Goals of D&D: Putting Danger to the Sword

[riprock]

Having recently been told that I overemphasized the importance of killing and conquest in D&D, I've been looking at some old texts relevant to D&D. I couldn't find anything to substantiate the notion that treasure was supposed to be much more important than battle.

First, Gygax's Role Playing Mastery, p.26 -36:

...understanding extends not only to the written rules but to what lies between the lines as well. The is the spirit of the game. Spirit is evident in every RPG. To identify the spirit of the game, you must know what the game rules say, be able to absorb this information, and then interpret what the rules imply or state about the spirit that underlies them.
...
(p.36)
2. Learn the goal(s) of the game. In other words, understand what the role of the PCs is in the game environment - the responsibilities and obligations of the player characters around whom the game world revolves. ...
3. Discover the spirit of the game, and make it your credo in play. ... Although the goal of a game may be contained within its spirit, the spirit of the game usually goes deeper. Perceive it, understand it, and have your PC live by it when you engage in play.
4. Know the genre in which the game is set, and study it often. If your PC is to act as though the game world is his or her native environment, then you as a player must feel comfortable and at home in the genre of the game.

If I had to sum up John Carter, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Elric, Conan, etc., I would definitely say that they faced down danger in exotic places, and they generally put danger to the sword. The text cited above puts a great deal of emphasis on getting action and excitement into the game.

Thus I'd say that the first goal of D&D is to battle against strange, mysterious dangers.

Next, White Box D&D, Vol. I, p.18:

Experience Points: Experience points are awarded to players by the referee with
appropriate bonuses or penalties for prime requisite scores. As characters meet
monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms
of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain "experience".
This adds to their experience point total, gradually moving them upwards through
the levels. Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User
operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience. Let us assume
he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster,
as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience
would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the
treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis thus;
7,000 G.P. + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8 = 962.5 x 7 = 6,037.5.
Experience points are never awarded above a 1 for 1 basis, so even if a character
defeats a higher level monster he will not receive experience points above the total
of treasure combined with the monster's kill value. It is also recommended
that no more experience points be awarded for any single adventure than will suffice
to move the character upwards one level. Thus a "veteran" (1st level) gains
what would ordinarily be 5,000 experience points; however, as this would move
him upwards two levels, the referee should award only sufficient points to bring
him to "warrior" (2nd level), say 3,999 if the character began with 0 experience
points.
Levels: There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e.
20th level Lord, 20th level Wizard, etc. Distinct names have only been included
for the base levels, but this does not influence progression.

Treasure is mentioned, but battle seems central.

I would submit that the White Box OD&D was still following the goals of a wargame, although it was adding the atmosphere of a "weird tale." The responsibility of the PCs is to battle much like pulp heroes would battle -- Elric would be "Chaotic Evil" whereas John Carter would probably be "Lawful Good." The battle must be exotic, weird, inspiring, and if possible chivalrous. Elric's battles tended to be exotic and baroque; Conan's were weird but chivalrous; John Carter was chivalrous to a fault, overshadowing the exotic backdrop of Mars. The goal of the game is daring battle in exotic settings.

Conversely, the game also seeks to keep the player characters alive, which means that although they must take risks, they must also calculate carefully and stay alive.

Role Playing Mastery:

(p.50)
You respond to the players' needs by revising and expanding the campaign milieu. First they may demand more intense and detailed combat frequently. Then they might find more esoteric approaches to unusual problems more interesting. You address these preferences as soon as you become aware of the trend. Here is where your first real test of game-mastering ability confronts you. The wishes of the play group might well be contrary to the goal of the game, and you must find a way to satisfy the players while not compromising that goal. The desires of the players might violate the spirit of the game system. ...

In all such cases, the superior game master protects the campaign first and foremost. ... you must make every effort to tailor the campaign so that it accommodates the players' interests as much as possible, without allowing them actually to determine its intent or direction. Allowing players to bring in fresh ideas and creativity is a manifestation of natural
(p.51)
growth within the campaign. ... the shenanigans of the PCs ... inspire some of the most determined efforts of the GM to prevent them from getting away with any future hijinks of that sort. The difficulty arises when players try to revise the game system, violate the spirit, or make the campaign into a playground -- as opposed to a testing ground -- for their game personas.

So Gygax advises that the DM must defend the campaign of the players from the short-term ambitions of the players themselves, so that they don't spoil the fun. The battles must be testing grounds.

In all of the above, the emphasis seems to be on danger; I haven't found anything in the early D&D texts to suggest that treasure was nearly as important. I tend to think that treasure was an afterthought at first and then early excesses caused TSR to moderate treasure.

Gygax in the AD&D DMG (p.92):

Just as it is important to use forethought and consideration in placing
valuable metals and other substances with monsters or otherwise hiding
them in dungeon or wilderness, the placement of magic items is a serious
matter. Thoughtless placement of powerful magic items has been the
ruination of many a campaign. Not only does this cheapen what should be
rare and precious, it gives ployer characters undeserved advancement and
empowers them to become virtual rulers of all they survey. This is in part
the fault of this writer, who deeply regrets not taking the time and space in
d&d to stress repeatedly the importance of moderation. Powerful magic
items were shown, after all, on the tables, and a chance for random
discovery of these items was given, so the uninitiated DM cannot be
severely faulted for merely following what was set before him or her in
the rules. Had the whole been prefaced with an admonition to use care
and logic in placement or random discovery of magic items, had the
intent, meaning, and spirit of the game been more fully explained, much
of the give-away aspect of such campaigns would have willingly been
squelched by the DMs. The sad fact is, however, that this was not done, so
many campaigns are little more than a joke, something that better DMs
jape at and ridicule - rightly so on the surface - because of the foolishness
of player characters with astronomically high levels of experience
and no real playing skill.

The above leads me to suspect that the original intent was to emphasize battle. Treasure was thrown in without much concern for the effect it might have on distracting players from glorious fights.

The ten-to-one gold to kill ratio in the "White Box" text might suggest that stealing is ten times more important than battle, but that strikes me as contrary to the "spirit." I'm not terribly familiar with the "White Box," so if anyone can offer guidance on issues like experience given for wandering monsters with no treasure, I'd be much obliged.

 

[shilsen]

If I had to sum up John Carter, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Elric, Conan, etc., I would definitely say that they faced down danger in exotic places, and they generally put danger to the sword. The text cited above puts a great deal of emphasis on getting action and excitement into the game.

Thus I'd say that the first goal of D&D is to battle against strange, mysterious dangers.

I roundly disagree, because I think it's a very simplistic and narrow assertion. There is no single specific goal of D&D which applies across all groups. I'd say that the first, last and foremost goal of D&D is to play a game that is enjoyable for the DM and the players in the given group. Battling against strange, mysterious dangers can be part of that enjoyment, but it's not necessarily the most important factor or even a major one.

 

[MPA]

Having recently been told that I overemphasized the importance of killing and conquest in D&D, I've been looking at some old texts relevant to D&D. I couldn't find anything to substantiate the notion that treasure was supposed to be much more important than battle.

Did you miss the parts about treasure being the main source of XP?

 

[Montague68]

Having recently been told that I overemphasized the importance of killing and conquest in D&D...

Stop right there.

If your players are the ones telling you this, stop trying to justify your position. The absolute worst thing a DM can do is shove his game philosophy down his players' throats. A lot of us here have some strong opinions on how D&D/AD&D/OD&D should be played, but when it comes right down to it if your players come to you and tell you that they want a different emphasis, you'd be wise to accommodate them.

For instance, I don't care for tactically involved combats. I prefer a more cinematic approach. However if my players came to me and said we want more tactical combats, I try to give it to them. They may not be as much fun to me as my cinematic combats, but they're more fun than putting up fliers looking for players at the FLGS.

If it isn't a player then carry on and don't mind me.

 

[T. Foster]

The answer you seek is staring you in the face in the passage you quote from OD&D vol. I: the character in the example gets 10x as much XP from the treasure as he does from defeating the monster! Obviously the quickest road to success in the game is to gather as much treasure as possible, and defeating monsters is a means to that end, rather than an end in itself. A couple more key quotes from OD&D (vol. III):

On the other hand unusual areas and rich treasures should be relatively difficult to locate, and access must be limited.

It is a good idea to thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monstrous guardians

(showing that treasure, and access to it, is the key consideration for referees designing dungeon levels)

And perhaps most telling of all is the Example of Play on pp. 12-14, which I won't quote in full because it's quite long, but suffice to say that while there is combat in the example it is glossed over quickly ["(here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on)"] and the overwhelming bulk of the example is devoted to the characters' efforts to recover as much treasure as possible (searching for secret compartments in treasure chests, scrounging through a pile of rags looking for elven boots, etc.). In particular, note how the example ends (as the party flees an encounter with a wandering monster):

Our magic-user will cast a HOLD PORTAL on the west door while the elf opens the secret one. We will then all beat a hasty retreat down the stairs to the south. Onward, friends, to more and bigger loot!

He didn't saying onward to more and bigger combat (after all, if combat was what they were after, they could stay and fight whatever it is right outside the door). Recovery of treasure was unquestionably the primary goal and source of experience in early D&D (the 1981 (Moldvay-edit) Basic Set explicitly states (p. B45) that 3/4 or more of character experience is likely to come from treasure rather than combat), and combat is an obstacle thrown up in the way of that goal by the referee.

And this is consistent with the source literature, especially those stories that correspond to "low or mid-level" D&D adventures (i.e. early in the heroes' careers). To name just a few off the top of my head, "Tower of the Elephant" (Howard/Conan), "Two Sought Adventure" (Leiber/Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser), "While the Gods Laugh" (Moorcock/Elric), The Face in the Abyss (A. Merritt), "The Helix from Beyond" (Fox/Kothar) and many more all center around (or at least start out centering around) the heroes' attempts to recover fabulous treasures. Of course the treasures are maguffins and the complications that arise in the attempts are what the stories are actually about, and the heroes more often than not don't actually get the treasure they were seeking, but that's the difference between a game and a story -- what works to make one entertaining isn't necessarily what works for the other. Also note that later stories in these various cycles, as the heroes grew in prominence and gained more responsibilities the stories tended to be less about loot-seeking and more about righting wrongs and responding to threats and other "character-oriented" goals, and this is also consistent with D&D -- once the characters hit name level and "settle down" in their castles and towers, the draw of treasure-seeking becomes less of a motivator, and such high-level adventures are likely to have other sorts of motivations (philanthropic, protective, "because that's what heroes are supposed to do," etc.). But that's later, after a year or two of play during which time the player has developed the personality of the character through actual play, so that such "plot hooks" can develop organically and not seem forced (the infamous "r" word). But until that point, for the first 8 or 9 levels of play, seeking loot is the primary motivation, and the game rules reinforce this.

 

[Treebore]

Riprock,

Is this related to the facilitator versus adversarial DM thread? If so just let it go. We play for glory, excitement, and danger. Others claim not to. Let it go at that.

 

[seskis281]

I've always given the most XP actually for story awards and role-playing awards. I often take out or limit XP for treasure period, because the treasure has its own inate value to the characters. Certain discoveries or finds amongst treasure certainly warrent good XP, but a sack of gold with 2d4 gems?

Then again, that's just me - others will be different.

John Maddog Wright

"You've got to know when to roll 'em.... know when to run!"

 

[riprock]

Did you miss the parts about treasure being the main source of XP?

The answer you seek is staring you in the face in the passage you quote from OD&D vol. I: the character in the example gets 10x as much XP from the treasure as he does from defeating the monster! Obviously the quickest road to success in the game is to gather as much treasure as possible, and defeating monsters is a means to that end, rather than an end in itself.

I saw the ten-to-one ratio, and it seemed so out of place I assumed it was a fluke example -- possible but not exemplary. That was my bias, which your quotes show was really not well founded.

I had been telling myself it was just one isolated piece of evidence, when in fact there was a lot of other evidence I wasn't looking at, as T. Foster shows below.

A couple more key quotes from OD&D (vol. III):



(showing that treasure, and access to it, is the key consideration for referees designing dungeon levels)

And perhaps most telling of all is the Example of Play on pp. 12-14, which I won't quote in full because it's quite long, ... Recovery of treasure was unquestionably the primary goal and source of experience in early D&D (the 1981 (Moldvay-edit) Basic Set explicitly states (p. B45) that 3/4 or more of character experience is likely to come from treasure rather than combat), and combat is an obstacle thrown up in the way of that goal by the referee.

You make a very convincing case. I didn't want to believe it, but it all fits together.

I started with both BD&D and AD&D, and I always emphasized AD&D, particularly the comments on how treasure should be moderate. This tended to produce a bias in favor of experience from combat.

And this is consistent with the source literature, especially those stories that correspond to "low or mid-level" D&D adventures (i.e. early in the heroes' careers). To name just a few off the top of my head, "Tower of the Elephant" (Howard/Conan), "Two Sought Adventure" (Leiber/Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser), "While the Gods Laugh" (Moorcock/Elric), The Face in the Abyss (A. Merritt), "The Helix from Beyond" (Fox/Kothar) and many more all center around (or at least start out centering around) the heroes' attempts to recover fabulous treasures. ... But until that point, for the first 8 or 9 levels of play, seeking loot is the primary motivation, and the game rules reinforce this.

Yeah, I should have been objective enough to see that. I was a little too immersed in Norse revenge sagas and a little too inattentive to the real genre spirit. You cite some excellent pulp stories!

 

[Hussar]

I've always given the most XP actually for story awards and role-playing awards. I often take out or limit XP for treasure period, because the treasure has its own inate value to the characters. Certain discoveries or finds amongst treasure certainly warrent good XP, but a sack of gold with 2d4 gems?

Then again, that's just me - others will be different.

John Maddog Wright

"You've got to know when to roll 'em.... know when to run!"

But, then, you are not playing the same game as others are who ARE using the gp=xp rules.

Riprock appears to be talking about the game as written, not Riprock's or seskis281's or Hussar's DnD. It is a mistake to assume that our experiences are universal or even typical.

 

[Rothe]

riprock, you go to a lot of trouble to quote the books but I'd say think for yourself on this issue. If glorious combats are what inspire you then from my experience, from the white box on, the game works very well in that regard. (i.e., we never gave xp for gp). But RPGs are a social game, and it is good to listen to what players consider exciting and find a common ground for all. Personally I'd be bored out of my mind in a game that involved a "murder mystery" type of adventure, but others thrive on this. As a lover of games with deeds of prowess, low magic, and low gold, I've found treasure just helps you do more and bigger and better deeds.