain why costs go up as characters level up. I thought it meant something like 'living it up', as Brad described, but it has a more important meaning.
Heroes are supposed to be generous. They hand out expensive gifts to everyone because they are heroes, because they possess qualities that make them worthy of being elevated to the aristocracy (which is why they are granted domains at later levels).
I'm going to make a strange suggestion, and please don't all try to murder me at once. The first thing is to change the nature of the economy in D&D. Make Gold Pieces ACTUALLY mean something instead of having them coming out of everyone's kazoo. Most of what the PCs should find is copper and silver coinage (aka the everyday coins of the realms). Even in a post-apocalyptic Swords & Sorcery setting like Greyhawk, gold coinage should be rarer than its ever been shown. A silver standard should be the norm.
Keep the training costs, but change the requirements. Make 1 copper penny = 1XP for training and 1600cp x level.
So, using a the cribbed coinage system from Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG we get this (GP = Gold Piece, gp = Gold Penny, SP = Silver Piece, sp = Silver Penny, cp = Copper Penny):
1/4 GP = 1gp = 4SP = 16sp = 1600cp
Then just adjust the treasure load to be more copper and silver, reserving a few gold pieces for when you really get up there in levels. Low level grunt monsters (Orks, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Gnolls, etc) should never be carrying anything more than a few silver pennies and most copper pennies. The don't forget other money sinks to eat into that treasure haul.
Would it be less confusing to use abbreviations like..
GC = gold coin, GP = gold penny
SC = silver coin, SP = silver penny, etc?
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 29, 2024, 11:01:01 AM
Would it be less confusing to use abbreviations like..
GC = gold coin, GP = gold penny
SC = silver coin, SP = silver penny, etc?
Well, you could use historical coinage names like Crown, Half-Crown, Shilling, Farthing, etc instead...
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on February 29, 2024, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 29, 2024, 11:01:01 AM
Would it be less confusing to use abbreviations like..
GC = gold coin, GP = gold penny
SC = silver coin, SP = silver penny, etc?
Well, you could use historical coinage names like Crown, Half-Crown, Shilling, Farthing, etc instead...
Were those common for most of history in most of the world though? or just part of history in part of the world? I mean I guess we're talking about a fantasy game so you can come up with any coinage system you want. But I think the idea of using a penny is interesting as I've never seen that in a game before, but having a piece and a penny is the same letter, leading to the same abreviation just a difference in capitalization, going from coin to penny at least gives a different letter for abbreviating.