D&D General Experience Points & Leveling: A Brief Primer on XP in the 1e DMG, and Why It Still Matters

[Rob Kuntz]

Anyway, was training a thing at all? Or was that just something Gary made up because it sounded good? lol.

The latter. Gary, as I've stated elsewhere, was obsessed with balance. Unfortunately, and at times, the very balance that he was attempting was due to another imbalance he'd created. So sometimes it was. "That which I fear has come upon me," reactions in the plus and minus mayhem of it all. This is not to detract from what he did right, just that sometimes in padding the rules and in attempting to rule every little facet he backed himself into such corners, that's my only explanation for such things he never used himself but felt that others would possibly need.

Nope. No training was used at all for money or time spent.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I for one would be very interested in knowing which rules were changed or ignored by Gary and the rest of you.

Yeah. I mentioned this up thread, that I have a document of House Rules we used, some Gary's some mine, and I seemed to be (after long reflection) the more experimental of us. Then I would have to append what we did not use, those that were not substituted/amended through HRs. It's really not that long unless one gets into my take on spells (1975). I'll consider updating it and releasing it through TLB Games when I have a future break in the novel writing. Speaking of which...

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I'd have loved that. In 1e my DM only started at 1st level and the death rate was monstrous with low hit points. Once you added in poison, which were almost entirely save or die, and started at level one, and energy drains which started around level 4, we never got higher than 7th level and rarely past 5th. It would have been fun to play a higher level, higher stakes game.

Ward's games were full throttled dangerous, that's why he started you at 6th level. He kinda patterned the pace/action after Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" which he admires:

Deathworld - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So do keep in mind why those extra levels were needed.

 

[FireLance]

It has just occured to me that possibly the most logical way to link XP for GP and training is for the PC to spend GP on training, and they get 1 XP for every GP spent.

 

[Marc_C]

Ward's games were full throttled dangerous, that's why he started you at 6th level. He kinda patterned the pace/action after Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" which he admires:

Deathworld - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So do keep in mind why those extra levels were needed.

You just made my day. Need to read this pronto!

 

[Dioltach]

You just made my day. Need to read this pronto!

The Deathworld books are excellent. They manage to balance grim and gritty with the lightheartedness of Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat series (also highly recommended for those that don't know them).

 

[Hussar]

Nice analysis. But way off in what was really happening at tables. Synergies has to be taken into account. The cleric was more or less a healbot and its true fighting capacity came at third level with silence and hold person spells.

/snip

This is why training was a thing. Yes it was a mean to relieve players of their gold, sure. But it also reflected the journey that they had started. They needed time to assimilated what they had learned and training was also to make them learn more about their profession. Contrary to modern RPG and 5ed, the starting characters were simply apprentices, novitiates in field. They were not fully formed and ready. I consider the AD&D characters as people that have learned the basic of their trade. Started to work/adventuring before fully ready and taking time to learn more about their trade in their downtime, taking time to catch up with what they have missed by going away early in their training...

It's always fun to see people extrapolate their personal experiences and try to make them universal. For example, I don't think in all the years I played AD&D and 2e, I ever saw a hold person spell cast. There were far too many times the baddies weren't humanoid. And, well, at third level, with your 3 2nd level spells, slow poison was ALWAYS the go to spell for memorization, with Spiritual Hammer being a close second.

And, well, a cleric was pretty much equal to a fighter in combat in most ways unless the fighter had percentile strength. Otherwise, there was virtually no difference between a cleric and a fighter. And, well, with the claims of "not being guaranteed average HP", I doubt percentile strengths were terribly common.

 

[Oofta]

It's always fun to see people extrapolate their personal experiences and try to make them universal. For example, I don't think in all the years I played AD&D and 2e, I ever saw a hold person spell cast. There were far too many times the baddies weren't humanoid. And, well, at third level, with your 3 2nd level spells, slow poison was ALWAYS the go to spell for memorization, with Spiritual Hammer being a close second.

And, well, a cleric was pretty much equal to a fighter in combat in most ways unless the fighter had percentile strength. Otherwise, there was virtually no difference between a cleric and a fighter. And, well, with the claims of "not being guaranteed average HP", I doubt percentile strengths were terribly common.

My clerics throughout all editions seem to end up as secondary front line fighters. Even back in ye' olden days. Yeah hold person was useful now and then depending on who your DM was, but a mace to the head was more consistent.

 

[Oofta]

It's been a long time since 1E and it's ... creative ... approach to rules. I will say that I have to laugh now and then when people complain about rules in the current edition not being entirely clear. Y'all have no clue.

But back to the typical rambling OP I don't use XP and haven't for a couple decades now and I'm not about to look back. To me, any rules for XP are always going to be arbitrary whether that means only counting XP for monsters killed, bypassed, gold or magical items. The reason we have character levels is to have PC growth and to tell different aspects of a story.

Motivations for the PCs vary depending on campaign and tone. Sometimes it's to save the town and then the valley and then the kingdom or region. Other times it's because the PC is curious what's over the next hill and having fun amassing a fortune. By not using XP it's not about being a murder hobo that has to ask the DM if we could pretty please just hunt down a few monsters for the sole purpose of gaining a level because we only need another 50 XP to go up a level.

If decisions are made based on PC motivations and what makes sense to the character instead of the player trying to get to the next level, I think the game tends to focus more on story and immersion. Besides, I don't want (or need) a meta-game carrot to entice the players into certain activities. That's what Blarg the Destroyer threatening the PC's home base is for.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Shrug, your bug, my feature. different xp tables based on class was a balancing mechanism, so making all classes use the same table but changing nothing else? That would cause even more problems with how PCs were balanced.

Zero to hero is also a feature for me, not a bug. And it fits the living world preference I have.

that being said, xp rules in 1e were all over the place. Many of the reasons have already been given. It's pretty odd that you could look at XP values for monsters, look at the table that told you how to assign xp for monsters, and realize that the math almost never added up. shrug

As someone who played 1e as my go-to game from 1981 to 2012, I think somewhere around 1983 we ignored the training time frame requirements and costs (even though we understood that gold was meant to be spent, and that's a way to do it). We allowed leveling up when you got enough XP and there was a good break in the game to do so.

I am very much a fan of xp for treasure over monsters, because it fosters a more creative style of play. if most of your xp comes from monsters, then every encounter will be treated like you have to fight it. That gets boring and repetitive. By contrast, if you get most xp for treasure and mission accomplishment, and encounters have a high risk (which they did in 1e compared to later editions), it encouraged more creative ways to get past the monsters other than fighting them.

I too played mostly 1e into the late 90s. I had so much fun...

what people find poor design was fine for me...for years.

man we lusted for gold—-it mattered. When you got a treasure it was exciting. Not only did it help advance you, but you needed it!

I am playing 5e. It’s my second favorite iteration of D&D. Heck, some things are perhaps the best for me.

but overall I am missing the old motivations. I honestly don’t care about treasure much anymore in 5e. I don’t always fight for my share....probably not religious about writing it all down—-magic or useful items excepted.

I am not debating what is smoother. I find the focus on smooth and good design at times supersede what is “fun.” (For me).

the feeling of getting a trove in 1e is just gone from 5e and some who did not play 1e probably cant relate. Only natural.

My group is all in for 5e. I am really thinking about playing some 1e again, however. No law against being in a 5e and 1e campaign simultaneously.

they scratch different itches for me. But we never felt like it was a problem in 1e. Like others we also did what seemed right.

on a long adventure the DM might say that stopping to train was not necessary “this time” if we were in the wilds. It was a quest!

I don’t even think Gygax would have disagreed.