Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)

[Raven Crowking]

So, as I said, moot. Your objection has been noted, and found wanting.

As has yours.

As much as you might like to be, you are not the arbiter of what is a good/compelling argument, except in terms of what convinces you.

Can you show me any evidence that any argument has ever changed your mind, no matter how compelling the evidence/argument presented? Where you ever said X and then, on consideration, realized not-X?


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

As has yours.

As much as you might like to be, you are not the arbiter of what is a good/compelling argument, except in terms of what convinces you.

Can you show me any evidence that any argument has ever changed your mind, no matter how compelling the evidence/argument presented? Where you ever said X and then, on consideration, realized not-X?

Sure, I've changed my mind on things. Not incredibly often though. And certainly not on this question.

If you have 15-16 encounters, and they are intended to take the PCs from first to third level, then in the 3e rules, about ten of them will have to be at least double the average EL appropriate for the party. If some of the encounters are below the average EL appropriate for the party, then more encounters will have to be double, or some of the encounters will have to be more than double.

The situation with the Moathouse, comparing a 3e party going through it (using a converted version) with a 1e party going through it, one finds that they level up after about the same number of encounters. You might not like the information (as you seem to be heavily invested in the idea that level advancement in 1e was almost impossible, and required the PCs to walk through miles of two foot deep snow uphill both ways, while 3e PCs step on a butterfly and go up a level), but that's what it is.

All of the complaining about how the comparison isn't apt because it doesn't account for treasure being hidden, or for training time and so on is basically small beer. Why? Because Q didn't include experience from selling mundane gear (and in low level dungeons, that's often as valuable as the "treasure") and didn't include experience from acquiring magic items (or selling them). In other words, he left out of the 1e comparison a significant amount of material that would increase the 1e rate of advancement. So to quibble over whether the Pcs would have gotten 80% or 90% or 100% of the treasure is simply rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, I've changed my mind on things. Not incredibly often though.

Can you point to even one post, prior to this date, that where you've done so? Because, AFAICT, this is about ego for you. Certainly the constant stream of insults re: people of other opinions seems to point this way.

And certainly not on this question.

Then why would anyone bother to credit your opinion on it? It is my general observation that only in questions where one is open-minded does one have anything valuable to contribute. This applies to myself as well; where I am most close-minded, I am also least valuable as a person to speak to.

And despite your hyperbole to the contrary, I have said more than once exactly the type of evidence needed to convince me I am wrong. If you really wanted to do so (rather than merely wanting to insult me [as well as other people]), you could run the numbers.

You haven't done so.

I wonder why?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

For fun, I just reread Page 1 of this thread. Here are a few things that I noted:

In KotB, the 3e party gains 5th level to the BD&D party's average 3rd. In BD&D, that's 3/5th the leveling of 3e.

In VoH, Q assumes that all treasure is valuable for XP, which has been pretty thoroughly debunked in this thread. Because the treasure is end-loaded in VoH, there is significant XP loss. Factor this in, and we again see something more in line with KotB.

This will change the starting XP for Q's analysis of ToEE as well, and therefore the final XP totals.

Q doesn't actually tell us the XP a 1e party would gain from Sunless Citadel, which greatly limits the value of his math here. We know that the 3e modules end where they say they will; surely this isn't a controversial finding. What we need to know, for adequate comparison, is where the AD&D party ends when the same module is converted.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Then why would anyone bother to credit your opinion on it? It is my general observation that only in questions where one is open-minded does one have anything valuable to contribute. This applies to myself as well; where I am most close-minded, I am also least valuable as a person to speak to.

I didn't say I wasn't open minded on this issue. I said that I haven't changed my mind. Based upon the information presented thus far, I see no reason to.

And despite your hyperbole to the contrary, I have said more than once exactly the type of evidence needed to convince me I am wrong. If you really wanted to do so (rather than merely wanting to insult me [as well as other people]), you could run the numbers.

And despite the fact that your assertions have been repeatedly looked at and assessed, the fact that they haven't led the the conclusions you want them to has led you to discount the results and instead throw up some other supposed problem. And you are saying other people are being disingenuous?

You said lots of treasure was hidden in 1e modules. It was shown that this is not the case. You have said that treasure was hard to move in 1e modules, and it was shown that this amounted to a tiny amount of treasure. You have said that in 3e modules the PCs will be expected to get everything, and this was shown not to be the case. You have quibbled over the implied ELs of 1e encounters, and this was shown to not be a problem because of the larger assumed party size and lmore limited number of actual encounters.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to dispute Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And despite the fact that your assertions have been repeatedly looked at and assessed, the fact that they haven't led the the conclusions you want them to has led you to discount the results and instead throw up some other supposed problem. And you are saying other people are being disingenuous?

No. I am saying thier assessment is extremely inadequate.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to accept you conculsions drawn off Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

OTOH, I'll be happy with the specific data that I specifically asked for, rather than someone else's assessment of the relevance of said data.

And, BTW, there is a difference between saying that Q's analysis does not prove conclusion X, and saying it does prove conclusion Y. I am not saying that conclusion Y -- what my experience was -- need be the normative case. I am saying that the data does not prove that your conclusion (X) was the normative case.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

No. I am saying thier assessment is extremely inadequate.

The problem is that you aren't contesting assessments, but rather facts. When the facts don't match what you want, you call them assessments. Its a nice rhetorical dodge, but it isn't very convincing.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to accept you conculsions drawn off Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

I don't care what the conclusion is one way or the other. I played 1e, I played BD&D, I played 2e, I played 3e. I was there in the old days. I have no reason to want one conclusion over the other. But the data points towards one conclusion, and thus far nothing you (or any other poster objecting to the conclusions) has said points away from that conclusion when the objections are assessed by referencing the source material.

OTOH, I'll be happy with the specific data that I specifically asked for, rather than someone else's assessment of the relevance of said data.

I doubt it. Every time someone has provided you with relevant data, you've gone on to raise some other objection, or to claim that the data is somehow wrong (without giving anything specific).

If you think there is critical data missing, let's see it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thankfully, neither you nor I is arbiter of what is "relevant", nor what is "fact".

 

[Storm Raven]

And, BTW, there is a difference between saying that Q's analysis does not prove conclusion X, and saying it does prove conclusion Y. I am not saying that conclusion Y -- what my experience was -- need be the normative case. I am saying that the data does not prove that your conclusion (X) was the normative case.

No one is saying that. It would be impossible to do so given the volume of house rules that were used. In point of fact, several times in this thread people have commented that the varying experiences demonstrated are based in large part on the impact of what appear to have been fairly common house rules (for example, removing the GP = XP rule).

The intent is to find out what the publisher of the game appears to have thought the play experience would be like. Whether their expectations matched reality is not the question. But if you look through the modules with and eye to what a sample party would derive from it using the baseline rules you can get an idea of how they thought these adventures would work in actual play. In other words, what were the expectations TSR (or WotC) had concerning how these modules would play out. I think that Q has done an excellent job doing that.

 

[billd91]

No one is saying that. It would be impossible to do so given the volume of house rules that were used. In point of fact, several times in this thread people have commented that the varying experiences demonstrated are based in large part on the impact of what appear to have been fairly common house rules (for example, removing the GP = XP rule).

The experience implied by being able to loot the entirety of these modules and gather all of the kill value XPs implies some pretty heavy house rules in place as well as has been alluded to here and discussed a bit more fully in this thread.

1e is chock full of ways to waste potential experience point awards while adventuring and unable to train up for the next level barring house rules to prevent it. Any analysis that assumes no or insignificant waste injects error.