PCs training as part of level advancement has been around since the beginning. It’s also strained at credulity for me since I began play. Not that I find it unreasonable that characters should have to spend time practicing to improve and gain consistency, certainly not. The way in which that gets mimicked in the rules has never really gelled with me.

Let’s look at AD&D training:

Note: OD&D has nothing about training among its sections covering experience levels. As monks and druids got added to the system, their descriptions called for fights with higher level monks or druids to advance to specific levels and that was it.

The first statement in the DMG about gaining experience levels is one that I’ve taken to heart, though put into practice in non-obvious ways. To wit — and the emphasis is in the original — UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. Simply accumulating xp isn’t enough for advancement in level. I think that’s something that got lost from discussion and play long ago and that loss is for the worse. I suspect losing track of that notion is what led us into the wilderness of not having solid training rules.

Gygax then speaks about the GM rating the overall performance of the play of the character in regard to class function and alignment. He ties this rating directly to the number of weeks required for training to gain a level. The notion of evaluating PC play via adherence to stereotypical PC behavior — was the fighter boldly leading, was the thief sneakily stealing, etc. — doesn’t sit well with me as it disallows the nuances of character and variety of personality among members of the same class. The notion of time necessary for training, however, seems obvious to me. The trick is figuring out how to figure out how much time is necessary. (Keep in mind that time spent training is time the PC is unavailable for adventuring.) He goes into whether tutelage by an NPC is necessary, also, based on that GM evaluation.

The costs of training seem to be tied more to draining PCs of wealth than reflective of any diagetic issues. That’s perfectly fine as a game mechanism, though I reckon there are better ways to deal with excess liquid assets and the costs Gygax lists strain the simulation aspect of play. Paying for training tutors and/or assistants is fine. Paying a noble’s ransom for such is a bit much.

He also notes that training is to undertaken as a solid block of study, uninterrupted by adventuring or anything else, lest the benefits of the training be lost and the PC have to begin training anew after the interruption. A bit harsh, though it certainly fits with the general style of play that centered on forays into dungeons as part of ad hoc groups of PCs, so the temptation to interrupt training time to join an effort to map out a bit more of the fourth dungeon level would have been strong. Force the player to choose which is more important — being involved in the mapping foray or training to increase in level.

The Concepts Taken From It

What I’m taking from this and using as a basic for the projects I’m working on:

• Leveling up is not an automatic event. It requires training.

• Training is an explicit activity to be undertaken in an environment designed for it.

• Training involves other people, whether instructors or assistants, and costs associate with that.

• Training requires a commitment of time devoted to it.

For a bit of background, I can speak to the ways I’ve dealt with xp and leveling over the years. In the beginning, of course, I toed the line on RAW, diligently adhering to what I’d read in the DMG. Then, over time, I’d dropped xp for monsters and just used xp for gold. Then played a bit flipping that script (I don’t advise that <shudder>). Then I toyed with awarding xp based on the number of encounters played through (whether fights or avoidance or negotiation or whatever). What I ended up using for a long while, as did another GM or two in our group of players, simply dropping large amounts of xp whenever it seemed to be a good time to give the PCs a bit of a boost.

That last approach has long been my preference. One of the reasons I played around with different xp award systems has to do with diagetic advancement rates. That a PC fighter could advance from 1st level veteran to 8th level superhero in a matter of a few game months just didn’t sit well with me (and still doesn’t). So, what I’m working on now is laying out guidelines to advancement that work with my preference for diagetic believability and showing progress in advancement due to what players choose to do.

To that end, I’m looking at training being a regular activity for PCs. That is, any time they aren’t out saving the dragon from the princess, they’re living their lives in town and part of that is spending time training. This also makes the idea of upkeep costs a bit more applicable, as paying for training assistants and supplies is required for effectiveness. A fighter needs opponents to wallop with wooden swords, a wizard needs a scribe to copy borrowed texts for reference, and so on — whether household staff or not, those people cost money.

It’s also a two-pronged approach, in that the PCs have to actually get out and adventure to advance smoothly. I think of Ars Magicka and it’s seasons, with Magi being required to adventure for a season before retreating into their drafty towers to study and craft new spells. That cycle of venturing forth followed by a return home with new lessons to learn makes for a fine basic loop for me. Among all the activities to do while at home, training should be a regular thing.