Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11450584) Training to level up takes weeks. I like the idea of training, but doesn't this mean the PC is basically out of play for god knows how long? Many of my campaigns will take months IRL to finish a single game day because the game is so packed with action. How does pacing of sessions relating to the in-game calendar go? Does every session take place after a week has passed or something?

It's very common for players to just take a break from adventuring while people train.  But as Kyle noted, it's not unknown to just rotate out that character and take a backup out for that time instead.  Get your backup character bumped up a bit if your main character dies.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1145058Also, as a followup to the training question: if I'm to understand the replies correctly, if you get more XP than your normal limit, you don't level up from it, but you still have the extra XP on hand to gain later when you've completed training?

So if I'm a level 1 Fighter, and it takes 300 XP for me to get to level 2, and 900 XP to be level 3... and I get 1,000 gold... I get enough experience to get right up to leveling twice -- so my XP stops at 899, right? What happens to the remaining 101 XP. Is that just gone forever, or does that get "banked" for after I get to level 2 and I can use it then?

It's "gone forever".  But who gives a shit?  If someone came back with enough treasure to go up a level and most of another, but what stuck in their mind was 100 XP they "lost" - I'm already losing my enthusiasm for DMing that player.  They're probably going to be really butthurt when the giant spider surprises them, gets 4 free attacks, and kills them via poison before they get a chance to roll.

On #1, players are supposed to play every level and not skip levels due to Monty Haul XP allocation. If you are giving out so much XP the PCs can advance multiple levels at once, you are probably giving too much XP. It should typically be several sessions per level. Getting even one full level's worth of XP in a single session should be very rare.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1145031#1) The reason that the level limit was in place initially was that in the very early day there wasn't the assumption that every player would show up to every session. So when newer players showed up, their characters were often much lower level the other players. What the players tried to do was to award the lower level characters a much higher share of the treasure so they'd catch up faster. Gygax squashed this by putting in a one level per session limit. Feel free to ignore it.

This is perplexing. Never in my 40+ years of gaming have I seen a game where XP was awarded per party and distributed by the players. In my experience, the DM invariably awards per-player XP. Parties were allowed to split the retrieved treasure any way they like, but XP was awarded based on the total amount retrieved by the party, and divided by the DM appropriately -- often including individual awards for exceptional play.

The traditional way to divide XP from both monsters and treasure is 2 shares for each PC, and 1 share for each henchman. However XP is not granted for particular magical items until assigned to a particular character; they get until the next session to decide, otherwise that XP is lost (so no, they can't just keep that +3 sword in a chest until they're however many xp short of the next level...).

If a player is absent, their character is absent if it's convenient (eg they've not yet left the inn since their last adventure) and can catch up later, otherwise they're played extremely conservatively and unimaginatively by the DM - and they receive no XP for that session.

How the actual treasure is divided up is up to the players in every case, though it's customary to divide monetary treasure as XP is divided, and assign magical items to whoever can make best use of them.

Quote from: Zalman;1145088This is perplexing. Never in my 40+ years of gaming have I seen a game where XP was awarded per party and distributed by the players.

The players aren't distributing XP, just treasure. It's similar to how if the thief steals some extra treasure, he'll get a few extra XP based on the GP value of what he stole.

However, I only relay this story (as original told by Mike Mornard who was there when it happened) to explain why this rule can be easily ignore if you aren't running your game in that older style (which I've seen referred to as "open table"). Since most games of D&D, even by people in the OSR, use the modern party-based setups (where the characters are all of a similar level), then this rule serves no real purpose.

To anyone afraid that enforced "training" creates pacing problems, I can say that has never been my experience. Back when AD&D was rolled out, I and other players felt it was a terrible new imposition and resented it, but we all quickly became fans. I believe it is not only not a problem, but on the contrary, it can be a huge asset to the game. Especially if your players are somewhat passive and rely on the gm to present them with goals and opportunities. Forced training gives you a chance to get the party out of that mind-set, if only temporarily, and force them to pursue personal goals.

Obviously it doesn't have to be that way all the time, training can be just down time that draws cash out of the party but is otherwise hand-waved.

Or it can be a time for players who aren't training to come up with activities of their own.

Or best of all, it can be a time when players have to drive the agenda. Because, who are you going to train under? Sure at the early levels, it can be assumed that everyone has a mentor: somebody had to train you up to 1st level in the first place. But at later levels, you have to start looking further afield and trying to track down a high level npc to train under. That may often mean some exploration and travel, off to the far-off city of whatever to train under some legendary whoever. Maybe (often) the whole party will go along for the ride. You know what foreign travel is like,  mayhem will surely ensue. In my experience, the MUs quest for rare, arcane training, knowledge, and exotic materials will often drive the gameplan for the whole party.

Before you know it, voila. A sandbox driven by player ambitions, even when your players find it hard to define ambitions on their own.

It's funny you guys bring up "open table" play. That was the kind of game I want to run: a 5e game where it's an open table, with different players able to show up each session, where the players mostly are responsible for driving when we play (aside from me making available when I'm free), and that's gold-for-xp based. The thing is, to make this kind of game work you need the full gamut of rules that support it, which is why I'm looking at Basic/1e/2e type games. For instance, I don't care if people have level differences here -- and every new PC will be level 1, rolled 4d6d1, with there being class prerequisites before being able to take it. (Though I'm not sure on the last part.)

I don't have a problem with the players giving more XP/gold to a lower level PC -- that sounds like a feature to me.

Hmm, I had another question that I came up with in the shower but it's slipped away from me now...

Ah, how about this: 6) Since we're talking about characters taking off during training, how would the sessions be paced in terms of in-game time normally? I was thinking of making each session be a week advanced in the game world, but that means a character taking 5 weeks to train is out for 5 sessions... was this normal, or did you do stuff like skip entire months of play? It is harder to figure out when it's open table play since that entire group might not be around, and a new group might still want to play in the meantime in the intervening time skip... which means the first group still has to wait.

If you guys ever heard of the adventure Tomb of the Serpent Kings, I want to run that in 5e since it's supposed to be "an intro to OSR."

Also it's interesting everyone says leveling is still supposed to be slow because the way I've always seen "gold for xp" advertised is that it lets you skip the drudgery of leveling the normal way by getting a huge mountain of gold. I like the idea of having one level per session minimum though.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1145111It's funny you guys bring up "open table" play. That was the kind of game I want to run: a 5e game where it's an open table, with different players able to show up each session, where the players mostly are responsible for driving when we play (aside from me making available when I'm free), and that's gold-for-xp based. The thing is, to make this kind of game work you need the full gamut of rules that support it, which is why I'm looking at Basic/1e/2e type games. For instance, I don't care if people have level differences here -- and every new PC will be level 1, rolled 4d6d1, with there being class prerequisites before being able to take it. (Though I'm not sure on the last part.)

I don't have a problem with the players giving more XP/gold to a lower level PC -- that sounds like a feature to me.

Hmm, I had another question that I came up with in the shower but it's slipped away from me now...

Ah, how about this: 6) Since we're talking about characters taking off during training, how would the sessions be paced in terms of in-game time normally? I was thinking of making each session be a week advanced in the game world, but that means a character taking 5 weeks to train is out for 5 sessions... was this normal, or did you do stuff like skip entire months of play? It is harder to figure out when it's open table play since that entire group might not be around, and a new group might still want to play in the meantime in the intervening time skip... which means the first group still has to wait.

If you guys ever heard of the adventure Tomb of the Serpent Kings, I want to run that in 5e since it's supposed to be "an intro to OSR."

Also it's interesting everyone says leveling is still supposed to be slow because the way I've always seen "gold for xp" advertised is that it lets you skip the drudgery of leveling the normal way by getting a huge mountain of gold. I like the idea of having one level per session minimum though.

WAIT, you mean players play without a GM? Not sure D&D any edition is for you then.

No I mean that instead of just 4 steady players that are the party and always show up, I'll have a pool of say 30 players, who can show up if they want to go into the dungeon that night. It won't have to be the same players every time. Of course the limit of people for each particular night would be around 5.

See in the last 5 years I’ve been DMing I’ve inducted about 130 players into the game, and I have been trying to think of a way to play with all of them instead of only selecting a few for a game now and then. This is my answer. 1 DM, open group of players.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1145060If you want to play AD&D1e, play AD&D1e. If you want to play D&D5e, play D&D5e. But they are different games.

I suspect that depends heftily on how one defines "old school".

This idea probably should be it's own thread.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1145111It's funny you guys bring up "open table" play. That was the kind of game I want to run [...] and every new PC will be level 1, rolled 4d6d1, with there being class prerequisites before being able to take it.

You're almost there, you have another step or two before you fully get it.

Roll 3d6 down the line, choose between magic-user, cleric, fighter and thief. Now choose gear. That's it. With an open game table, you want as few options as possible, because every choice slows things down, and as a newbie you don't know what the important choices are, so it's slower still - that's why in more complex systems GMs end up giving out pre-gens. If everything is chance then there are no choices and complete newbies can get into play in under twenty minutes.

[quoe]6) Since we're talking about characters taking off during training, how would the sessions be paced in terms of in-game time normally? [/quote]
You try to end each session outside the dungeon or equivalent, preferably in a nearby town where you can sell stuff you don't want to keep, restock on supplies and train to level up. If the trip to that town involves a lengthy journey, then the party as a whole has to decide to go - because you never split the party. This may mean travelling along so that so-and-so can level up, even though nobody else can. It may also mean so-and-so has to wait for the rest of the party, he can adventure and get treasure but not xp. Either is fine.

QuoteI like the idea of having one level per session minimum though.

You seem to think that levelling up is the main reason people play. If all I want is to watch the numbers on my character sheet change I don't even need to play, I can just sit there at home rubbing them out and writing new ones. People play for the people, the snacks, the setting and the system - in that order. The experience of play has little to do with levelling up.

I saw some people using Death and Dismemberment tables, and some having gear randomized too. ie, you roll on a table, and it gives you your starting gear.

Has anyone used either of those?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1145181You seem to think that levelling up is the main reason people play. If all I want is to watch the numbers on my character sheet change I don't even need to play, I can just sit there at home rubbing them out and writing new ones. People play for the people, the snacks, the setting and the system - in that order. The experience of play has little to do with levelling up.

Well, you'd be surprised how many people live to optimize their sheets and see those numbers go up... It's kind of like candy. Even if it's not the true, long lasting satisfaction of the campaign, people get excited over it in the moment.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron....Followup: you never get more XP than your level limit. Any excess is simply lost....

There is no such rule. No upper limit is specified, it says "equal to or greater than", not "equal to".

QuoteThus, a character who successfully adventures and gains experience points which not only equal a new level but are almost sufficient to gain yet a second such level, cannot opt to-forego the period of training and study necessary to go up a level in favor of gaining a few more points and training and studying for two levels at once. ONCE A CHARACTER HAS POINTS WHICH ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER NECESSARY TO MOVE UPWARDS IN EXPERIENCE LEVEL, NO FURTHER EXPERIENCE POINTS CAN BE GAINED UNTIL THE CHARACTER ACTUALLY GAINS THE NEW LEVEL.

-- Dungeon Masters Guide [1e], p. 86

Nevertheless, if a 1st level fighter receives 10,000 g.p. but only 2,000 x.p. (the minimum necessary for level 2), then he is getting 1 x.p. per 5 g.p. at the DM's discretion. No x.p. have been lost.

Rather than saying that x.p. are "lost", which infers that there is something wrong due to slavishly following rules, it is more correct to say that the character has received the correct amount of x.p. as judged by the DM.

Still, if a 1st level party were to take a wrong turn and find themselves on the 4th dungeon level, and they were to somehow make it back to the surface alive with an overabundance of loot due to superior play, I would not begrudge excessive x.p. being "banked" so as to quicken the gaining of the next level. This is an appropriate bonus which is much less arbitrary than story awards.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1145188you'd be surprised how many people live to optimize their sheets and see those numbers go up...

Yes. Because most modern rpgs offer nothing else. You as DM and the players are responsible for doing better than that.

You're still focused on the rules.

1. people
2. snacks
3. setting
4. system
in that order.

Get yourself this, and play in an online game with someone like Bill here. And in time you'll begin to understand.

https://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3019374

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11451116) Since we're talking about characters taking off during training, how would the sessions be paced in terms of in-game time normally? I was thinking of making each session be a week advanced in the game world, but that means a character taking 5 weeks to train is out for 5 sessions... was this normal, or did you do stuff like skip entire months of play?

Personally, I would never tell a player that they can't play for 5 sessions. If you are going to use training, and I wouldn't recommend it, then you should just advance the game clock by the amount of time that the training takes. Advancing the clock will also allow you at introduce some background "plot" elements to make your game world seem more alive. Things like a new adventuring group moving to town, a change in town leadership, or rumors of monsters attacking a distant village. That sort of thing.