I certainly appreciate Chesterson's fence. However, I've never seen anyone rate their players E, S, F, P for purposes of leveling up. Does anyone do actually do this? It is intertwined with the training and cost after all.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 06, 2024, 11:22:24 AM

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on February 06, 2024, 10:01:14 AM
That's a really good point, I mean it's sort of just thrown at the players like, "hey so all your loot is spent leveling up" and it just seems unnecessarily harsh. Especially when you consider they likely got close to death several times just to secure it. I don't mind the idea of taking time to level up, I did it in 3e but it was 1 day per new level plus cost of upkeep (so it was just a time sink).

Well, I always took the default rules to be that way because getting a level was deliberately hard(er).  Not only do you need to survive by avoiding fights, you also need to get the treasure, not only for experience but to pay for the level.  It's taking the whole "wizard at 1st level with 2 hit points and 1 spell" thing and ramping it up another notch or two.  Point being, it's more about the game than the setting in some ways.  Given that, you either like that aspect, and thus need to rationalize how it works in the setting in a way you can accept, or realize that maybe if you want to change things, it's because you are not entirely comfortable with that part of the game play.  As long as the changes are done with a clear view of balancing game and setting in a way that you can enjoy, it's all good. 

That would be distinct from, just to pick a recent example, how some GM's "dislike" wandering monsters, training costs, encumbrance, casters having limits, yada, yada, yada--and then wonder why all the challenge goes out of the game or it can only be challenging by artificially inflated the monster numbers.  Changing things has side effects, some of them possibly unintentional.  That's not an argument not to change, but it is an argument to think about the change, and maybe if you want to keep something the change is undermining, determine what additional change will be needed to keep it.

This is yet another practical example of Chesterton's Fence.  Once you understand why something is there, then you can adjust it with some hope of the side effects being tolerable.

Oh I hear ya, I usually don't like to tinker with rules until I've tried them. I like the idea of paying to level up since the players will acquire a lot of gold due to xp = gold. My only real issue is keeping it so that certain classes can still train without a teacher since the game is set in a frontier setting. There is a home base (a small city) they can go to that has guilds with trainers, but only for some classes. There are other NPCs they can go to, which involves an adventure in and of itself.

Now I really dig that idea, I think it's cool to go adventuring to find some old druid to level up. However, I get the feeling the players might think it's fairly lame and these are guys that have a tolerance for difficulty. I guess at this point I'm trying to figure out how to keep training and training costs, while removing the need for a teacher/keeping the teacher optional but beneficial.

I've always thought that the reason the training costs escalated so much was that at higher levels, the teacher does less.  At 2nd level, it's almost entirely pay the guy and do what he says.  At 9th level, your training costs might be assembling a cadre of like-minded people, some lower level than you, to do advanced sparring. 

Does that great master start the school to teach others, or does he doe it because that's the only way to assemble enough journeymen and apprentices to collectively push him to the next level? 

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 12:35:13 PM
I certainly appreciate Chesterson's fence. However, I've never seen anyone rate their players E, S, F, P for purposes of leveling up. Does anyone do actually do this? It is intertwined with the training and cost after all.

A level 2 Thief needs 1250 XP for 3rd.
GM says he Roleplayed poorly. Maybe he bravely fought the monsters, rescued a friend, didn't steal from the party. He needs 2x1500x4= 12,000gp for training.
Yeah, no, never used it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.

If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. How many fantasy stories revolve around trying to gain the favor of some wizened entity or institution, to prove something to achieve a goal? Look at Luke and Yoda. He had to go all the way to Dagobah.

Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".

I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.

The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 02:12:00 PM
Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".

I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.

The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?

Well, that's just up to the DM. You could say the same thing about any village or city. What if there's no healers anywhere? What if there's nowhere to sleep? What if you run into a Dragon at level 1? It can change game to game. Some games might be very high magic, Harry Potter style, in which case, trainers would be everywhere and it's just about paying them. In other cases, the trainer is an adventure to itself. It could even be part of the quest reward.

For myself, I make the "normal" classes have easy to find trainers -- Fighters, Rogues. But a Paladin will have to put in some work.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 02:09:41 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.

If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. How many fantasy stories revolve around trying to gain the favor of some wizened entity or institution, to prove something to achieve a goal? Look at Luke and Yoda. He had to go all the way to Dagobah.

Totally agree. Quest for it. But that's best used occasionally rather than each level, IMO.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 02:12:00 PM
Right. So we all pick and choose the rules we like from the "guide".

I agree one should understand RAW before tweaking. Playing RAW is a good way (probably the best) to understand it, but it's not the only way.

The DMG, as far as I know, gives nothing as far as frequency of teachers. A level 4 fighter has to find a level 5+ to train under. How rare is that guy? Are there 10 in town or only 1 in the entire county? Extra weeks in finding the guy and then what if he doesn't like you?

Well, that's just up to the DM. You could say the same thing about any village or city. What if there's no healers anywhere? What if there's nowhere to sleep? What if you run into a Dragon at level 1? It can change game to game. Some games might be very high magic, Harry Potter style, in which case, trainers would be everywhere and it's just about paying them. In other cases, the trainer is an adventure to itself. It could even be part of the quest reward.

For myself, I make the "normal" classes have easy to find trainers -- Fighters, Rogues. But a Paladin will have to put in some work.

I agree with you.  It's up to the GM.

I'm complaining more about the DMG being overly specific on some things and completely silent on other, related things. "Use the DMG" is often good advice, but it almost always needs clarification because nobody uses it as written. Rating your players for training purposes being a relevant example here.

It would be nice if there was more demographic information like that.

I vaguely recall there being information out there somewhere Gygax wrote about how much of the population was each level. Something like a level 1 Fighter was in 1 in 10 people, a level 2 Fighter was 1 in 20, etc.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 10:27:56 AM
Leveling up by carousing is interesting. But Gorak the barbarian spending 1354 gp during a night of debauchery in a place where the average monthly wage is 2 gp seems more like a once-in-a-campaign event, rather than a regular thing.

It's insane. Dumping thousands of gold worth of loot into an economy for beer and chickens and wenches is going to have all kinds of crazy consequences unless the DM handwaves it all away.

IIRC, the economy in D&D is supposed to already be at maximum inflation. Think of gold rush towns.

Greetings!

In my Thandor campaigns, I always use training costs, as well as requiring special Professional Trainers. At various level choke points, special instructors are required to seek out so as to learn advanced skills and knowledge.

The Players need to get used to this idea, whether they like it or not. Just like Chesterton's Fence, and the rules for encumbrance, torches, supplies, armour and weapon maintenance, spell failure, magical spell components, all of this stuff goes into simulation, and also the game challenge.

Like Steven mentioned, take that stuff out, and then you wonder why the game is no longer challenging, and the Players are bored! Or the DM is bored. Or both, as likely.

And remember, the Players do not often really understand the deeper system mechanics and dynamics of what makes the campaign run. DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT. They think they know what they want, but they do not. By getting what they want, the game and the campaign, and the fun, is ruined.

Always remain in control. The DM needs to read, and study, and think about all of these things, and really know this stuff backwards and forwards.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Corolinth on February 06, 2024, 11:33:30 AM
TSR era D&D really does seem to be based around making sure the PCs suck as much as possible for as long as the DM can manage.

The best part of the game is level 1 to level 5, and then comes god mode and it sucks.  Being afraid of dying is what makes the game great and usually it was the earlier levels that were the most deadly.  When you see an ogre roll a crit, did you live or did you get smashed to a red smear.  I like that worry as a player.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on February 06, 2024, 03:16:55 PM
IIRC, the economy in D&D is supposed to already be at maximum inflation. Think of gold rush towns.

IIRC I think  you are right.
But then, it would be amusing to role play the phenomenon out. The economy crashes and it takes thousands of gold to buy a mug of beer. People throwing gold away because it's cluttering up the place. Hell, they could have a bin on the outskirts of town overflowing with treasure and not even the goblins will touch it.