New DM needs help.

[Maldur]

I dont use training as a rule. For classes (particular Prestige classes) that the group has no direct acces to, or that require a lot of study, I ask for training/ preparation of the player.

So if the fighter wanted some rogue levels he just asks the rogue in the party: no problem to level up.
If he wants to play an Wizard ( requiring study, and they have no wiz in party) he would need some training.
If the fighter wants to become a weaponmaster he would need to find a master to teach him.

Case by case seems the best rule

 

[MonkeyBoy]

...

For my money, one of the most basic errors you can make as a DM is to put the players into the quandry of "do I train? or do I finish the quest?".

This is always an unpleasant choice for the group, and its always the DMs fault that they're in that position. (its a failing of a DM in that the purpose of DMing a game of any RPG is to ensure the participants enjoy themselves; this kind of out-of-game catch22 makes that less likely, hence is to be avoided)

Firstly you've chosen to give out XP in the middle of an adventure; this is fine (I do it!), but has consequences (at some point a character IS going to level in the middle of a quest...)

Secondly you've made levelling a time consuming process. As stated, this is an OPTIONAL concept (not that there are _really_ any other kind in a game you DM...). It brings the consequence that the players need to halt the game in order to advance.

Having the group level at different points compounds this problem greatly; 2 points at which characters level up to 3rd means 6 weeks (game) down time, instead of 3 weeks if all characters can level together. [using your timescales]

Lastly you've then engineered conflict by also runnning time-critical adventures in an environment where advancement requires downtime.

Essentially; the players are in a position where they have 2 masters (progressing their character, and progressing the plot) and cannot serve them both (they need to use the same time to do either). You as DM have created this situation, so _you_ need to fix it.

Since you're in control of the timing (you both decide how long they need to train, and how fast they need to continue the plot) you can fix it either way.

Your options in the short term are to;

1; Reduce or eliminate training time
2; slacken or eliminate the timing constraint of the plot
3; put up with it, apologise to the players (well, I would feel the need to anyway)

In the long term your options increase to include;

4; don't give out XP except when it could be used (this can antagonise players who want to see their character grow each session; depends on the players)

but they really should also shrink to exclude number 3.


----

As an aside; my group cured a DM of this. He seemed to revel in the concept of inflicting training (yes; training is something the DM inflicts, usually thinking it adds realism - all it really adds is a cost to advancement). Your character seemed to constantly need months of downtime, was usually beggared by training costs, and frequently you were supposed to delay training for months (real time) to finish adventures.

We cured the timing by ruthlessly dropping quests when we needed to train.

We cured the money problems by threatening to retire characters. "Why adventure when I can make far more money as a TRAINER?"

He got the message...

 

[Ravellion]

Well put monkeyboy, I should teach myself to not limit my posts to 10 lines if 40 will bring across the message much more convincingly. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Rav

 

[Darklone]

In the case when we thought training would be appropriate for leveling up (new class, new feat), we gave the apprentice level benefits at once and the full 1st level in the new class half a level later (or after training).

And we give hitpoints, BAB and base saves at once when reaching enough XPs.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

...

I ought to clarify something I think.

Everyone knows about Rule 0, right? "The Dm's word is final".

But how many people realise that this is the players' Rule 0? Or that there's a DM's Rule 0 - and its different?

The DM's Rule 0 is that if it causes the gamers at the session to have fun, it is good. If it causes the gamers at the session to not have fun, it is bad. In with the good, out with the bad.

The trick (and the concept I skipped above) is that when you change the gamers, what is good and what is bad can change, and therefore what goess in and what gets thrown out changes.

The true test of a good DM is; how readily do they adapt to what the group as a whole gets fun from?

cheers

 

[Wicht]

As a DM I try to work the level advancement into the plot without requiring training in the middle of adventures if possible.

For example, the Ranger in our campaign leveled up to 4th level, thus gaining 1 spell a day. This is actually a big character jump, needing IMO some explanation. So I created a vision in which a messenger from the god the Ranger is serving gave the Ranger greater insight into the way the world works. Thus the ranger wakes from the vision and now can caste divine spells. It is the DMs job IMO to make the world make sense whilst at the same time making the game fun.

 

[CTD]

I'm tackling the same issue from a different angle: getting the party to actively participate in "down time" as a part of the campaign. In the games I run, this does not happen much, or for long. In the games I play, the experience is the same.

My first successful 3E character was a wizard, specialist in divination. I took all kinds of item creation feats as they came available. More often than not, I had the cash and exp to make something, but not the time. Between player desire to continue to push and DM campaign flow that encouraged lots of fast paced action, I should have taken some metamagics.

It's about pacing really. If you want your party to train, you have to make sure there is time to do it at the appropriate junctions. No matter how you distribute exp (by the book, or by your whim) you need to anticipate when levels are coming and ensure that there is a stop for them.

The LOTR comment is a bit incorrect though. I remember a band of dwarves with a hobbit who stopped in Rivendell with a certain wizard. They stayed a while, rested their spirits, reinvigorated their desire to go forward, and then went. They also hung about a certain city by the lake for a while before chasing after treasure.

Seems that the master himself gave his characters time to "level up" as well... pacing. Everyone needs a break every now and then. Unless you are running a campaign where you want the characters to feel run down and tired because they never get to rest (at which point you let them level on the fly).