Costs for leveling up in AD&D1

[T. Foster]

'Name level' characters in AD&D (9th+ in the case of fighters) don't need to "train" in the same manner as low level characters (i.e. they don't need an instructor); they just need to spend a couple weeks of downtime and delete a few thousand g.p. -- and considering that each Conan story tends to begin several months after the previous one ended with whatever fortune Conan gained in that story having completely evaporated, neither of those requirements seems particularly out of character.

But it doesn't really matter either way because AD&D isn't meant to serve as a model/recreation of the Conan stories, either in specifics or in general. Rather, it's a GAME that just happens to be based on the sword & sorcery genre as exemplified by Howard's Conan stories. To claim that a rule in a game is bad because it doesn't accurately portray the content of a story is to ignore this very fundamental difference. While they might share some superficial similarities (in terms of genre, setting, and so forth) fiction and games are two completely different media each with their own sets of rules and expectations, and there's no reason to expect that what works for one must necessarily work for the other -- a story based on the action of a game of Monopoly or Chess would likely be a pretty bad story, and likewise reenacting the plot of Middlemarch wouldn't make for a very fun game (at least to me). I'd think this distinction would be self-evident, but alas it seems to be lost on an awful lot of people.

 

[TerraDave]

I guess I wasn't that wrong, it wasn't 10. It was 20 who actually used those rules...

 

[gizmo33]

-- and considering that each Conan story tends to begin several months after the previous one ended with whatever fortune Conan gained in that story having completely evaporated, neither of those requirements seems particularly out of character.

According to the REH novels, IMO it was partying and NOT training, that cost Conan his money. The stories are fairly clear (and repetative) about that. Also, the Conan stories devote plenty of paragraphs to combat - with all of the nuances. Conan succeeds against his adversaries because of raw power, quickness, and "barbarian instinct". The author provides plenty of commentary with justifications for why Conan defeats his adversaries - I just can't think of any instances where "training" or anything like it is ever mentioned.

But it doesn't really matter either way because AD&D isn't meant to serve as a model/recreation of the Conan stories, either in specifics or in general.

True, and you're bringing this back to the general issue, which I had much more to say about than just to cite the Conan example. The Conan example is only to illustrate that there is no mandate for "training as written in 1E" within the fantasy literature that was the most significant in the formation of 1E.

 

[T. Foster]

According to the REH novels, IMO it was partying and NOT training, that cost Conan his money. The stories are fairly clear (and repetative) about that. Also, the Conan stories devote plenty of paragraphs to combat - with all of the nuances. Conan succeeds against his adversaries because of raw power, quickness, and "barbarian instinct". The author provides plenty of commentary with justifications for why Conan defeats his adversaries - I just can't think of any instances where "training" or anything like it is ever mentioned.

I don't have the same sort of aversion to mixing metagame concerns with in-milieu concerns that a lot of people do (Mouseferatu specifically, but I suspect many others feel the same way), so as long as I understand and accept the metagame reasoning/assumption (in this case that 'training' serves as a way to force downtime and bleed away excess treasure) I have no trouble in making up whatever 'in-milieu' pretext I need to, without worrying if it's really realistic or consistent. Thus I have no problem with declaring that a high level fighter's 'training' time/cost might consist of wenching and partying rather than actual training/practice, likewise that a cleric's 'training' might consist of a long period of meditation (the time requirement) and a substantial tithe (the money requirement), the magic-user's in seeking out and purchasing rare scrolls and ingredients, etc. For metagame reasons the end result of all these activities happens to be exactly the same (they take the same amount of time and bleed off the same amount of cash), and for convenience's sake they're all referred to under the umbrella term of 'training,' but that doesn't mean (unless you're a particularly dogmatic and inflexible DM) that it has to be actual training, especially for high level characters and others who are 'self-training' (which, remember, anyone with a suitably high 'performance rating' is able to do at any level, only most choose not to since it requires double the standard investment of time & money).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

IME most folks that still play 1E have so thoroughly mastered the system that I take my net-persona's life in it's hands by even posting a clarification/question on this topic. So please take this only as idle ramblings if it offends:

I'm not sure that "by the book" treasure awards in 1E are high. In fact, having rolled some on the actual treasure tables for a few years (with help of a computer program) I have to say that IMO most of the treasure awards in the modules significantly exceed those recommended "btb". In fact, taking into account the "% In Lair" mechanic in the MM, a good percentage of the time (barring situational factors) you don't even get to roll on the treasure table. Regarding NPCs, the guidelines IIRC are pretty sketchy - I remember some tables for generating magic items (I used the one in the Fiend Folio, though there might be others). But no guidelines for cash.

In fact, since I was using a computer program for the latter part of my 1E DMing, I found the levels of cash inconsistent with the cash requirements for training, which is the reason that I dropped them as written.

I found that the system, if based roughly on the Appendix A method, dished out bags and bags of cash. I always saw the Monster Manual treasure types as being appropriate for critters encountered in the wilderness and the Appendix A-style method as appropriate for dungeoneering, which is one of the reasons why players tend to seek out dungeons.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That's not a problem with the *poll*.

Quasqueton

No indeed, it's a problem with assumptions.

 

[diaglo]

I guess I wasn't that wrong, it wasn't 10. It was 20 who actually used those rules...

there were at least that many in the club i ran in high school.

 

[Gentlegamer]

According to the REH novels, IMO it was partying and NOT training, that cost Conan his money. The stories are fairly clear (and repetative) about that. Also, the Conan stories devote plenty of paragraphs to combat - with all of the nuances. Conan succeeds against his adversaries because of raw power, quickness, and "barbarian instinct". The author provides plenty of commentary with justifications for why Conan defeats his adversaries - I just can't think of any instances where "training" or anything like it is ever mentioned.



True, and you're bringing this back to the general issue, which I had much more to say about than just to cite the Conan example. The Conan example is only to illustrate that there is no mandate for "training as written in 1E" within the fantasy literature that was the most significant in the formation of 1E.

Indeed, Conan as a barbarian character (presented in The Dragon) did not have to train to advance experience levels. Gygax thought of that!

 

[Melan]

Never. As my campaign had extensive wilderness expeditions to faraway, uninhabited places with no chance for training, I saw no need to use the rules as written. However, PCs did seek out mentors to learn spells, the creation of magic items or gain valuable knowledge. That was handled on a case by case basis.

Were I to use the guidelines today, I'd only enforce it for low levels (1st to 4th in AD&D/C&C, 1st to 6th in 3e) and let PCs be their own masters later on. Special cases would have to merit special attention: the archetype of the monk, for example, is closely tied to training; the druidical order is the same in that their special advancement scheme is a part of their nature. Fortunately, my campaign, being more closely tied to classical sword and sorcery than baseline *.D&D, doesn't use either.

 

[gizmo33]

Appendix A-style method as appropriate for dungeoneering,

What is the "Appendix A" method? (I don't have my books here.)