Last time, I singled out “Oath breaker” paladins in 5e D&D as emblematic of character classes failing to impose constraints on player agency. This subclass effectively jettisons any influence the game world has on a paladin through their religious order and deity. Basically, you get to advance whether you follow the paladin code or not. In AD&D 1e though, paladins got a bit less of free ride. This was literally so in terms of their special warhorse, which develops an “immutable enmity” towards the character if their actions cause them to lose their paladinhood (p18 Dungeon Master's Guide).
Beyond troublesome steeds, AD&D 1e took steps to link character advancement more closely to the game world through its training rules. Gaining experience from adventuring was no longer enough to level up by itself. A period of training was introduced as a further requirement. In most cases, this involves the guidance of a mentor. Self-study is only even an option as a reward for excellent role play, and this still doubles the period of required study.
Training is a step toward what I have called “materialism” in RPGs, in so far as the game world determines the options for advancement available to a character. Characters must engage with the world in terms of finding an appropriate tutor and convincing them to undertake their training. However, the extent to which this represents an interesting or effective factor in the game depends largely on how such rules are implemented.
The Colour of Your Money
In AD&D 1E rules as written, cold hard currency is the key to getting trained. The tutor “might possibly” “at the DM’s option” accept part payment in services, but some money is always required. Gold pieces (GP) then, become not just part of the way experience points (XP) are accumulated whilst adventuring. They must also be spent in game to train and fulfil level advancement (p86 DMG).
Paying for training does demand some interaction with the world, in terms of going out and getting treasure. But characters would likely have been doing this anyway, especially in an OSR style game. I previously talked about D&D’s transactional approach to advancement, where XP is a universal currency for players to spend levelling up any way they choose. The danger here is just replacing one universal currency (XP) with the actual “in game” universal currency (GP).
Much depends on how things are implemented. Where gold is plentiful and mentors indiscriminately available to those with cash, training does not present much constraint on advancement. Players effectively still get to pick their next level up as if they were browsing in a shop. Should gold then be the only factor involved in gaining training?
It’s fairly implausible that any pleb could rock up to a college with a sack of gold and get whatever powers they desire. And it’s not like we’re talking fine art studies, but abilities sufficient to wipe out half the town guard. Colleges historically are where elites send their sprogs, to furnish them with skills and values beneficial to the established order. If colleges are in the business of training warriors, this would be to fight the ruler’s battles, not creating random rogue agents to wreak havoc in the kingdom.
A college should be recognised as having its own interests and agendas, likely entangled with those of a setting’s ruling elites. It’s unlikely to indiscriminately distribute power to individuals who don’t align with these. A fantasy stereotype is the mentor as hermit in a cave (or swamp in the case of Yoda). This set up conveniently divorces them from worldly concerns and commitments. But neither a character nor their mentor should be thought of as “an island”. More plausibly, a mentor will owe their skills and abilities to institutions, enmeshing them within the same web of interests.
Making It Materialist
One way to make character advancement more materialist is to flip around the above relationship. It’s the institution doing the training that should be paying the characters, not the other way around. This is kind of how it works in jobs I’ve had anyway. The army and police force etc also tend to take this approach.
AD&D 1e is a bit inconsistent in this respect, because henchmen the characters employ do require payment upfront, equipment, accommodation and a share of the loot (p35 DMG). Henchmen are attracted by the character’s renown as adventurers, which presumably implies the expectation of being trained. Yet the player characters do not get reciprocal terms from the mentors they seek out.
Of course, there is a payoff in having to fulfil duties in return for training. This is where the materialist element comes in, as the game world begins to exert influence over the type of adventures undertaken. Characters might be faced with doing things they’d rather not do, the alternative being to forsake their possibility of advancement. This enmeshes them within the interests and agendas of groups within the game world.
Perhaps I’m making playing an RPG sound a little too much like our real-life daily grinds. This might be true where characters have no alternative but doing “jobs” for an in-game employer. Writing this post however has brought me to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion. The key to interesting advancement in an RPG might be having a viable way to play the game which does NOT involve advancing.
Going Rogue
In a D&D campaign, it’s very difficult for a character to remain perpetually at first level. The ramp up in power levels is too great, especially when accompanying other party members who are advancing. D&D players therefore have little choice but to advance their characters, which means following whatever conditions the game world imposes.
Much as I’m into materialism, it takes the idea too far if there is no option but to fulfil assignments for an employer. One of the main literary influences on old school gaming are Robert E. Howard’s Conan novels. Conan is the perennial outsider, whose wild nature stands in opposition to the trappings of civilisation. Hard baked into the idea of “adventuring” is a notion of striking it out alone, in a similar rejection of society’s rules and agendas.
An RPG, especially an old school one, needs a way to play the game as the outsider. This is being an adventurer in the sense of a rogue or chancer. In keeping with materialism, this shouldn’t be an easy path, but a desperate one. The price of an adventurer’s freedom is forsaking the training and support of an organisation. In game, this would translate to less powerful abilities and heightened danger – but enough still to give characters a fighting chance.
A&D1e rules could be tweaked to explore such an approach. I would make advancement in most classes conditional on being aligned with an institution in the game. The exception would be the rogue class, which characters advance in by default, unless being trained in another class. I would further double the XP required to advance as a rogue, to make there a definite payoff in not pursuing an orthodox path of training.
Summary
I’ve suggested an approach to advancement that makes it materialist in a “Brechtian” sense. This just means a focus on social and economic forces in the game world determining outcomes for the characters. The OSR is conventionally more materialist in a “stuff in your backpack” sense, where physical things determine outcomes. But I think presenting advancement as a “meaningful decision”, between conformity with institutions and more dangerous roguelike adventuring, is also a pretty good fit with the OSR ethos.
In a D&D campaign, it’s very difficult for a character to remain perpetually at first level. The ramp up in power levels is too great, especially when accompanying other party members who are advancing. D&D players therefore have little choice but to advance their characters, which means following whatever conditions the game world imposes.
Much as I’m into materialism, it takes the idea too far if there is no option but to fulfil assignments for an employer. One of the main literary influences on old school gaming are Robert E. Howard’s Conan novels. Conan is the perennial outsider, whose wild nature stands in opposition to the trappings of civilisation. Hard baked into the idea of “adventuring” is a notion of striking it out alone, in a similar rejection of society’s rules and agendas.
An RPG, especially an old school one, needs a way to play the game as the outsider. This is being an adventurer in the sense of a rogue or chancer. In keeping with materialism, this shouldn’t be an easy path, but a desperate one. The price of an adventurer’s freedom is forsaking the training and support of an organisation. In game, this would translate to less powerful abilities and heightened danger – but enough still to give characters a fighting chance.
A&D1e rules could be tweaked to explore such an approach. I would make advancement in most classes conditional on being aligned with an institution in the game. The exception would be the rogue class, which characters advance in by default, unless being trained in another class. I would further double the XP required to advance as a rogue, to make there a definite payoff in not pursuing an orthodox path of training.
Summary
I’ve suggested an approach to advancement that makes it materialist in a “Brechtian” sense. This just means a focus on social and economic forces in the game world determining outcomes for the characters. The OSR is conventionally more materialist in a “stuff in your backpack” sense, where physical things determine outcomes. But I think presenting advancement as a “meaningful decision”, between conformity with institutions and more dangerous roguelike adventuring, is also a pretty good fit with the OSR ethos.
There are multiple interesting ideas / thought lines to delve into here.
ReplyDeleteRE henchmen vs. PCs
In 1E, henchmen are supposed to be penniless, down-on-their-luck adventurers; if they had anything going on, they wouldn’t be offering to “serve” a PC “master.” This is a key difference between the henchfolk (who need money and equipment upfront) and the successful PC seeking training (with gold in his/her pockets). Also, when I have used training in the past, the PCs were responsible for paying for their henchmen’s training upon leveling up…same rules apply.
RE no advancement
You are not the first to suggest going such a route…I know of other groups who chose to “do away” with advancement altogether (there was an AP thread about this on the old Forge forums, IIRC). They did not find it detrimental to their play.
One thing to consider is exactly what leveling up “means” in your game. The PCs have reached a milestone and received bonus HPs, saves, and combat tables. Are these things that require “training” or do they simply reflect the increase in the PC’s experience? In my current (1E) campaign, I am only requiring training for spell-casters who level, and only to acquire spells…increases to thief skills and combat effectiveness happen “naturally.”
Re “rogue play”
That’s kind of a cool idea: linking advancement (training access) to organizations and institutions. The various restrictions imposed on the AD&D classes (alignment, guild membership, equipment limits, etc.) can all be used to establish the foundational “tenets” of such groups…even weapon restrictions for wizards and whatnot could be seen as “taboos” of their magical order.
Lot of great world building possibilities there; lot of potential to make one’s campaign more “real” by tying these mechanics to the setting.
Thanks for these comments. It's great to hear about your direct experience from AD&D 1e. Re henchmen advancement, I interpreted from the rules that hencemen would always be a lower level than the characters. And that all that is required to train is someone a higher level in the same class. It seemed natural from this that the PCs would often do the training if having a class in common. But I can also see why you would make the PCs pay for henchmen training, as this seems to go with the financial obligation they represent.
DeleteI actually think it is good to keep advancement, just keep it optional. It is a great motivator for players to engage with the setting. They tend to care about this more than gold in my experience.
I'm glad you like the rogue play idea. I am sure I have read others suggesting all adventurers should be rogues, rather than having this as a separate class. Conan is about as much a rogue as he is a barbarian. That's a good point about making sense of wizard weapon restrictions etc as tenets of organisation membership. Integrating these kinds of rules into world building is exactly the angle I am going for.