Costs for leveling up in AD&D1

[T. Foster]

To put it in game terms, killing orcs and slaying dragons--assuming you survive--is going to teach you far more than any trainer could.

But the training rules were never really about 'teaching' anything, they were a sump for excess treasure and a way to negatively reinforce bad play -- if you have a poor performance rating you have to spend more time out of play and give up more of your treasure than the other players. When looked at that way they make perfect sense (at least to me).

 

[Mouseferatu]

But the training rules were never really about 'teaching' anything, they were a sump for excess treasure and a way to negatively reinforce bad play -- if you have a poor performance rating you have to spend more time out of play and give up more of your treasure than the other players. When looked at that way they make perfect sense (at least to me).

I know they work that way for some people--like you--and more power to them. Er, to you.

But personally, I'm not a fan of that sort of reasoning. I don't like using in-game mechanics to handle metagame issues. If the DM feels that someone is playing "poorly," the solution (IMO) is to give less experience. If the party has too much treasure, there are ways of dealing with it that don't require an artificial in-game artifact.

Basically, if the characters have to train, I want there to be an in-game, character-based reason for them to have to train. I don't see one, so I don't require it. I prefer my in-game and metagame issues absolutely as seperate and distinct as possible.

 

[TerraDave]

I was wrong, I thought there where 10 people on earth who used those rules anything close to written. Actually, I do remember an old Dragon article on it, so I guess they must have been addressing someone.

I have used various training rules over the years (there is another recent thread on this). They can drain off extra cash--their role in AD&D--and encourage downtime--the main reason I use them know. In terms of "verisimilitude", it really depends. In real life training has its place, as it does in fiction and legend. Training can also be defined broadly to include a range of "out of adventure" activity.

But verisimilitude or not, I also don't like treating some classes or class abilities differently--so if there is training, it is the same for all.

 

[Wolf72]

any time my bro (our DM) thought we were a bit to rich meant it was time to pay for training ... it did manage to humble us a bit. Even better was his response to our finding (killing BG and taking theirs actually) lots of treasure ... "so, how are you going to carry all of it?"

 

[EricNoah]

Sometimes we did and sometimes we didn't. I will admit, it's a handy way for the DM to control PC wealth... If you've overdone it on the treasure, leech some away with training costs. If you're being too stingy, then let it slide.

 

[Crothian]

I've never liked the notion of training costs in D&D, in any edition. My belief is that people tend to learn faster and more solidly through real experience than training; I'll put someone who grew up fighting for their lives in streetfight after streetfight against a black belt with no real combat experience any day of the week.

But they aren't gaining levels stcictly through training. First they have to go fight the dragons and orcs. THe closest we have to adventurers are proffessional athlets and they train all the time. Sure, they might learn more from the real game experience but its the training that teaches the basics and lets them work on their fundementals.

 

[HellHound]

Never used em.

I think the group I was with started implementing them shortly after we ran through the DL modules, but those were the modules that chased me away from AD&D, never to return.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Did nae use them, my GM just level me level up when my characters had enough XP to.

 

[D-rock]

At low levels maybe, but after a while it didn't make any sense anymore. Other than as a metagame way to drain gold that is.

 

[Vonlok The Bold]

Yes we used them. I remember being a little concerned with the money, but more concerned with the time it took, and finding a city large enough to have all the trainers our adventuring party needed.

I say that because we even role played it to where we had to travel to whatever the nearest big city or town was that could train us. The higher we got in level the larger the city would have to be to have trainers and facilities for us.

It was fun, and since that was the way I first played it, I was surprised when it wasn't used in 3.0/3.5. Our DM did say if you took new skills of feats that wouldn't have been acquired through the adventures then we would have to find a trainer in a town.