Storm Raven
First Post
You are the one who decided to cite a completely useless and incoherent comparison as something significant. When you compare apples to buicks don't be surprised if people make fun of the comparison.
Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
- Status
You are the one who decided to cite a completely useless and incoherent comparison as something significant. When you compare apples to buicks don't be surprised if people make fun of the comparison.
The 1E DMG, at page 171, suggests that fully 60% of all randomly distributed treasures (the more common, non-Treasure-Type sort used to fill in less detailed regions of a campaign dungeon) should be hidden. That is a bit high for my taste, especially considering that it applies either concealment or trapping to all such troves. I am less likely to apply either to treasures with monstrous guardians.
The really big hauls, if literally hidden, should at least have some intelligence as to their magnitude and general location available to discerning delvers.
The really big hauls, if literally hidden, should at least have some intelligence as to their magnitude and general location available to discerning delvers.
Orius
Legend
Which could mean either the stuff is found easily if the DM chooses to be generous, or not at all, if the DM wants to be picky and tight-fisted about it. The biggest difference with 3e is that the Search skill gives a hard and fast method of determining whether a hidden treasure is found or not. Whether or not this invovled a great deal of work on the PC/player's part or not was really up to the individual DM as always, though. In my own games, I never revealed things players didn't bother to look for.
It may have been. I'm fairly sure 2e's XP tables for the various classes weren't significantly changed from the 1e ones. However, XP for treasure found was relegated to an optional rule that was somewhat discouraged. Because of this, XP for monster kills in 2e were different (higher I think) than they wer ein 1e. But I think level advancement by the book was still slower, even if one took into account optional XP bonuses. Going by the introduction to Night Below, Sargent strongly recommends the DM to put the XP for treasure rule into play so the PCs can get the levels needed to survive the ampaign. This is one of the few main 2e modules, so it would seem that 2e's default advancement (just XP for kills) was fairly slow. In any case, 3e design considerations apply to how 2e was being played in the late 90's and not how 1e was being played in the early '80s.
Quasqueton
First Post
It seems to me that most of the arguments against the data in this thread are due to the comparison between AD&D1 and D&D3. Had I just listed the level advancement for the AD&D1 party through the adventures, most everyone would have just nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, that's about right."
I mean, after all, the data/calculations on the party's level advancement pretty much completely follows what the author (Gary Gygax) seemed to expect, predict, and plan and design for. He wrote these modules to follow one after the other (the original "adventure path"), and the party comes out of one adventure at pretty much perfectly the appropriate level for the next adventure in the series.
I find it funny that instead of folks saying, "Well, of course, Papa G planned it that way," folks are saying, "Impossible, your numbers must be wrong." I guess folks didn't have much faith in Gygax that he knew what he was doing when he "placed xp" in the adventures and planned the next adventure.
To be honest, I didn't have faith that Gygax planned it that well. But I learned that he apparently did at least put some thought into the xp to be gained in each adventure. The level advancement rate works perfectly through the series.
If the PCs didn't advance at least close to what is shown in this data, they wouldn't be powerful enough to take on the next level of the dungeon or the next dungeon in the series. Essentially, the series -- written by the game system designer, himself -- wouldn't work the way they were planned to follow.
But then also remember, that through many levels in AD&D, the xp needed for a level is double that needed for the previous level. So, in many cases, even if you cut the xp gained in half (50%), the level difference would only be one level.
I really should not have presented this data as a comparison between AD&D1 and D&D3. I should have merely presented the data on just AD&D1. There wouldn't have been nearly as much argument.
For instance, check out the answers in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/243299-party-comes-out-other-side-t1-4-will.html
When asked what level PCs come out of ToEE, the answers all match what my data in this thread showed. Ironically, those anecdotes were accepted without argument, but my hard data -- showing the exact same answer -- is considered suspect.
Something I take from what the data and calculations here show, is that Gygax planned pretty darn well for the levels his adventures would produce. I find it somewhat humorous that so many people are essentially arguing that, no, Gygax was wrong, the adventures cannot produce the levels he planned for the next adventure in the series.
Quasqueton
I mean, after all, the data/calculations on the party's level advancement pretty much completely follows what the author (Gary Gygax) seemed to expect, predict, and plan and design for. He wrote these modules to follow one after the other (the original "adventure path"), and the party comes out of one adventure at pretty much perfectly the appropriate level for the next adventure in the series.
I find it funny that instead of folks saying, "Well, of course, Papa G planned it that way," folks are saying, "Impossible, your numbers must be wrong." I guess folks didn't have much faith in Gygax that he knew what he was doing when he "placed xp" in the adventures and planned the next adventure.
To be honest, I didn't have faith that Gygax planned it that well. But I learned that he apparently did at least put some thought into the xp to be gained in each adventure. The level advancement rate works perfectly through the series.
If the PCs didn't advance at least close to what is shown in this data, they wouldn't be powerful enough to take on the next level of the dungeon or the next dungeon in the series. Essentially, the series -- written by the game system designer, himself -- wouldn't work the way they were planned to follow.
But then also remember, that through many levels in AD&D, the xp needed for a level is double that needed for the previous level. So, in many cases, even if you cut the xp gained in half (50%), the level difference would only be one level.
I really should not have presented this data as a comparison between AD&D1 and D&D3. I should have merely presented the data on just AD&D1. There wouldn't have been nearly as much argument.
For instance, check out the answers in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/243299-party-comes-out-other-side-t1-4-will.html
When asked what level PCs come out of ToEE, the answers all match what my data in this thread showed. Ironically, those anecdotes were accepted without argument, but my hard data -- showing the exact same answer -- is considered suspect.
Something I take from what the data and calculations here show, is that Gygax planned pretty darn well for the levels his adventures would produce. I find it somewhat humorous that so many people are essentially arguing that, no, Gygax was wrong, the adventures cannot produce the levels he planned for the next adventure in the series.
Quasqueton
Last edited:
I for one take no issue with the data considered simply for what they are -- and that may falsely characterize the points some others have raised as well.
Statistics, however, readily lend themselves to rhetorical purposes that put partisanship ahead of scholarship. It is easy to come up with rationales for dismissing some considerations, and elevating others, when what is really in play is confirmation bias. The lawyer's mode of argument may or may not be more hard-wired in our brains than the scientist's, but it seems to me more normative in society. Advertising and other propaganda permeate our environment, disinterested reporting not so much.
The other side of the coin is that it requires context to interpret data, and our brains are wired to construct narratives and internally consistent (if not always objectively accurate) conceptual worlds. It is not a process one can do without; one can only do it more or less mindfully of the pitfalls.
Without interpretation, Quasqueton, the products of your hard work would be mere senseless trivia sterile of meaning. Part of the necessary fuller analysis is consideration of the methodology, of just what is being represented and what is not.
By page 5, I have encountered no claim of error in arithmetic or transcription -- which should in any case be subject to independent verification. It is not a matter of your numbers being wrong. It is a matter of pondering what they might or might not mean.
Statistics, however, readily lend themselves to rhetorical purposes that put partisanship ahead of scholarship. It is easy to come up with rationales for dismissing some considerations, and elevating others, when what is really in play is confirmation bias. The lawyer's mode of argument may or may not be more hard-wired in our brains than the scientist's, but it seems to me more normative in society. Advertising and other propaganda permeate our environment, disinterested reporting not so much.
The other side of the coin is that it requires context to interpret data, and our brains are wired to construct narratives and internally consistent (if not always objectively accurate) conceptual worlds. It is not a process one can do without; one can only do it more or less mindfully of the pitfalls.
Without interpretation, Quasqueton, the products of your hard work would be mere senseless trivia sterile of meaning. Part of the necessary fuller analysis is consideration of the methodology, of just what is being represented and what is not.
By page 5, I have encountered no claim of error in arithmetic or transcription -- which should in any case be subject to independent verification. It is not a matter of your numbers being wrong. It is a matter of pondering what they might or might not mean.
Last edited:
Quasqueton
First Post
If you are suggesting that the results of this data conform to my pre-research expectations -- that is, they confirm my personal bias -- you are incorrect. I have stated in this thread that I expected different results. The data didn't confirm my bias, it showed me how my bias was incorrect.
Yes, no one has claimed an error in arithmetic or transcription. What has been claimed is the impossibility of the exercise and results.
No one has said that 2 + 2 = 4 is an incorrect formula. They are saying that 2 is impossible, 2 is impossible, and 4 is impossible. Reading some arguments in this thread could lead one to think that level gain in AD&D1 was actually never experienced. The variables and obstacles are too numerous and powerful.
They look at the ending levels for adventuring in ToEE (for instance), and say level ~8.5 is too high. But looking at the actual adventure encounters and monsters, I don't see how PCs could survive the last parts of ToEE at lower level. A party of 5th level PCs (even a dozen) would be overwhelmed by the denizens of the bottom level of the temple.
Quasqueton
Pale Master
First Post
The only objective way to have any meaningful comparison between different editions is to count every bit of treasure and every bit of xp. It cannot be assumed that a party running through a third edition module will, across the board, garner a greater proportion of the available treasure and experience than would a party running through a first edition module.
I think Quasqueton's methodology is sound.
I think Quasqueton's methodology is sound.
How much of the potential XP is likely to be secured is a matter to investigate in another way. It is not irrelevant to a realistic comparison of "leveling". One might wonder, for instance, whether 3E characters were more likely to go through conversions of old Basic and Advanced Modules or through 3E modules -- and vice-versa. Speaking of which, it is a bit curious that when we got to an (or at least the first; I'm not done reading) actual 3E module, there was no write-up of the data for 1E characters.
Are the Caves of Chaos likely to get cleaned out? Eventually. By one small group of low-level adventurers? Not so probable, I think; for one thing, a good few are likely to die along the way. How does that compare with the Sunless Citadel?
Going Against the Giants, the punitive expedition very well could produce pretty comprehensive plunder. The Descent into the Depths of the Earth, by contrast, is one into a subterranean wilderness, leading eventually to a great city -- all potentially deadly for intruders who draw too much attention to themselves. Just seeing everything (and surviving the roundabout tour) might be a stretch, much less taking home every souvenir to be found.
Are the Caves of Chaos likely to get cleaned out? Eventually. By one small group of low-level adventurers? Not so probable, I think; for one thing, a good few are likely to die along the way. How does that compare with the Sunless Citadel?
Going Against the Giants, the punitive expedition very well could produce pretty comprehensive plunder. The Descent into the Depths of the Earth, by contrast, is one into a subterranean wilderness, leading eventually to a great city -- all potentially deadly for intruders who draw too much attention to themselves. Just seeing everything (and surviving the roundabout tour) might be a stretch, much less taking home every souvenir to be found.
- Status
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
