General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
To me, it looks like the AD&D1 training rules (for level advancement), the xp award rules, and the xp needed rules (for level advancement) were all mutually contradictory – they could not function together as written.
1- Each class required different xp totals for level advancement: thief needed 1,250 for 2nd level, cleric needed 1,500 for next level, fighter needed 2,000 for 2nd level, magic-user needed 2,500 for 2nd level, etc. [I’m rounding down the 1 xp to make nice easy numbers to work with – that is: 1,251 = 1,250; 2,001 = 2,000.]
3- Training required an average of 3,000 gp per level to advance. (1,500 per level per week, average play quality = 2 weeks)
The party goes on an adventure. They earn 8,000 xp in total (2,400 from monsters, 5,800 from treasure). That comes to 2,000 xp (and 1,450gp) for each of the four party members.
By the RAW, the thief stops at 1,250 xp (750 is lost), the cleric stops at 1,500 xp (500 is lost), the fighter gets the full 2,000 xp, and the m-u gets the full 2,000 xp.
The thief, cleric, and fighter want to stop adventuring for two weeks to train and level up. Unfortunately, they don’t have enough money to level up yet. So, they just go on another adventure.
On this second adventure, they earn another 8,000 xp in total (2,400 from monsters, 5,800 from treasure). That comes to 2,000 xp (and 1,450gp) for each of the four party members.
The thief is still stuck at 1,250 xp (all gained this time lost), the cleric is still stuck at 1,500 xp (all gained this time is lost), the fighter is stuck at 2,000 xp (all gained this time is lost), and the m-u gets just 500 xp (1,500 is lost).
So now they all have 2,900 gp each -- still not enough for an average player to level up. But let's say they somehow each get an extra 100gp, so they have 3,000 gp each. They can take their couple weeks and pay the trainer, and all PCs are now 2nd level.
But if they all level up at the same time, why have different xp amounts needed for level up? What is the purpose of the thief only needing 1,250 xp for level up if it does him no good whatsoever. It was my understanding that the different xp needed was a balancing feature of the rules. But the training rules negates this feature.
This effect didn’t only happen from certain xp awards or treasure finds, it happened at any xp/gp amounts.
So, why did the rules have one rule for balance and then another rule that essentially negated the balance rule? Why make rules that worked at cross purposes?
It can be mighty inconvenient for a thief -- but not necessarily quite that much!
(1) A 1st-level thief needs 2,501 XP to attain 3rd. Therefore, by my interpretation, 2,500 can be amassed before any more are wasted. One might cut it off anywhere between 1,251 (minimum for 2nd) and 2,500. However, that calls for decreeing an arbitrary cut-off event -- whatever in your example has been called an "adventure" (a term that does not appear in the DMG paragraph in question, although the verb "adventures" does), presumably some scheduled calculation of XP.
(2) The training cost per week is (regardless of class) trainee level x 1,500 g.p.. Number of weeks required depends on average performance rating, ranging from 1 (excellent) to 4 (poor).
(3) Excellent performance means merely "few deviations from norm." The norm under consideration is whether actions were basically in keeping with class and alignment. It is up to the DM's subjective judgment; in mine, the standard of excellence should not be hard to meet. UPON THIS OBVIOUSLY DEPENDS MUCH.
(4) There is no rule decreeing that one must deal with 643 XP worth of monsters to acquire 1,500 GP worth of treasure. Nor is there any rule but whatever players enforce among themselves requiring equal shares of treasure.
Last edited by Ariosto; 22nd July 2009 at 01:22 AM..
The training rules were included to slow down advancement and remove treasure in the case of too-rapid advancement through large windfalls of treasure. In fact, Gary Gygax rarely used them. (I asked him about it a few years back on EN World).
It can be mighty inconvenient for a thief -- but not necessarily quite that much!
(1) A 1st-level thief needs 2,501 XP to attain 3rd. Therefore, by my interpretation, 2,500 can be amassed before any more are wasted.
This was the explicit method in Moldvay (and later) Basic, as I recall.
My interpretation of the rule was that you gained XP from an adventure at one time, and if you'd gone above the XP required, you were then frozen until you trained. I never played with the rule, though. (Never was DM to a group that gained so much XP!)
Quote:
(4) There is no rule decreeing that one must deal with 643 XP worth of monsters to acquire 1,500 GP worth of treasure. Nor is there any rule but whatever players enforce among themselves requiring equal shares of treasure.
According to one interpretation I've seen of the rules - and, I feel, it might be the right one - XP was awarded for GP gained by the individual character! So, if four PCs gave an extra 500 GP to the rogue, they'd all miss out on 500 XP and he'd gain 2000 XP! (Assuming the DM ruled that 1 GP = 1 XP, which was not necessarily the case).
Note that the mentor also had the option of service instead of charging gold, so I assume that for those using the strict rules, that occurred a lot!
When we played 1e, we used training rules with the following being typical:
1) you could gain enough experience (eeps) to be 1 shy of your next level - so one short of 3rd level at 1st.
2) we never used any multipliers for needed gold - it was always a flat 1,500 x level and always took 1 week per level.
3) When a PC was ready to go up, the whole party chipped in to be sure he had enough gold to pay the training cost. Although that was rarely necessary for the rogue...
After all, going up a level did benefit the whole group's survival chances.
Note that, with an excellent rating, the total training costs for a thief to attain 7th level are 31,500 g.p. -- versus a total of 42,501 XP. From that point on, things are a bit easier.
I only played in 1E, didn't start DMing until 2E. I didn't even know there WERE formal training rules until I read this thread - I thought training rules were always informal house rules that other people made up. :P
1. I take note of DMG pg 86: "Note that the tutor might possibly accept some combination of gold and service in return for his tutelage…" Thus, a Thief or a Cleric who doesn't have the cold hard cash still has some options; and Thieves and Clerics both have built in organizations that can potentially work with them on this (i.e. guild and church). There's no reason other classes couldn't have similar options. Some good role-playing opportunities and adventure hooks, there. The "service option" is very popular, in my experience.
2. I've seen PCs pool their resources to train someone right away.
That said, the training rules are one of those things that I've never been entirely comfortable with. I've been tinkering with the "XP for gold allocated to areas of interest" mechanic from Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign; I think there's some promise, there.
__________________ "You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!" - Predavolk
We used the rules, more or less. We'd spend 1500 per current level (not target level) per week, training was usually just one week.
The rules themselves are pretty complex, even irritating at times, but I don't think they're contradictory. They're just designed to include a lot of opportunities for wasted XPs. If you get more XPs than your next level, you lose them. If you sell your gear after the XPs are awarded in order to afford training, you didn't get XP for the gold. If you were in adventure that didn't allow getting out to train for a week, you kept going knowing you weren't gaining any more XPs. If you didn't have enough money to afford the training but were between adventures, you worked or went adventuring for no XPs just to get the money.
All part of the puzzle in why 3e really does level up faster than 1e, by the rules.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
(1) A 1st-level thief needs 2,501 XP to attain 3rd. Therefore, by my interpretation, 2,500 can be amassed before any more are wasted.
You are thinking of the Basic D&D rules. The Advanced D&D rules say xp gain stops at the minimum for 2nd level. So the thief would stop at 1,251.
Quote:
(4) There is no rule decreeing that one must deal with 643 XP worth of monsters to acquire 1,500 GP worth of treasure. Nor is there any rule but whatever players enforce among themselves requiring equal shares of treasure.
The 30/70% monster xp to treasure xp is not a written rule, but that seems to be the average break down judging from what came of a series of core AD&D1 adventure modules. And no one has argued against that ratio.
The rules themselves are pretty complex, even irritating at times, but I don't think they're contradictory. They're just designed to include a lot of opportunities for wasted XPs. If you get more XPs than your next level, you lose them. If you sell your gear after the XPs are awarded in order to afford training, you didn't get XP for the gold. If you were in adventure that didn't allow getting out to train for a week, you kept going knowing you weren't gaining any more XPs. If you didn't have enough money to afford the training but were between adventures, you worked or went adventuring for no XPs just to get the money.
So why design the xp and level gain rules this way. If slow advancement and low money was the goal, why write the rules so complicated? Why set things up so that xps were often wasted by the truckload? Why set the xp goals so high (in the thousands), and so different, then tie gp to xp, then charge so much for level advancement, and then set it up so tons of xp get wasted?
This almost sounds like a government tax code. To me, this is all so extremely, over the top, complicated and contradictory.
Honestly, this looks like the design of a madman :-)
The 30/70% monster xp to treasure xp is not a written rule, but that seems to be the average break down judging from what came of a series of core AD&D1 adventure modules. And no one has argued against that ratio.
__________________ "You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!" - Predavolk
Whenever I had the players do training to level up in 1E AD&D, the gold amounts typically paid were reflective of things like joining a guild and whatever amounts paid for room + board, along with the "fees" of the trainers.
In order to not be short of gold, sometimes I just gave them slightly more gold to find than usual during their adventures.
1. I take note of DMG pg 86: "Note that the tutor might possibly accept some combination of gold and service in return for his tutelage…" Thus, a Thief or a Cleric who doesn't have the cold hard cash still has some options; and Thieves and Clerics both have built in organizations that can potentially work with them on this (i.e. guild and church). There's no reason other classes couldn't have similar options. Some good role-playing opportunities and adventure hooks, there. The "service option" is very popular, in my experience.
2. I've seen PCs pool their resources to train someone right away.
These two things are the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. I've had players return the most insignificant looking objects from dungeons and gotten a whole level's worth of training out of it (hey, who knows why the thieves' guild wants that iron candelabra? get it for 'em already!)
And adventurers in my group have pooled their resources; they've reasoned that' it's better to have that thief at the next highest level than not.
(snipped the rest of your...your...HERESY!. Honestly, turn in your AD&D members card at the next meeting, and prepare to have your ID tattoo sanded off!)
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
In my experience (granted, it is only anecdotal) among the most common house rules were abolishing the training rules (or at least using the "Only Train When You Gain" system outlined in The Dragon), and eliminating the GP = XP equation.
But, if you used the training rules, I note that while you could sell a magic item for a lot of money, you would only get a lesser amount of experience points from doing so. The general assumption most people I knew played with was that PCs would sell minor magic items to get the needed cash to train.
I also note that the expectation embedded in the DMG seems to be that the PCs would end up with piles of cash as there is significant time spent advising how to seperate PCs from their loot. The spell trading rules, the "PC upkeep rules", the stronghold building rules, and so on and so forth.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Yep, I ignored them when I was a kid, and as an adult have continued to do so! They slow things down unnecessarily and create more hurdles than benefits, IMO.
As far as I saw it, all that stuff they did in the dungeon was their training.
But, if you used the training rules, I note that while you could sell a magic item for a lot of money, you would only get a lesser amount of experience points from doing so. The general assumption most people I knew played with was that PCs would sell minor magic items to get the needed cash to train.
That's backwards, actually. Most items have a significantly higher sale value than XP value. You get more XP from selling them, assuming you can find a buyer.
That's backwards, actually. Most items have a significantly higher sale value than XP value. You get more XP from selling them, assuming you can find a buyer.
You're right. I misremembered. That just makes the problem worse. We almost never played with the training rules anyway.
In addition to the annoyance of getting money and halting XP gain and finding a mentor and so on, we always thought it somewhat creepy that the DM would be grading the players.
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
(snipped the rest of your...your...HERESY!. Honestly, turn in your AD&D members card at the next meeting, and prepare to have your ID tattoo sanded off!)
Heh. I have this mental picture of you reading my post and nodding, then hitting the part where I mention tinkering with Arneson's "spend/xp" system and spewing coffee all over the place.
FWIW, I think the training rules work fine when the service option is liberally exercised. My lack of 100% comfort is rooted in the cost of training; it threatens verisimilitude, for me. But I don't consider it a big deal, either way.
__________________ "You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!" - Predavolk
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
