That sounds like a cool approach.
I'm thinking about it from the individual game standpoint. Why is a particular GM doing it? There are reasons that can lead to it being more fun, and reasons that are apt to make it less fun.
Cost and Time for Training?
- Thread starter ReeboKesh
- Start date
That sounds like a cool approach.
I'm thinking about it from the individual game standpoint. Why is a particular GM doing it? There are reasons that can lead to it being more fun, and reasons that are apt to make it less fun.
diaglo
Adventurer
oh, i knew referees who got rid of it without so much as a hiccup to their games.
we liked it. we also used armor vs weapon type, callers, and other things that got removed or changed in later editions.
but we used them from OD&D(1974) when we converted/brought in 1edADnD stuff.
Holy Bovine
First Post
Freakin' powergamers...
/joke
To the op - I tried to add in training times and costs to a 3E game I was running. The players universally despised it despite it being fairly cheap (100gp per level, 1 day per level. The level in question was the level they were training to become). It wasn't the costs it was the whole 'finding a trainer/mentor' thing. Maybe I just dropped the ball and didn't make them interesting/memorable enough. Also the adventure hooks I put out with the mentors were seen as nothing more than 'railroading' by most of my players. This from a group that had been playing the Age of Worms adventure path for a month! I say this only as a cautionary tale that you have to make sure your players are onboard with the idea of training times & costs.
Last edited:
Merlin the Tuna
First Post
We did something similar in our 3.5E campaign in college, and it always seemed unnecessary and annoying. Ours was just a time commitment, not gold or mentors, but it was jarring to say "Okay, so I spent a month adventuring through the Underdark, solving puzzles, picking locks, and fighting all kinds of weird beasts, but what I really needed to do to get better was a week of lifting weights and parkour?"
It especially makes one wonder whether, instead of adventuring, he should spend a few more days with the mentor/training montage to grind out another level or two.
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
I'd consider the focus & playstyle of the campaign before doing this.
If your intention is to "cut away" every few sessions to do a "montage" of the training/questing/etc scenes to advance the PCs, be aware that might only work well if the game is fully about PC development. If there's an overt overarching plot or destinies/invasions/mysteries that need to be dealt with ASAP, it might detract from the focus of the game in the eyes of some players.
OTOH, I personally really like it as an aspect of a campaign, especially in one with lots of in-game downtime between "episodes" &/or deep character backstories.
In end, I'd get the players' opinions before putting it to them.
If your intention is to "cut away" every few sessions to do a "montage" of the training/questing/etc scenes to advance the PCs, be aware that might only work well if the game is fully about PC development. If there's an overt overarching plot or destinies/invasions/mysteries that need to be dealt with ASAP, it might detract from the focus of the game in the eyes of some players.
OTOH, I personally really like it as an aspect of a campaign, especially in one with lots of in-game downtime between "episodes" &/or deep character backstories.
In end, I'd get the players' opinions before putting it to them.
I am a big fan of the "DING!" your next level.
Why, because it eliminates time spent that neither I the DM nor my players like.
Likewise, I have no desire to role play a tax audit or a root canal.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
First off, to the OP: what edition or system are you playing?
This will make a big difference.
1e already has a system (but from your post I assume you are not playing 1e) that is easy to tinker with if you don't like it as is.
2e can work the same as 1e if you like, or again you can easily streamline it or tinker with it.
3.xe can be made to work, I've seen it done; using a relatively simple system where it cost about 500-1000 g.p. per level being trained into and usually took a week or two. (that said, the advancement in that game was slowed down; I'm not sure if it'd work so well were advancement kept at by-the-book speed) There's also the UA system someone already mentioned.
4e I'm not so sure about. If you're using 4e's canned adventures, or running things close to by-the-book, 4e tends not to give out enough extra treasure for this to work all that well - unless you want your characters to be nigh-broke all the time - and also keep in mind they're sometimes supposed to bump several times in the same adventure for the adventure to "work". KotS, for example, assumes they'll be 1st level to start and 3rd by the final few encounters.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of training times and of there being some expense involved; but to make it work well in either 3e or 4e you're probably going to have to make some other changes as well, the most notable of which will probably be slowing down the advancement rate and - if you're running 4e - increasing the treasure haul a bit.
Another thing to consider in terms of tweaking whatever training system you use: will untrained characters (i.e. they have bumped but not yet trained) be able to gain any ExP. I'd vote for yes, even if it's only half-rate, if only because sometimes it's impossible to get out of the dungeon to train and the game probably needs a mechanism to accommodate that.
Another consideration: at higher levels (say 9+ in 1-2e, 12+ in 3e, 15+ in 4e), you might want the PCs to be able to self-train rather than have to find a trainer; either that, or you're going to have to introduce a set of uber-NPCs that can serve as high-level trainers; and that can cause its own headaches if you're not careful.
One huge advantage of enforced training is that it drags the PCs out of the field for a while: the world has time to advance while they're off training, and it makes the 1-20 (or 1-30, whatever) progression take just a little longer in game time.
Lanefan
This will make a big difference.
1e already has a system (but from your post I assume you are not playing 1e) that is easy to tinker with if you don't like it as is.
2e can work the same as 1e if you like, or again you can easily streamline it or tinker with it.
3.xe can be made to work, I've seen it done; using a relatively simple system where it cost about 500-1000 g.p. per level being trained into and usually took a week or two. (that said, the advancement in that game was slowed down; I'm not sure if it'd work so well were advancement kept at by-the-book speed) There's also the UA system someone already mentioned.
4e I'm not so sure about. If you're using 4e's canned adventures, or running things close to by-the-book, 4e tends not to give out enough extra treasure for this to work all that well - unless you want your characters to be nigh-broke all the time - and also keep in mind they're sometimes supposed to bump several times in the same adventure for the adventure to "work". KotS, for example, assumes they'll be 1st level to start and 3rd by the final few encounters.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of training times and of there being some expense involved; but to make it work well in either 3e or 4e you're probably going to have to make some other changes as well, the most notable of which will probably be slowing down the advancement rate and - if you're running 4e - increasing the treasure haul a bit.
Another thing to consider in terms of tweaking whatever training system you use: will untrained characters (i.e. they have bumped but not yet trained) be able to gain any ExP. I'd vote for yes, even if it's only half-rate, if only because sometimes it's impossible to get out of the dungeon to train and the game probably needs a mechanism to accommodate that.
Another consideration: at higher levels (say 9+ in 1-2e, 12+ in 3e, 15+ in 4e), you might want the PCs to be able to self-train rather than have to find a trainer; either that, or you're going to have to introduce a set of uber-NPCs that can serve as high-level trainers; and that can cause its own headaches if you're not careful.
One huge advantage of enforced training is that it drags the PCs out of the field for a while: the world has time to advance while they're off training, and it makes the 1-20 (or 1-30, whatever) progression take just a little longer in game time.
Lanefan
LostSoul
Adventurer
Nah, it's easy. Find a trainer (Streetwise DC Moderate of his level). He charges you a random treasure parcel (roll 1d6+4) of your level. If you want to add that back in as DM, go ahead. If you use the system detailed in "A Reward Based Game" from the DMG2 you can drop magic item shops and PCs won't have much else to spend gold on.
Some modules won't work so well, it's true. In other campaigns it might provide an interesting choice - take the time to level up or push on.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I am not a fan of training rules because I got the experience from my adventures - why do I need to do non-adventuring stuff to get better at adventuring itself? There is a disconnect for me there.
That said, I still would like games to support training seperate from the "ding-a-new-level" approach. At least, if I wanted to have a game that feels a little more (dare I say it?) "realistic".
I think an interesting way would be to have something like "lateral" advancement built into game systems. Basically, there are two directions in which you can get better, and one is modeled with training and the other is modeled by practical experience.
For example, learning languages in 3E and 4E essentially requires gaining levels. I think it should be possible to learn new languages by just spending in-game time to learn them. There is no need to kill an Orc for learning Elven.
Spell-Learning for Wizards (at least in 3E) is a good example, too - you pick up a new spell of a level you have access to by acquiring a scroll or spellbook and write the spell in your own book, essentially learning it by spending time. I think it's okay when you still have to kill Orcs to achieve new spell levels...
That said, I still would like games to support training seperate from the "ding-a-new-level" approach. At least, if I wanted to have a game that feels a little more (dare I say it?) "realistic".
I think an interesting way would be to have something like "lateral" advancement built into game systems. Basically, there are two directions in which you can get better, and one is modeled with training and the other is modeled by practical experience.
For example, learning languages in 3E and 4E essentially requires gaining levels. I think it should be possible to learn new languages by just spending in-game time to learn them. There is no need to kill an Orc for learning Elven.
Spell-Learning for Wizards (at least in 3E) is a good example, too - you pick up a new spell of a level you have access to by acquiring a scroll or spellbook and write the spell in your own book, essentially learning it by spending time. I think it's okay when you still have to kill Orcs to achieve new spell levels...
Aran Thule
First Post
If i were to include training costs to 4e i would have the trainers accept items at trade price rather then just 20%.
Another idea is that after getting enough for next level any additional xp is put into a buffer.
This can be used for item creation or to replace xp lost from level drain, maybe even have it as a group buffer.
Another idea is that after getting enough for next level any additional xp is put into a buffer.
This can be used for item creation or to replace xp lost from level drain, maybe even have it as a group buffer.
Similar Threads
