Thoughts on the Gygax's AD&D (1E)

[tzor]

I know we have had a number of threads on where everything went "wrong." While I am not going to suggest that the original "Advanced" version of D&D was the best, there were a lot of things in it that seem to be missing from the later editions. The lack of these things, somehow makes things unbalanced in one way or the other. Looking back it seems that Gygax threw rules around like caltrops waiting to be stepped on by the unsuspecting player and requiring the DM to read the DMG book at least 5 times least he miss a very important rule.

Since I've been looking at the PHB and DMG in making up my latest radio play, I figured I would take the time to write down some observations for discussion. My first post will consist of two different rules with the same effect. I'll call the effect "delay of game (in game time)." I'll summarize these rules as Gygax gets verbose and annoying.

Gaining Experience Levels: 1E was really nasty to the person not true to his or her stated alignment. This was one of the nastiest ways. When you get enough experience to gain a level no bell goes off. Instead the DM looks at adventure leading up to the level and gives it a 1-4 rating depending on how true the character was to stated alignment. This average now becomes the number of WEEKS it takes to train to level up under an appropriate tutor of your class. If your score is <= 2 you can train without a mentor for twice the number of weeks. Otherwise if you can't find a mentor; tough shit - no level gain for you until you do. The cost is 1.5K GP per level per week.

Name characters and bards have special rules for cost and no trainers.

Zero and Negative Hit Points: Once revived will be in a coma for 1d6 turns (one turn = 10 round and one round is one minute long). Thereafter they must rest for "a full week minimum." The character cannot do anything other than move slowly to a place of rest and eat/sleep when there. They cannot "attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research or do anything else." Spells and healing potions will not change this, save the "heal" spell.

Also note two things: The -10 rule is clearly on page 82 and applies to all creatures. Reching -6 results in scarring or "the loss of some member, if you so choose." A description of how horrible a scar when a fireball brings the person to -9 is included as an example.

It's the little things like this that kept the characters from becomming name level in a month of game time. An important consideration when thinking about how a economy and social order would work when everyone advances at 4E rates.

[Plebian]

I know we have had a number of threads on where everything went "wrong." While I am not going to suggest that the original "Advanced" version of D&D was the best, there were a lot of things in it that seem to be missing from the later editions. The lack of these things, somehow makes things unbalanced in one way or the other. Looking back it seems that Gygax threw rules around like caltrops waiting to be stepped on by the unsuspecting player and requiring the DM to read the DMG book at least 5 times lest he miss a very important rule.

are you seriously saying early editions of D&D were good because their format was so shitty that you had to reread the book several times to pick up on rules?

Since I've been looking at the PHB and DMG in making up my latest radio play, I figured I would take the time to write down some observations for discussion. My first post will consist of two different rules with the same effect. I'll call the effect "delay of game (in game time)." I'll summarize these rules as Gygax gets verbose and annoying.

delaying the game just to delay the game is a stupid move. it's nothing but another layer of artificiality.

Gaining Experience Levels: 1E was really nasty to the person not true to his or her stated alignment. This was one of the nastiest ways. When you get enough experience to gain a level no bell goes off. Instead the DM looks at adventure leading up to the level and gives it a 1-4 rating depending on how true the character was to stated alignment. This average now becomes the number of WEEKS it takes to train to level up under an appropriate tutor of your class. If your score is <= 2 you can train without a mentor for twice the number of weeks. Otherwise if you can't find a mentor; tough shit - no level gain for you until you do. The cost is 1.5K GP per level per week.

Name characters and bards have special rules for cost and no trainers.

all this is is a hoop-jumping exercise that would either split parties up or be entirely superfluous because it's done in off-time. and it also enforces the retarded idea in-character that after you murder X number of creatures you reach some tangible goal that requires you to seek out training to get better at murdering so you can murder Y number of creatures and seek out more training.

I dunno about you but the idea that once I reach a set amount of murderin' that I have to actually find a trainer to improve at murderin' is really hard on the old verisimilitude.

Zero and Negative Hit Points: Once revived will be in a coma for 1d6 turns (one turn = 10 round and one round is one minute long). Thereafter they must rest for "a full week minimum." The character cannot do anything other than move slowly to a place of rest and eat/sleep when there. They cannot "attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research or do anything else." Spells and healing potions will not change this, save the "heal" spell.

punishing players for playing a game is retarded. I know where the rule comes from, to give some kind of impact to being incapped, but all it actually achieves is punishing people for either taking risks or for being so stupid as to have the dice roll well against them.

Also note two things: The -10 rule is clearly on page 82 and applies to all creatures. Reching -6 results in scarring or "the loss of some member, if you so choose." A description of how horrible a scar when a fireball brings the person to -9 is included as an example.

It's the little things like this that kept the characters from becomming name level in a month of game time. An important consideration when thinking about how a economy and social order would work when everyone advances at 4E rates.

are you honestly suggesting that levelling quickly in game time is something unique to 4e? seriously? you've never played a 3e or 2e campaign where you basically adventured non-stop and leveled extremely fast? because it happens regardless of what edition you're playing because down-time is either boring or taken care of out-of-scene so it has little real impact.

whether or not advancing quickly is a positive or negative isn't objective; some groups will prefer a meteoric rise to power, some a gradual ascent that takes years. also there is no such thing as a realistic economy or social order in any D&D setting I've seen but that's because realism-wise economics is boring as shit and social structures resembling real-life ones would be boring and depressing. all you see is a rough imitation, which is how all orcs are evil and how King Goodytwoshoes is totally in control of his country because everyone just loves him that much.

[Winnah]

Not just time, but wealth. Hiring trainers and upkeep became fairly expensive. Even adding spells to a spellbook was something like 50gp per page, which could be over 200gp for a 1st level spell. Considering low level monsters were rarely even tabled with treasure unless intelligent (even then you were looking at copper and silver), this was a big deal.

I can see how WBL and treasure parcels 'evolved' out of this. In one game you're stuggling to pay for advancement, in another you're required to get your 1 mil loot drop before level 22.

[Doom]

I'm currently running an AD&D game, trying to stay close to the old rules (I fully acknowledge that the rules are contradictory and generally impossible to follow as written, key word 'trying').

The players/party are around 4th level, and we're midway through the third year of the campaign in game time.

[hogarth]

I never played in any AD&D game where we used either of those two rules. The one about needing a week of bed rest after going to negative hit points (no exceptions) is especially horrible for ruining a night's fun for a player (especially since Super Smash Brothers hadn't been invented yet).

[talozin]

I never played in any AD&D game where we used either of those two rules. The one about needing a week of bed rest after going to negative hit points (no exceptions) is especially horrible for ruining a night's fun for a player (especially since Super Smash Brothers hadn't been invented yet).

Really? They work okay IMX. The latter rule does mean that a different style of play is mandated; you don't push your luck too far, preventing enemies from getting actions is your #1 priority, and combat healing is significantly more important. It's very much more grim and gritty than heroic.

But someone going down doesn't necessarily mean you have to sit out for the rest of the night; usually when it happens, you pull out of the dungeon, fast-forward until they're back on their feet, and go back in. (It does mean that time-critical adventures are very much more tense.)

Still, that's a significant difference in mindset between the editions; 1E is very much more about dealing with the challenges thrown up in your path by its simulation of the adventuring life, rather than about being awesome. 1E fundamentally doesn't care about you. 3rd/4th edition operate much more in a vein where success is expected.

[PoliteNewb]

I never played in any AD&D game where we used either of those two rules. The one about needing a week of bed rest after going to negative hit points (no exceptions) is especially horrible for ruining a night's fun for a player (especially since Super Smash Brothers hadn't been invented yet).

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

This is essentially a "mostly dead" rule; if it comes into play, it means you got killed...you just don't need to pay a big lump of cash to get raised from the dead, it happens automatically after a week.

So if you're fine with a chance of getting killed (and if you're playing D&D, you really should be), how is this any worse?

(oh, and we never used training time/training costs either, at least not out of the book...we usually assumed at least a week of downtime between adventures, though...more if it was appropriate.)

[RobbyPants]

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

This is essentially a "mostly dead" rule; if it comes into play, it means you got killed...you just don't need to pay a big lump of cash to get raised from the dead, it happens automatically after a week.

So if you're fine with a chance of getting killed (and if you're playing D&D, you really should be), how is this any worse?

(oh, and we never used training time/training costs either, at least not out of the book...we usually assumed at least a week of downtime between adventures, though...more if it was appropriate.)

Because a game that uses that rule has more forced downtime than a game that doesn't? If you get injured part way into the adventure, it pretty much forces a week of downtime in the middle.

[tzor]

(oh, and we never used training time/training costs either, at least not out of the book...we usually assumed at least a week of downtime between adventures, though...more if it was appropriate.)

Because a game that uses that rule has more forced downtime than a game that doesn't? If you get injured part way into the adventure, it pretty much forces a week of downtime in the middle.

Once you get to the point where your cleric can cast heal you are fine. But it does make you want to be a little over protective of your magic user at lower levels. But at low level levels downtime happens so frequently it's a friend of the party.

[hogarth]

I never played in any AD&D game where we used either of those two rules. The one about needing a week of bed rest after going to negative hit points (no exceptions) is especially horrible for ruining a night's fun for a player (especially since Super Smash Brothers hadn't been invented yet).

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

Having a character die also ruins a night's fun for a player. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Because a game that uses that rule has more forced downtime than a game that doesn't? If you get injured part way into the adventure, it pretty much forces a week of downtime in the middle.

Or in my experience, it would be more likely that the other PCs would stash the body somewhere and keep adventuring while you (the player) sit around and entertain yourself.

[tzor]

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

Having a character die also ruins a night's fun for a player. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

It depends on the level of course. I once played a dwarf who practically died at every major dragon battle we fought. The only difference between my character and the dragon was that I had a elf cleric who could raise me from the dead (this was actually a 2E campaign at the time ... in a 1E campaign the cleric would have to be human and there was a limit to the number of times you could be resurrected).

[Psychic Robot]

are you seriously saying early editions of D&D were good because their format was so shitty that you had to reread the book several times to pick up on rules?

ERROR
CANNOT PARSE MEANING
ERROR
ENGAGE ASPIE DRIVE
SPERG LEVEL SIX

[tzor]

Silly me, I had him on ignore. Thanks PR for making me read his shit. (Was that a backhanded compliment? I'm not sure.)

I know we have had a number of threads on where everything went "wrong." While I am not going to suggest that the original "Advanced" version of D&D was the best, there were a lot of things in it that seem to be missing from the later editions. The lack of these things, somehow makes things unbalanced in one way or the other. Looking back it seems that Gygax threw rules around like caltrops waiting to be stepped on by the unsuspecting player and requiring the DM to read the DMG book at least 5 times lest he miss a very important rule.

are you seriously saying early editions of D&D were good because their format was so shitty that you had to reread the book several times to pick up on rules?

No, I'm saying that because the format was so shitty that when they wrote second edition they simply left out a whole plethora of rules because it was written in Gygax's typical ranting style and not as clear "HI THERE I AM A RULE" easy to understand rules. This resulted in a series of sequential unbalancing moves that has resulted in a person barely over the age of 18 suddenly going from zero to demi god in less than a year of game time.

[PoliteNewb]

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

Having a character die also ruins a night's fun for a player. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

That dying shouldn't ruin your fun. If it does, I don't know why you play D&D.

D&D is a game about lethal combat between adventurers and scary monsters. Part of what makes them game interesting is risk...scary monsters are scary because they can kill your dude. Without this element of risk, I don't know why people bother to play D&D.

When you pretty much any game, I assume you accept the chance that you can lose. If you can't have fun just playing the game, win or lose, why are you playing?

To this day, the session my players still talk about is the one where more than half the party died. It was fun and exciting...even for the people who rolled up new characters afterward.

Seriously...you die, and your fun is ruined? That sounds pretty whiny to me.

Because a game that uses that rule has more forced downtime than a game that doesn't? If you get injured part way into the adventure, it pretty much forces a week of downtime in the middle.

*shrug* I never had a problem with lots of downtime. It actually helps mitigate the exact problem some people have been pointing out (that you go from peasant kid to badass in a couple of months).

But all that downtime occurs between adventures; if you get dropped to negative HP in the middle of an adventure, you're out (same as if you got killed). Your buddies then decide whether they want to call it off to get you patched up (if that's an option), or press on without you, or whatever.

It was standard procedure (if you got capped) to let you play a henchman, or an NPC, or roll up a new character who would work his way into the adventure somehow. Example: a while back, we were starting a new campaign...I was happy with the guy I had just rolled up, nice backstory, all that jazz. He caught a critical hit from a bandit arrow not five minutes into the adventure. The DM let take over RP'ing the bandit leader, and before it was all said and done, my NPC had ended up joining forces with the PCs to fight off some undead threat, and at the end became my new PC as a member of the party.

[hogarth]

If you feel being put out of action for a week ruins a player's night, how do you feel about just plain killing them?

Having a character die also ruins a night's fun for a player. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

That dying shouldn't ruin your fun. If it does, I don't know why you play D&D.

Dying isn't particularly fun, but at least it's rare (in the games I play). Falling into negative hit points is fairly common; that's why I think it would be particularly annoying to be out for an in-game week every time it happened. Maybe your DM used kid gloves though; I couldn't say.

It depends on the level of course. I once played a dwarf who practically died at every major dragon battle we fought. The only difference between my character and the dragon was that I had a elf cleric who could raise me from the dead (this was actually a 2E campaign at the time ... in a 1E campaign the cleric would have to be human and there was a limit to the number of times you could be resurrected).

In all the times I played AD&D, only one campaign every made it up to level 12 (say). But in that campaign it was very common to have characters fall into negative hit points; there weren't enough Heal spells in the world to keep up with it.

[Plebian]

Silly me, I had him on ignore. Thanks PR for making me read his shit. (Was that a backhanded compliment? I'm not sure.)

I know we have had a number of threads on where everything went "wrong." While I am not going to suggest that the original "Advanced" version of D&D was the best, there were a lot of things in it that seem to be missing from the later editions. The lack of these things, somehow makes things unbalanced in one way or the other. Looking back it seems that Gygax threw rules around like caltrops waiting to be stepped on by the unsuspecting player and requiring the DM to read the DMG book at least 5 times lest he miss a very important rule.

are you seriously saying early editions of D&D were good because their format was so shitty that you had to reread the book several times to pick up on rules?

No, I'm saying that because the format was so shitty that when they wrote second edition they simply left out a whole plethora of rules because it was written in Gygax's typical ranting style and not as clear "HI THERE I AM A RULE" easy to understand rules. This resulted in a series of sequential unbalancing moves that has resulted in a person barely over the age of 18 suddenly going from zero to demi god in less than a year of game time.

but this isn't unbalancing, because that zero to demigod is likely going to take around the same amount of time played as before. 3-6 sessions per level seems about average depending on how long your sessions are, which means 90-180 sessions to hit 30 from 1. you know what interjecting "but thou must" training sessions adds to the game? fuck all. a quest to find a trainer can be inserted just fine without breaking the flow of the game by forbidding progression until the trainer is found, and the only thing "but thou must" training time periods means is that the DM gets to say "2 weeks pass, now you are level 4 and can continue your quest to save the princess from the orc chief who was too powerful for you to face when the party was level 3"

and the verisimilitude people seem to take so seriously here is just shattered into pieces by demanding people seek out trainers for weeks at a time when they kill their five hundredth goblin or else they'll never get better at killing goblins.

That dying shouldn't ruin your fun. If it does, I don't know why you play D&D.

death is usually not fun at all, even if it's possible. you play D&D to have fun.

draw the connection.

D&D is a game about lethal combat between adventurers and scary monsters. Part of what makes them game interesting is risk...scary monsters are scary because they can kill your dude. Without this element of risk, I don't know why people bother to play D&D.

When you pretty much any game, I assume you accept the chance that you can lose. If you can't have fun just playing the game, win or lose, why are you playing?

trying and succeeding is pretty much always more fun than trying and failing. this doesn't mean you should always succeed, but it does mean the game shouldn't stack punishments onto failure in addition to the failure itself.

Seriously...you die, and your fun is ruined? That sounds pretty whiny to me.

I bet when your characters die you jump up and high five everyone because there's no way a character you've invested weeks into being killed can have an adverse effect on you, that's just silly

*shrug* I never had a problem with lots of downtime. It actually helps mitigate the exact problem some people have been pointing out (that you go from peasant kid to badass in a couple of months).

but there's no reason to enforce it at all through arbitrary means; if it bothers you, then find reasons for breaks in the flow. don't insert them as punishment.

But all that downtime occurs between adventures; if you get dropped to negative HP in the middle of an adventure, you're out (same as if you got killed). Your buddies then decide whether they want to call it off to get you patched up (if that's an option), or press on without you, or whatever.

and if it's not an option? why should someone be punished for daring to get hit in a game about getting hit and hitting things?

It was standard procedure (if you got capped) to let you play a henchman, or an NPC, or roll up a new character who would work his way into the adventure somehow. Example: a while back, we were starting a new campaign...I was happy with the guy I had just rolled up, nice backstory, all that jazz. He caught a critical hit from a bandit arrow not five minutes into the adventure. The DM let take over RP'ing the bandit leader, and before it was all said and done, my NPC had ended up joining forces with the PCs to fight off some undead threat, and at the end became my new PC as a member of the party.

I love how your example of "death is fun" is basically "welp I had a character with no investment and he died and I just played a different character"

yes, this is obviously directly analogous to a level 10 dude dying and having to sit out the rest of the session because the cleric doesn't have Raise Dead memorize or the components to cast it or whatever.

[PoliteNewb]

death is usually not fun at all, even if it's possible. you play D&D to have fun.

draw the connection.

Let's translate this to another game (say, chess):

"Losing isn't fun at all. You play chess to have fun."

How does that sound? Reasonable?

trying and succeeding is pretty much always more fun than trying and failing.

Wow, really? No shit, Sherlock.
That said, the fact that succeeding is more fun than failing does not mean that trying and failing is not fun.

I bet when your characters die you jump up and high five everyone because there's no way a character you've invested weeks into being killed can have an adverse effect on you, that's just silly

Hyperbole much?
There are degrees of fun. Similarly, there are degrees of deaths...dying because of a random rockslide that you had no chance to avoid sucks. Dying because a goblin stabbed you in the ass and you rolled a 1 on your save vs. poison also sucks.

I will retract and edit my previous statements, to state that meaningful or interesting death can be fun. Even if it's somebody you're invested in.

But all that downtime occurs between adventures; if you get dropped to negative HP in the middle of an adventure, you're out (same as if you got killed). Your buddies then decide whether they want to call it off to get you patched up (if that's an option), or press on without you, or whatever.

and if it's not an option? why should someone be punished for daring to get hit in a game about getting hit and hitting things?

Getting hit--and getting killed as a result of those hits--is not a punishment, and it should not be viewed as one. It is a part of how the game is played.

I love how your example of "death is fun" is basically "welp I had a character with no investment and he died and I just played a different character"

yes, this is obviously directly analogous to a level 10 dude dying and having to sit out the rest of the session because the cleric doesn't have Raise Dead memorize or the components to cast it or whatever.

*shrug* It's an example, it wasn't meant to be all-encompassing.
Sure, death is more likely to sting as you have more investment in a character...fortunately, the likelihood of death goes down (and the ability to overcome it through magic increases) as character investment goes up. That doesn't mean death isn't still an important part of the game.

Without the chance of dying, risk-taking has no meaning. Without risk-taking, a game of deadly combat and heroic adventure becomes a whole lot interesting. IMO, naturally...YMMV.

[Blasted]

As I noted in another thread, there is a problem with taking time out to train when the experience requirements between levels are so disparate. The end result being that the party rarely wants to take time to train at the same time. Which then leads to enforced downtime for at least some members while the others train.

I don't have my DMG on me, so can you tell me if the gold requirement for leveling is only for training with mentors or for training without mentors as well?

[shadzar]

No, I'm saying that because the format was so shitty that when they wrote second edition they simply left out a whole plethora of rules because it was written in Gygax's typical ranting style and not as clear "HI THERE I AM A RULE" easy to understand rules. This resulted in a series of sequential unbalancing moves that has resulted in a person barely over the age of 18 suddenly going from zero to demi god in less than a year of game time.

Yes Gary rambled and made very illegible books.. That is what you get when you have a college textbook editor.

But what exactly from the training and HP quotes was left out in 2nd?

Cutting out overly verbose Garyisms was a good thing for 2nd, but I dont really see much other cut out. i jsu7t opened the game a bit more from being the Gary game.

You could go through a year of game time to reach ungodly levels...or godly if you will, but it also left for slower advancement nd play as there are still some games going on for 20 years or more than have barely taken a few years of game time and just recently reached name level as it were in 2nd edition.

Also 2nd clearly states "The rules are only guidelines." So there isnt supposed to be a ""Hi there i am a rule", in 2nd.

The AD&D game is intentionally very flexible concerning how slowly or quickly characters earn experience--in general, this is left to the discretion of the DM. Some players prefer a game of slow advancement, allowing them time to develop and explore imaginary personalities. Other players like a much faster pace and a definite feeling of progress. Each DM and his players will likely settle into a pace that best suits their group, without even realizing it.

There is only one hard and fast rule concerning advancement. Player characters should never advance more than one level per time experience is awarded. If a gaming session ends and a character has earned enough experience points to advance two levels, the excess points are lost. The DM should give the character enough experience to place him somewhere between halfway and one point below the next highest level.
An average pace in an AD&D game campaign is considered to be three to six adventures per level, with more time per level as the characters reach higher levels. However, it is possible to advance as quickly as one level per adventure or as slowly as 10 or more adventures per level. The DM should listen to his players.

If the players are enjoying themselves and aren't complaining about "not getting anywhere," then things are fine. If, on the other hand, they grouse about how they never get any better or they're quickly reaching the highest levels in the game, the pace of advancement probably needs to be adjusted. This, like much that deals with awarding experience, may not come to a DM immediately. Let experience be your guide.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Some DMs do not like the idea that a character can instantly advance in level simply by acquiring enough experience points. To their minds all improvement is associated with schooling, practice, and study. Others argue that characters are constantly doing these things to increase their ability so formal schooling is not required. Either case may be true.
The DM might choose to require characters to train before they increase in level. To train, a character must have a tutor or instructor. This tutor must be of the same class and higher level than the one the character is training for. Thus, a 7th-level fighter training for 8th-level must be taught by a 9th-level or higher fighter. The tutor must also know the appropriate things.

~~~~

Second, the character must pay the tutor. There is no set amount for this. The tutor will charge what he thinks he can get away with, based on either greed or reputation. The exact cost must be worked out between player character and tutor, but an average of 100 gp per level pr week is not uncommon.
Finally, the player character must spend time in training. The amount of time required depends on the instructor's Wisdom. Subtract the Wisdom score from 19. This is the minimum number of weeks the player character must spend in training--it takes his instructor this long to go through all the lessons and drills. At the end of this time, the player character makes an Intelligence or Wisdom check, whichever is higher.

If the check is successful, the lessons have been learned and the character can advance in level. If the check is failed, the character must spend another week in training. At the end of this time, another check is made, with a +1 applied to the character's Intelligence or Wisdom score. The results are the same as above, with each additional week spent in training giving another +1 to the character's ability score. This +1 is for the purpose of determining the success or failure of the check only. It is not permanent or recorded.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

While the main game itself didnt require training, the optional rules preserved training for those that did enjoy.

Yeah I can see that as a bit of a slide to worse things to come and lazy players, but it gave a choice enough to play. The choice was the same as 1st if people threw out the training then as well...

Hovering on Death's Door, from 2nd pretty much worked the same, save for being a day rather than a week.

Remember you yourself often concur when we point out 2nd was made to oust Gary, such as 3rd to oust TSR, etc....So getting rid of Gary was in part what they did and making it no longer Gary's game wasnt all bad. Making it a more open game than Gary's game was good in part, but what came after DID become too open.

3rd and WCL made matters much worse, and 4th breaking wind healing surges are just stupid to even have damage at all.

But to say 2nd left out lots because they couldnt read Gary's ramblings...is that really fair when they have most as just optional to make sure people KNOW that the game is what YO make of it when YO play and TSR wasnt trying to tell you how to play anymore because Zeb wasnt going to be pissed you played differently from him as Gary often got pissed because "if you aren't playing AD&D the way he wrote it, then you arent playing AD&D."

[shadzar]

As I noted in another thread, there is a problem with taking time out to train when the experience requirements between levels are so disparate. The end result being that the party rarely wants to take time to train at the same time. Which then leads to enforced downtime for at least some members while the others train.

I don't have my DMG on me, so can you tell me if the gold requirement for leveling is only for training with mentors or for training without mentors as well?

Exception: A character with a performance score under 2 need not be tutored, but the study and/or training time will be twice the indicated period, i.e. 1 week becomes 2, 1.2 weeks becomes 2.4 weeks, etc. If a character has a performance score of 2 or greater, and he or she i s unable to locate a mentor to train under, the choracter must remain ot his or her current level until such time os o tutor con be located and the necessary training and/or study course paid for and completed before any gain of experience level is granted. Note that self-training costs more, as expenses are per week, and the potential option of service is excluded.

Costs more without...

There are ways around the training time that allows others of the party to continue to function while one is training...working for some money locally as hired laborers and getting the lay of the land and local info (plot hooks), making acquaintances with local guilds (plot hooks), hanging out in the taverns (plot hooks), and various other things could occupy the non-training persons time that really doesnt cause a downtime. Also most DMs would make it so that one doesnt need to kill a rat for 1 XP to level if another is already ready to level using training, so they can both take care of it at the same time.

Another things was that the party wouldn't have to stop to train for jsut one, but in turn wait until all are ready to train and do it as a team activity....the meta-game ignored how they all KNOW it is time to train since they don't hear a ~DING~, but just that they are meeting tougher challenges and could improve their skills.

Hope that quote form the book helps...if you need more from it let me know.

[Novembermike]

death is usually not fun at all, even if it's possible. you play D&D to have fun.

draw the connection.

Let's translate this to another game (say, chess):

"Losing isn't fun at all. You play chess to have fun."

How does that sound? Reasonable?

What gave you the impression that DnD was a competitive game?

[Blasted]

Costs more without...
...
Hope that quote form the book helps...if you need more from it let me know.

From memory, the main way of gaining XP was treasure. For some of those training costs, you could gain the XP to level faster than you could gain the treasure to do so. Which leads to some odd situations.

The problem with the divergence in XP requirements is that the thief can level twice as fast as some other classes. I've had players wait and level up twice, but I've also been in a party where the thief wants his new toy now.

[PoliteNewb]

death is usually not fun at all, even if it's possible. you play D&D to have fun.

draw the connection.

Let's translate this to another game (say, chess):

"Losing isn't fun at all. You play chess to have fun."

How does that sound? Reasonable?

What gave you the impression that DnD was a competitive game?

Nothing. So what?

So it's okay have to accept losing in competetive games, but not in non-competetive games? In those, you should always win?

Wow, solitaire is no fun at all.

[Novembermike]

What gave you the impression that DnD was a competitive game?

Nothing. So what?

So it's okay have to accept losing in competetive games, but not in non-competetive games? In those, you should always win?

Wow, solitaire is no fun at all.

You keep on making comparisons to these other games that don't make sense. Role playing is a cooperative social game. There's typically no way to officially win or lose. All that "losing" does is keep you from playing.

[talozin]

You keep on making comparisons to these other games that don't make sense. Role playing is a cooperative social game. There's typically no way to officially win or lose. All that "losing" does is keep you from playing.

Dying is not losing. Staying alive is not winning.

Losing happens with the DM sucks, or when all the other players suck, or when you, the player, get so frustrated with the game that it's not fun anymore.

Having your character die is one distressingly common way for the latter to happen, but it is -- maybe this is just my inner grognard speaking -- bad sportsmanship. Roleplaying games are not about deciding in advance what's going to happen and then just letting dice fill in the details -- that's boring. The game is engaging only as long as there is genuine uncertainty. Things can happen to your character that you don't expect, and one of those things is that he gets eaten by a barghest.

That shit happens. And if you let yourself get pissed off and ragequit because it did, a loser is you. The story is not over, the game is not over, you don't have to stop playing because your avatar died. Roll up a new one and keep playing. Be happy you got a memorable death scene, because, at the end of the day, the game is about the cool shit that happened while you were playing, not the numbers you have written down at the end.