The Idea of training to level

[drnuncheon]

But what if you haven't been doing this reasearch all along? The book assumes to much in that.

I don't think it's too big of an assumption in a level-based game. Where else are your class abilities going to come from?

Without using training rules, you have to assume that the fighter is practicing that Whirlwind Attack for a level or two, that the Cleric is trying to deepen his connection to his deity, that the Rogue is honing his various abilities...and that the wizard has been doing some form of arcane research.

If they *haven't* been doing those things, then should they really be levelling in that class?

J
...does not believe in the magic feat fairy.

 

[Stormdale]

I like training fro a number of reasons and have always used it in my games (just coming up to 20 years).
1. It takes away excess money and magic items. “So you want to train, that’s 250 gp per week. Oh you are short of cash, I’ll take your ring of wizardry instead. No? Well feel free to find another mage in this town with the experience and skills to train you.” That happened two weeks ago in my game I couldn’t believe that the PC was that willing to go up, but I accepted the ring. My players are always short of cash because they have to save up for training, it keeps them hungry for adventure.
2. As already mentioned it slows down the game. You want get to level 8, that’ll be 4 weeks (I use 1 week per two levels) so the campaign stretches out a lot longer. Sometimes my players put off training because they have an urgent adventure, other times they refuse adventures because they need to train, and still at others they don’t train because they can’t afford it. However the DM must be careful and plan ahead. You can’t a have an urgent quest- save the world by Friday one day and halt it for training, and keep internal consistency and logic in your game. So you have to plan ahead or allow for contingencies. If PCs break off an adventure to train then the bad guys use that time to prepare extra traps, get reinforcements, or organise hit squads to take out the PCs, or kill the prisoner- you’ve got to make the world come alive, not stop it because the PCs want to train for a couple of months.
3. It gives the PCs access to higher level mentors for advice, information and potential adventures- not to mention the odd person to be kidnapped by the bad guys and who needs rescuing.
4. It adds lots of role-playing potential (especially if the PCs are in a new town) as they try to track down a trainer.
5. It makes sense to me. Martial artists don’t automatically level up, they train and train, learning for masters and mentors, then have a grading. They practice what they learn and take advice form their superiors, same for musicians or anyone else for that matter. I see adventuring kind of like university. Training is where you learn the theory, get to practice in a safe environment and get tips and advice from masters/experts. Adventuring is like the practical component, you get to go out and put into practice what you’ve learned, experiment and maybe come up with some new ideas to try next time you go are training.
6. Not training doesn’t make sense to me. “Gee, I’ve got 6,000xp, great I wake up a new level, oh wait no I wake up as a wizard with 2 new spells.” AFAIK there is no internal consistency to this. If you want to gain a level, or learn a new class in my game you can but it is going to require a mentor, a lot of time and money.
7. However, I also agree with Celebrim, there can be times, and adventures where enforcing training doesn’t make sense. In these cases I either ignore the rules (but make up for it with an enforced rest time later in the game) or modify them. I also allow self-training but it takes twice as long to do as you are learning more from trial and error than from a trained teacher/ tutor.
8. Finally, I like the idea of a campaign stretching over several years or decades, not one or two months/ years, training slows down the calendar and allows this type of progression for me. It slows down the pace of the game and allows for down time. Seasons change and the world becomes more “believable” for my PCs. Rather than having a PC race from level 1-10 in a single year.

Stormdale

 

[drnuncheon]

I like training fro a number of reasons and have always used it in my games (just coming up to 20 years).

I'll just note as we go along that you could have all of these benefits without requiring explicit level training time.

1. It takes away excess money and magic items. “So you want to train, that’s 250 gp per week. Oh you are short of cash, I’ll take your ring of wizardry instead. No? Well feel free to find another mage in this town with the experience and skills to train you.” That happened two weeks ago in my game I couldn’t believe that the PC was that willing to go up, but I accepted the ring. My players are always short of cash because they have to save up for training, it keeps them hungry for adventure.

My players never seem to have a problem spending their gold. Honestly, I look on this as a bit of a strange reason - if you think they have too much gold & magic...why did you put that much into the game in the first place?

2. As already mentioned it slows down the game. You want get to level 8, that’ll be 4 weeks (I use 1 week per two levels) so the campaign stretches out a lot longer.

Here's another one I see a lot. I think a lot of groups don't think about how exhausting and wearing it would be to adventure every single day for weeks, let alone months or years. We just had 2 months of downtime in my campaign - basically I said, 'nothing big is going to happen fro a couple of months, let me know if you do anything, otherwise we'll pick up with the story later'.

Unless your players are being jerks ("The DM wants to jump ahead 2 months, he must be up to no good! We've got to stop him!") there shouldn't be any problem.

3. It gives the PCs access to higher level mentors for advice, information and potential adventures- not to mention the odd person to be kidnapped by the bad guys and who needs rescuing.

I've never had problems with including mentors, old friends, etc. Someone probably trained them before they started their career, after all.

4. It adds lots of role-playing potential (especially if the PCs are in a new town) as they try to track down a trainer.

I would think that this might get old after a while - sort of like roleplaying out every trip to the market. If I wanted to do a 'search for a trainer' I'd make it into something a little bigger - say, the trainer can teach you the secret of a special feat, or the search for someone to train you in the abilities of a Prestige Class.

5. It makes sense to me. Martial artists don’t automatically level up, they train and train, learning for masters and mentors, then have a grading.

I'd like to note that the grading is an acknowledgement of the training you've undertaken, and not really akin to 'leveling up'. At least, I never learned a new feat immediately upon getting a belt.

6. Not training doesn’t make sense to me. “Gee, I’ve got 6,000xp, great I wake up a new level, oh wait no I wake up as a wizard with 2 new spells.” AFAIK there is no internal consistency to this. If you want to gain a level, or learn a new class in my game you can but it is going to require a mentor, a lot of time and money.

I agree that characters have to do some kind of training - but to me, the idea that one can adventure for years and never go up a level simply because you didn't go back to town to talk to a higher level fighter - that doesn't make sense to me. 'On the job training' is real - I didn't go to a class to learn shell scripting, I had to start doing it for my job. People learn how to fight without ever going into a dojo (usually by getting beaten up a lot).

Some skills and abilities would need some kind of mentor, it's true - basically, the ones that are marked 'Trained only'. I wouldn't expect anyone to gain a level in wizard without being taught. (Sorcerer, on the other hand...)

I figure that a fighter - or anyone else, really - is training all throughout the course of the previous level. He doesn't just wake up and say 'I've got a new level - what feat should I pick?' He's been practicing.

8. Finally, I like the idea of a campaign stretching over several years or decades, not one or two months/ years, training slows down the calendar and allows this type of progression for me. It slows down the pace of the game and allows for down time. Seasons change and the world becomes more “believable” for my PCs. Rather than having a PC race from level 1-10 in a single year.

You already said 'down time' way back on #2. There are a lot of tactics that you can use to stretch out time for the PCs, from travel time to 'take time off to rest'. After a week-long backpack trip I know I was more than ready to come home - why wouldn't PCs feel the same way? Plus, camping out in winter is fun for a couple of days but doing it all winter would surely suck.

J

 

[dcollins]

A number of people have identified "not levelling up in the middle of a dungeon" as the biggest problem with training rules. That seems odd to me because that's actually the biggest benefit of training requirements, in my opinion.

It's hard to rationalize a quantum leap in a PCs' power otherwise... Malchor stabs one more goblin and suddenly gets added hit points, better saves, an increased ability score ("hey, I can lift 30 more pounds!"), skill points, and a new feat? That's hard to swallow, and doesn't reflect any fantasy literature I can think of (excepting very specific milieus and situations, like, say, Highlander).

I think it's more believable to require a period of reflection, study, and gradual skill increases. That's exactly what training provides... a set-aside continuum of time with no fighting, where we can imagine a smooth increase in skill to the point where the PCs' game statistics finally reflect the change.

 

[mikebr99]

A number of people have identified "not levelling up in the middle of a dungeon" as the biggest problem with training rules. That seems odd to me because that's actually the biggest benefit of training requirements, in my opinion.

It's hard to rationalize a quantum leap in a PCs' power otherwise... Malchor stabs one more goblin and suddenly gets added hit points, better saves, an increased ability score ("hey, I can lift 30 more pounds!"), skill points, and a new feat? That's hard to swallow, and doesn't reflect any fantasy literature I can think of (excepting very specific milieus and situations, like, say, Highlander).

I think it's more believable to require a period of reflection, study, and gradual skill increases. That's exactly what training provides... a set-aside continuum of time with no fighting, where we can imagine a smooth increase in skill to the point where the PCs' game statistics finally reflect the change.

Then don't do it as a big boost at the end of gaining so many EXP points...

The guy is just beginning gaining experience from 9th to 10th. Roll his 10th level hps now and give the total to him in dribs and drabs as he gains exp. Same with skill points... make the guy forecast what he'll be spending the points in and add them in as he gets to 10th.

New spells could be handled similarly... spread out the new ones as he gets to 10th.

Feats will have to be handled on a case specific basis... if it is appropriate, give a 50% effective feat at 75% of the way to 10th.

YMMV

 

[dcollins]

Obviously, many people will find the math and record keeping of the pro-rated proposal rather cumbersome.

 

[Stalker0]

The way I do training is that players only have to get official training whenever they are first taking on a new class or prestige class. I figure that a fighter knows the exercises he needs to do to increase his skills, but he doesn't have a clue how to write spells down and commit them to memory. With a trainer though, he can learn the exercises and research techniques a wizard uses. After that, he can improve his wizard training himself.

Granted, in my campaign, there is a central location in the world that all the players can return to for training. I also have downtimes in my game b/w each adventure.

 

[mseds99]

this is interesting

In my campaign, I always leave a single resource short and put the onus on the players to make compromises regarding that resource. Normally, I use magic items as the limited commodity or sometimes gold (or money in general). The last campaign, I chose to limit the resource of time. Events went at a furious pace and continued to do so for the duration of the campaign. To make matters more interesting, I instituted a rule which required training over a single week's time in order to level up.

People have repeatedly said that they dislike the idea that their characters leveled up, but didn't get the benefits because they're in the middle of a dungeon. It's funny, but i found that to be one of the more interesting quandaries the players had to deal with.
"Could I leave this island to train, knowing the princess may be dead by the time I return?". In my mind , this is a great situation to put the players in. By doing this, they have COMPLETE control over the direction of the campaign. It was a matter of consequences, and the players learned to fully analyze the consequences of the difficult decisions they had to make.

Of course, I've also instituted a rule that after reaching a mastery in a class (8th level, but the pc's don't know that), the players can self train. This takes the form of meditation and sacrificing materials to their deity. I'm doing this in order to change the focus of the campaign to a more epic style, where events take the course of years. Because time will no longer be a scarce resource, I'm going to make magic items scarce. It'll be an interesting paradigm shift designed to keep the players on their toes.

Just one more humble opinion...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: this is interesting

I would look at this as silly quandries to deal with. In heroic literature, the hero almost never has to travel back to his trainer to learn how to handle the foes he'll face rescuing the princess. He develops his skills along the way. (For example, in the Silmarillion, Turin Turambar started out as the unproven son of a great warrior and ended up one of the greatest of mortal warriors and war leaders. He never decided he had to go back and visit Thingol to gain his levels. He remained in his fortress with Beleg and the bandits, travelling out to strike at Morgroth's forces. Or he was on the run. Or he returned home to Nagrothrond victorious. Or he went to the villages he was defending in the end. His quandries were along the lines of: "Do I pursue Nienor and the orcs who have captured her or fight the dragon now?").

When I'm DMing, I make interesting quandries for my players without resorting to artificial ones like the "need" for training to go up in level. For instance, they may be on a quest to return a companion's body to his family when they see a town of their nation's allies under siege by a mixed force of orcs and humans. Do they investigate and find out what's going on, aid the town, or find a way around the town so that they can continue with their quest? Or they arrive at the border of the land they seek and see a warrior being pursued by a detachment of soldiers. Do they aid the warrior, knowing that it will delay their quest? Or they're in a town which they know to harbor an evil death cult. The liege of the town is conducting a witch hunt and burning suspected cultists. Do they help him find the cult? Do they lecture him on the need for tolerance? And then what do they do when they find a letter from the bishop (on a dead messenger) that indicates he thinks the Lord is going too far? Do they deliver the letter to the archbishop? Do they turn it in to the Lord?

There are plenty of ways to give the PCs interesting quandries that aren't artifacts of the gaming system like the need to train and gain levels. Quandries that are artifacts of the gaming system are annoying. Quandries that arise from the PCs interacting with the various forces of the world are interesting.

(As you might guess from that post, I don't use training except for gaining levels in a new class (especially prestige classes). I give out the experience at the end of each session and if the PCs level, they can level up then and there.)

It's funny, but i found that to be one of the more interesting quandaries the players had to deal with.
"Could I leave this island to train, knowing the princess may be dead by the time I return?". In my mind , this is a great situation to put the players in. By doing this, they have COMPLETE control over the direction of the campaign. It was a matter of consequences, and the players learned to fully analyze the consequences of the difficult decisions they had to make.

Of course, I've also instituted a rule that after reaching a mastery in a class (8th level, but the pc's don't know that), the players can self train. This takes the form of meditation and sacrificing materials to their deity. I'm doing this in order to change the focus of the campaign to a more epic style, where events take the course of years. Because time will no longer be a scarce resource, I'm going to make magic items scarce. It'll be an interesting paradigm shift designed to keep the players on their toes.

Just one more humble opinion...

 

[Celebrim]

Elder Basilisk: Excellent post. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

And as a general rule, the game system should always be invisible from the stand point of the characters in the story.

Interaction with the mentor is a classic story element, but I'm not about to let that story element interfere with all others. Mentors have other valuable things to contribute without interupting the flow of the story to allow the game mechanics to catch up to reality.

As for those that say, "If we didn't have training, my characters would gain 12 levels in a year", I have to reply, "Well, that is an artifact of your RPG dungeon crawl and return to nearby haven for recuperation storylines."

I've never been in a campaign were the problem was that time was not going by - not even back when I was running B2 'Keep on the Borderlands' at age 10. I often wonder just how much the art of RPG's has progressed from 'Keep on the Borderlands'.

dcollins: Read any adventure story. In it, the hero always accomplishes something and then suddenly gains confidence and finds that he has new and previously untapped resources of courage and skill.

I wonder how far the 'You must go to yoda, the Jedi master which trained me' crowd is willing to take the need for mentors. I'm all for sending the player off to train from time to time, but if you insist on it _every_ time it gets even more ridiculous than those that assume that after defeating the goblins Bob suddenly has more hit points. For example, Bob has spent the last 4 months canoing down the mighty river to get to the Lost City of Pici-Shwan to recover the magic Maguffin of Doom. On the way he has hunted and fished, battled river monsters, survived floods and storms, negotiated with natives, converted the cannibles over to the worship of Kibo the Good, caught malaria and twelve other diseases, and repaired his canoe countless times. You as the DM say, "No Jim, Bob can't get any better at canoeing, fighting, negotiating, persuading, crafting canoes, fortitude saves, wilderness lore, or knowledge (geography) until he returns to Haven for training from the People Who Know What They Are Doing and How to Do It."

I don't have two rules and multiple exceptions, but I wonder if those that 'make' players do.