I've been tinkering around with AD&D 1e after I got the core books. Threw together a hexcrawl and the players (namely the thieves) are about halfway to 2nd level. I read that in order to level up (RAW) you spend 1,500gp and 1 week training per prior level (so in this case 1,500gp and 1 week of training). I've thought about using the 2e rules instead, which are just 100gp and 1 week per level.

Regardless, I've established there are some factions the players belong to, such as thieves guilds and fighter guilds, and so most classes have a trainer and some of the others like Rangers and Druids have people on the map they can go to for training. That said, should I use these rules?

I get the purpose to help spend gold players acquire since 1xp per gold piece means they'll be floating in money at that point, so I get why it is so expensive.  I did mention to the players that there would be some sort of cost at the beginning of the campaign, but that I was working out the details since I didn't want to spring it on them out of nowhere. Do any of you use the training rules and/or recommend them?

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes

I stopped giving out xp for treasure* decades ago, so I don't have an issue requiring training as a gold sink.
So yeah, we used both rules when first starting out in RPGs, but those rules got dumped eventually.

*Well, sometimes. It's not the primary source of xp unless the treasure is exceptional or interesting in some way.

I would probably use them if I were going for a retro campaign, just to be authentic.

What I do is require gold to be spent on training to turn it into XP.  I'm told Adventurer Conquerer King requires gold to be spent on debauchery to turn it into XP.  I suppose a balance of the two systems might be possible.  The DMG method seems like a weak and dare I say arbitrary cludge.  As I intensely dislike arbitrary XP awards, I'm also bound to dislike arbitrary cash costs for training based on DM fiat.

I don't like the 1e DMG numbers or the "rate their roleplaying" system. The numbers are too high at low level, for one thing.

I do use level training costs & time in my current 5e campaigns, but I went over to 1 week to train up and the 5e listed costs with a mentor, double without.  The 5e costs are as follows, but I would x10 these for 1e:

Level Cost
1-4     20gp
5-10   40gp
11-16  60gp
17-20  80gp

2e's 100gp per level sounds fine to me too. I don't think PCs should generally be prevented from levelling through lack of funds, and numbers should be plausible in the wider game world economy. A few hundred gp may be plausible, many thousands is not IMO.

For time to train, I don't generally want PCs taken out of play through training time. I do use 1:1 time but I prefer that PCs can level up in the week or two between sessions.

Training is a money sink; the PCs will be swimming in money unless you throw costs and taxes at them.

OTOH it will take longer for PCs to level up if they have to pay for training; they often lack sufficient funds in the first few levels.

I dislike the whole dynamic so I just give away less gold and let them level-up without paying.

My main issue with the by the book AD&D rules is that there is no player decision in it (at least not on the surface).  I've worked around that two different ways at times, though it's been a long time since I used either.  I haven't played AD&D in years, so take it all with a grain of salt and adjust to preferences.  I've done similar things in other games, however:

1. Stick with the rules as written, but make sure as as GM to include ways to mitigate, which the players can take advantage of if they are engaged and paying attention.  The most obvious one is getting favors from someone who can either train some of the PCs or arrange for it, such as local baron.  This might cut the money significantly or even altogether.  That is, the trainer still gets paid, but the PCs aren't the ones doing it.  If you are actually playing out finding the trainer, it cuts the time as well.  There's a lot of implications in those training rules that aren't fully spelled out, left for you to adapt to.  This is a way to go if you want to use the rules as a framework infer from.

2.  Treat the costs and time as an "Or" instead of "And".  It's pay the money for do the time.  Presumably, paying the money gets a trainer that you've been working with all along.  Doing the time is sparring and figuring things out on your own.  Sometimes players have more time than money or vice versa, and this reverts back to no choice.  However, there will be other times when it becomes a real decision.  I would probably up the base time slightly if going this route to make it stick, perhaps 1 week per level sought, instead of leaving.  For a less extreme variant, you could have reduced costs when doing the time, as much as half, and/or perhaps half time when paying full money. 

I always thought that was kind of stupid because isn't adventuring itself your training?  I know nowadays all kinds of professions use "continuing education" requirements as money-making schemes, but c'mon man this is FANTASY!

There are other ways to relieve PCs of excess treasure like taxes, adventuring license fees, rent, carousing, tithing, guild fees, and just general upkeep.  Not to mention saving up for that stronghold, tower, monastery, etc.  And once you have that, it's just a money pit anyhow.

Now if you want your wizard to learn a special difficult spell or want your fighter to learn some entirely new technique, sure go ahead and hire a trainer or whatever.  But not for simply leveling up.

Quote from: S'mon on February 06, 2024, 03:55:52 AM
I don't like the 1e DMG numbers or the "rate their roleplaying" system. The numbers are too high at low level, for one thing.

I do use level training costs & time in my current 5e campaigns, but I went over to 1 week to train up and the 5e listed costs with a mentor, double without.  The 5e costs are as follows, but I would x10 these for 1e:

Level Cost
1-4     20gp
5-10   40gp
11-16  60gp
17-20  80gp

2e's 100gp per level sounds fine to me too. I don't think PCs should generally be prevented from levelling through lack of funds, and numbers should be plausible in the wider game world economy. A few hundred gp may be plausible, many thousands is not IMO.

For time to train, I don't generally want PCs taken out of play through training time. I do use 1:1 time but I prefer that PCs can level up in the week or two between sessions.

That's what I thought: 1,500gp per level seems pretty extreme, especially considering they need the gold, someone to train them, AND the time to do the training, all for what usually amounts to another Hit Die and maybe an improvement in some abilities.

As for the lack of pay, I thought about adjudicating that you can level up without a trainer, spending less (100gp/level) but taking longer (2 weeks per level). So the trainer actually has a use, but isn't required.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 06, 2024, 09:06:56 AM
My main issue with the by the book AD&D rules is that there is no player decision in it (at least not on the surface).  I've worked around that two different ways at times, though it's been a long time since I used either.  I haven't played AD&D in years, so take it all with a grain of salt and adjust to preferences.  I've done similar things in other games, however:

1. Stick with the rules as written, but make sure as as GM to include ways to mitigate, which the players can take advantage of if they are engaged and paying attention.  The most obvious one is getting favors from someone who can either train some of the PCs or arrange for it, such as local baron.  This might cut the money significantly or even altogether.  That is, the trainer still gets paid, but the PCs aren't the ones doing it.  If you are actually playing out finding the trainer, it cuts the time as well.  There's a lot of implications in those training rules that aren't fully spelled out, left for you to adapt to.  This is a way to go if you want to use the rules as a framework infer from.

2.  Treat the costs and time as an "Or" instead of "And".  It's pay the money for do the time.  Presumably, paying the money gets a trainer that you've been working with all along.  Doing the time is sparring and figuring things out on your own.  Sometimes players have more time than money or vice versa, and this reverts back to no choice.  However, there will be other times when it becomes a real decision.  I would probably up the base time slightly if going this route to make it stick, perhaps 1 week per level sought, instead of leaving.  For a less extreme variant, you could have reduced costs when doing the time, as much as half, and/or perhaps half time when paying full money.

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).

I mentioned it in another reply, but I like the idea that you can forego the trainer but take time instead of paying. I get why the trainer exists, to siphon gold back, but it would be nice to present them with the option to keep more gold while also getting to level up.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 06, 2024, 09:32:00 AM
I always thought that was kind of stupid because isn't adventuring itself your training?  I know nowadays all kinds of professions use "continuing education" requirements as money-making schemes, but c'mon man this is FANTASY!

There are other ways to relieve PCs of excess treasure like taxes, adventuring license fees, rent, carousing, tithing, guild fees, and just general upkeep.  Not to mention saving up for that stronghold, tower, monastery, etc.  And once you have that, it's just a money pit anyhow.

Now if you want your wizard to learn a special difficult spell or want your fighter to learn some entirely new technique, sure go ahead and hire a trainer or whatever.  But not for simply leveling up.

I do agree here, but I like the idea of players training to advance their abilities like you mentioned. AD&D has no weapon mastery rules, so I thought about bringing in some sort of basic system (perhaps from BECMI) wherein the players can spend gold to gain new weapon proficiencies and advance existing ones.

I also like the idea of a wizard only starting with proficiency in say, a sling, but being able to pay to learn how to use a crossbow. Sure it breaks with the rules, but it makes sense that if a wizard wanted to, they should be able to learn how to use another weapon. Just because they didn't train with them during their apprentice years doesn't mean they can't take the time to learn now.

I never understood how training worked with the larger economy.

How difficult should it be to find a teacher? If they're commonplace, there must be lots of adventurers about. There should be rival parties in every dungeon. If teachers are rare, then the game will eventually become all about finding your next teacher.

It also suggests that you can't level up during a long wilderness campaign, unless you happen upon some brilliant hermit.

Also, teaching seems like a risk free and lucrative career, so could the PCs become teachers? Sounds easier than raiding dungeons.

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.

I'd rather the players buy real estate, buy large or fancy items, buy titles/honorifics, or hire men. All those things are useful and can be lost or stolen.

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.

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.

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.

I said the same thing many years ago when I used to play AD&D.   After seeing the incredible power creep of 3rd, 4th,and 5th editions I understand the wisdom behind those early rules.  Gygax must have been fighting hard to undo all the "accidental" perks that pc's get in the game like rolling mondo stats and finding really good randomly generated magic items.