Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Herschel]

Rust Monsters and Disenchanters were also in the hizouse, as were dragons where items had to save when engulfed in a breath weapon or disintigration ray.

 

[Herschel]

Double post

 

[Harlekin]

Not so.

The 1e DMG has rules that tell you how long it takes to search a given area, and how often wandering monsters occur (unless the module specifies otherwise). If a module has a time limit, you can determine exactly what percentage of the area can be searched within that limit. If the module does not specify that there are no wandering monsters, you can determine roughly how may additional encounters prolonged searching will cause, and what the average effects of those encounters will be.

A more in-depth analysis of any 1e module will show that the odds of finding all the treasure in most modules (while succeeding/surviving) is virtually nil, so long as the DM uses the searching times in the rules, and makes wandering monster checks in accordance to the rules/module text.


RC

So you are saying all this treasure was in the adventure, but the pcs were not supposed to find it?

Furthermore, given that most of the treasure was usually carried by defeated foes or located in treasure piles/chests, PCs loose out little (10-20%) if they do not spend time searching the dungeon.

Finally, nothing really keeps players from coming back and doing a thorough search after clearing out the section of the dungeon, assuming that wandering monsters actually have to come from somewhere and don't just pop out of empty air.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you are saying all this treasure was in the adventure, but the pcs were not supposed to find it?

Absolutely. Items were placed, in many cases, to reward "good play", or to allow for the potential of being found. This isn't so different from the inclusion of "secret areas" that might, or might not, be found by any given group of adventurers. In the 1e era, these things were considered hallmarks of good design.

Furthermore, given that most of the treasure was usually carried by defeated foes or located in treasure piles/chests, PCs loose out little (10-20%) if they do not spend time searching the dungeon.

Is this based on a "feeling", or have you actually examined the modules to come up with those numbers?

Finally, nothing really keeps players from coming back and doing a thorough search after clearing out the section of the dungeon, assuming that wandering monsters actually have to come from somewhere and don't just pop out of empty air.

The 1e DMG has some discussion on monster populations, how areas re-fill, and how monsters react to PC incursions. A monster lair that is severely damaged, but that manages to stave off the PCs, might not be there when the PCs get back after licking thier wounds. Healing times in 1e play a major factor in this. If you look at, say, Keep on the Borderlands, and read Gary Gygax's notes on how the various humanoids deal with PC incursions, it is quite clear that failure to wipe out a group might mean that the survivors -- and the treasure -- are not there when the PCs come back.

Likewise, there is a dragon hoard example in the DMG that spotlights how, if the players kill the monsters and leave, others are very likely to come in and take what is left.

Of course, this assumes a game philosophy where the PCs are not special snowflakes, where the value of treasure (or encounter) is in its potential whether found or not, where wandering monsters are not considered unfun, where the treasure doesn't follow the PCs around until they pick it up in neat parcels, and where success and failure are determined by game play rather than by meticulously balanced rules that mandate certain types of success (wealth/treasure/magic) go hand-in-hand with other types of success (levels).

TSR-D&D was, from a game design philosophy standpoint, a very different animal than WotC-D&D. A large amount of treasure was available because it was expected that much of it would be left behind.


RC

 

[Harlekin]

Is this based on a "feeling", or have you actually examined the modules to come up with those numbers?

Based on having played or gmd many of them. And based on remembering how often i removed magic treasures because the adventures were too monty haul for my tastes.

 

[Harlekin]

The 1e DMG has some discussion on monster populations, how areas re-fill, and how monsters react to PC incursions. A monster lair that is severely damaged, but that manages to stave off the PCs, might not be there when the PCs get back after licking thier wounds. Healing times in 1e play a major factor in this. If you look at, say, Keep on the Borderlands, and read Gary Gygax's notes on how the various humanoids deal with PC incursions, it is quite clear that failure to wipe out a group might mean that the survivors -- and the treasure -- are not there when the PCs come back.

Likewise, there is a dragon hoard example in the DMG that spotlights how, if the players kill the monsters and leave, others are very likely to come in and take what is left.

Of course, this assumes a game philosophy where the PCs are not special snowflakes, where the value of treasure (or encounter) is in its potential whether found or not, where wandering monsters are not considered unfun, where the treasure doesn't follow the PCs around until they pick it up in neat parcels, and where success and failure are determined by game play rather than by meticulously balanced rules that mandate certain types of success (wealth/treasure/magic) go hand-in-hand with other types of success (levels).

TSR-D&D was, from a game design philosophy standpoint, a very different animal than WotC-D&D. A large amount of treasure was available because it was expected that much of it would be left behind.


RC

I was not assuming the PCs would come back for treasure, I was assuming a scenario where every threat had fled or been killed by the players. At that point the player have ample time to tear the dungeon stone from stone to find every piece of treasure they overlooked before. If we take the earlier mentioned moathouse as an example, what is keeping the players from finding every bauble once they have killed all the cultists?


I would argue that TSR had very little design philosophy other than "that sounds fun" and most philosophy that is now ascribed to them is projected from our vantage point of 30 years game evolution. But that is a different topic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was not assuming the PCs would come back for treasure, I was assuming a scenario where every threat had fled or been killed by the players. At that point the player have ample time to tear the dungeon stone from stone to find every piece of treasure they overlooked before. If we take the earlier mentioned moathouse as an example, what is keeping the players from finding every bauble once they have killed all the cultists?

Hmmmm.....possibly (1) other events in the campaign world, (2) more cultists coming from the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (3) more interesting areas to explore. Also, once the moathouse has been emptied, the agents in the Village of Hommlet would certainly move to examine what remained.......

EDIT: I should also note that, within the context of 1e at least, it wasn't intended that the DM tell the players where there were no more threats in an area, or when they had found everything/missed something. Several modules include reinforcements, for example, that arrive after the PC's initial foray(s). Players who assume that they have killed all the opposition and begin tearing the dungeon apart stone by stone may well be in for a rude awakening.

Oh, yeah, and in 1e at least you have to shell out gold for non-adventuring downtime, which means that searching stone-by-stone can bleed you dry, unless you have a very clear idea that something is hidden in some particular place. And, since most dungeons are located in the wilderness, the DM should be rolling on the Wilderness Encounter Table to see if some monsters have located the PCs worksite. Use the rules in the 1e DMG for clearing an area/establishing a domain, and good luck.......

I would argue that TSR had very little design philosophy other than "that sounds fun" and most philosophy that is now ascribed to them is projected from our vantage point of 30 years game evolution. But that is a different topic.

I would argue that reading the 1e DMG could (for many people) easily counter that argument.

EDIT: See also Melan's analysis of dungeon maps, showing the complexity/hidden areas of some earlier maps compared to the sterile "gotta hit every room"-type maps that you see in some adventures (from all eras). The real classics of almost any era allow multiple routes and the possibility of missing several areas.


RC

 

[el-remmen]

I must say that the first thing I do with any published adventure of any edition after the first read through, is go through with a black sharpie and mark out the magical items (and some treasure) I wanted to eliminate. There has always been more magical stuff in printed D&D than I like, even when I did have a much more magic item-rich campaign than I have these days.

 

[Jack7]

Items were placed, in many cases, to reward "good play", or to allow for the potential of being found. This isn't so different from the inclusion of "secret areas" that might, or might not, be found by any given group of adventurers. In the 1e era, these things were considered hallmarks of good design.

I can say this much from memory Harl.
It was often very hard to ransack a place because early versions of D&D were dangerous to the characters in ways that later versions never imagined, or sought to entirely mitigate.

And to me that's what bothers me about later versions, though I think later versions also had/have some really positives attributes. But when the game itself is designed in such a way as to hand-hold players, and circumvent character danger, and "balance risk" (when in life do you really get balanced risk) in-game, and prevent you from dying, or getting too out of breath, well, you've missed one of the key elements of what separates Heroes from those who'd rather hire out their risk to more courageous types.

A fantasy game without a Hero willing to risk his head for others against things potentially far more dangerous than he is, (as opposed to just a powered up, bauble painted, self-interested mercenary who won't fight anything or anyone unless he knows the fight is a balanced and fixed one) well - that's like a magic item that's determined by how many pluses it sports rather that what kinda wonder it evokes.

As for what RC was saying about the potential of reward, rather than the assurance of reward, well that also reminds me of the fact that they call it treasure for a reason. It's valuable because you take a real risk to get it, or somebody else takes a real risk to keep it. Or both.

If there were no real risk and cost involved it would be a token, not a treasure - welfare, not wealth. And risk can always go wrong. You can fail. You can lose. Seems a radical idea these days, in-games and outside of them, but there was a day when it was the way things were.

But RCs idea about treasure being potential rather than assured also reminds me of this - Easter Eggs. They're excellent to find, but sometimes, you miss a few. And that's okay.

 

[Harlekin]

Hmmmm.....possibly (1) other events in the campaign world, (2) more cultists coming from the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (3) more interesting areas to explore. Also, once the moathouse has been emptied, the agents in the Village of Hommlet would certainly move to examine what remained.......

EDIT: I should also note that, within the context of 1e at least, it wasn't intended that the DM tell the players where there were no more threats in an area, or when they had found everything/missed something. Several modules include reinforcements, for example, that arrive after the PC's initial foray(s). Players who assume that they have killed all the opposition and begin tearing the dungeon apart stone by stone may well be in for a rude awakening.

OK, you may continue to believe that although even low level adventures hand out enough magic to stock a small magic emporium, most of the items listed in an adventure will not be found by PCs that are specialized in killing and looting. However, I hope your arguments made clear to other readers of this thread that this is not the most parsimonious assumption and that serious contortions are necessary to make it to your conclusion.

I would argue that reading the 1e DMG could (for many people) easily counter that argument.
RC

Really, a philosophy? I see an unorganized heap of underdeveloped, albeit often brilliant ideas. If there is one thing missing in the DMG it is a governing philosophy.
However, i do think that because of its chaotic nature, the DMG is a great projection surface. You will find a lot of things in there that support a given point of view, for almost any point of view.