The silver baton torch stub in T1

[Raven Crowking]

T1 also has at least one area where you need to specify how you are searching -- not using your hands to search around the pool likely results in treasure falling into the (unrecoverable) depths.


RC

 

[diaglo]

This is true, but there were more than a few modules written in this era which gave specific instructions on what the PCs had to do to find X. (Which is probably why I forgot about the D6 rule.)

certainly.

and since then too.

i know several d02 modules by third party publishers which have traps and hidden compartments which require the players to say what they are doing not just roll a search.

which is the same with the d6. the referee can ask the players for more information or just base it off what they say.

more information is usually better for a referee ruling on what you find during a search.

i still referee OD&D(1974)

 

[grodog]

In both cases I would read it as a torch stub and an enterprising party would have to spend the time to search and risk a wandering monster check to find the true value of the "torch stub."

In my mind, this is the other major key (in addition to Celebrim's comments): is a 30 gp silver stick worth a WM check in this room? To search in 1e is not an instantaneous duration task:

DOOR - search for traps: 1 round
DOOR- listening for noise: 1 round
ROOM- mapping, and casually examining a 20’X20’area: 1 turn
ROOM- thoroughly searching after initial examination*: 1 turn
SECRET DOOR - checking for by simple tapping of floor or wall by 10' X 10' area: 1 round
SECRET DOOR- thorough examination for means to open, by 10' X 10' area: 1 turn

*This assumes that, in fact, the area has items which can be checked for
traps, examined, contents searched, hidden comportments looked for,
and so on. If there are many containers and much furniture in the area,
the time might actually be double that shown. If the place has nothing
but some odds and ends, then a casual examination will discover all
there is to know about the place (short of a check for secret doors) and a
thorough search is contra-indicated.

So, if the PCs do in fact search Room 15, it will require at least 2 turns, and perhaps more time. In the moathouse, WM are encountered 1 in 12, with checks made every turn (which is pretty frequent---yet another reason that the moathouse is a rather deadly proving ground).

 

[Bullgrit]

is a 30 gp silver stick worth a WM check in this room?
<snip>
So, if the PCs do in fact search Room 15, it will require at least 2 turns, and perhaps more time. In the moathouse, WM are encountered 1 in 12, with checks made every turn (which is pretty frequent---yet another reason that the moathouse is a rather deadly proving ground).

This wandering monster threat has come up a few times in these discussions. But really, were wandering monsters really that much of a hurry-up prod?

An average wandering monster rate of 1 encounter per 2 hours?

And also, the PCs/Players don't know that the only thing to find in this room is a 30gp silver baton. For all they know it could be a 2,000gp gem lost in the rubble. Or a secret door. Or a magic ring. And even if they knew it was only 30gp, they might think a 1 in 12 chance of a wandering monster is definitely worth the xp value of 2 orcs without having to fight.

And how hard this baton is to find is mostly up to the DM, and how hard *he* wants it to be to find. One DM may read the room text and think the baton is almost obvious, and let the PCs/Players find it by just walking into the room and giving the whole area a once over. Another DM may read the room text and think the baton is devilishly concealed and expect the PCs/Players to specifically and determinedly inspect the "torch" in detail. And neither DM is absolutely wrong.

Some DMs see treasure as something they want to the PCs to find, even if they don't put in any effort to discover it. Some DMs see treasure as something to keep out of the PCs' hands, even if they spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to locate it. And then there's the whole range of DMs in between.

Bullgrit

 

[diaglo]

An average wandering monster rate of 1 encounter per 2 hours?

1 turn = 10 minutes.

12 checks in a 2 hour span have a very high probability of an encounter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Some DMs see treasure as something they want to the PCs to find, even if they don't put in any effort to discover it. Some DMs see treasure as something to keep out of the PCs' hands, even if they spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to locate it. And then there's the whole range of DMs in between.

Bullgrit

The middle ground is the fair DM that makes treasure obtainable with effort but not an automatic giveaway. This medium is what the rules were aiming at.

What is "right" or "wrong" is for the group to decide. Some players get bored if treasure is found too easily and others the same if it doesn't just fall in thier lap.

By keeping the rules unattached to hard numerical values and leaving the risk/reward ratio to the DM the game is friendlier to different playstyles.

 

[Stoat]

How do the numbers cited by Grodog interact with the "talky talky" nature of 1E searches.

In other words, if the PC's enter the room, hear the description and one player immediately says, "I've never heard of a cresset, I want to take a look at it and this torch thing." That takes a round or two, right?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think this thread shows most people have a clear understanding of the 1e "description-based" searching mechanism. I mean, the outcome is a spectrum: If the players say "We move on to the next room", then they've missed the treasure and they don't even get to roll. If a player says "I examine the torch holders carefully," then they find the treasure without a roll; and rolling is what happens when the players say something in between.

But I also think this thread shows there's a fair bit of misunderstanding about wandering monsters. Surely, the DM adjusts wandering monster chances based on the circumstances.

I mean, 1 in 12 every turn is what you roll if the players are acting normally. If they're a large party crashing about the dungeon with fighters in heavy armour leading the way, booting down every door they see, and cheerfully yelling jokes and warnings at each other, then your decent DM is going to swap his D12 for a D10 or even a D8; but if they're a small scouting party of elves, halflings and thieves sneaking about like crack commandoes, communicating with hand signals where possible and in whispers where not, while the dwarfs and the heavily-armoured fighters and clerics wait quietly in side-rooms until called for, then your decent DM will be rolling every two turns or even every three.

Like everything in AD&D, wandering monster chances are supposed to be tweaked according to the amount of player skill shown.

 

[diaglo]

How do the numbers cited by Grodog interact with the "talky talky" nature of 1E searches.

In other words, if the PC's enter the room, hear the description and one player immediately says, "I've never heard of a cresset, I want to take a look at it and this torch thing." That takes a round or two, right?

4' dwarf in plate mail and carrying an armory on his back says he wants to walk 30 ft across the room and examine the cresset set at human eye level.

yup, it takes a round or two.

 

[Celebrim]

And also, the PCs/Players don't know that the only thing to find in this room is a 30gp silver baton. For all they know it could be a 2,000gp gem lost in the rubble. Or a secret door. Or a magic ring. And even if they knew it was only 30gp, they might think a 1 in 12 chance of a wandering monster is definitely worth the xp value of 2 orcs without having to fight.

And how hard this baton is to find is mostly up to the DM, and how hard *he* wants it to be to find. One DM may read the room text and think the baton is almost obvious, and let the PCs/Players find it by just walking into the room and giving the whole area a once over. Another DM may read the room text and think the baton is devilishly concealed and expect the PCs/Players to specifically and determinedly inspect the "torch" in detail. And neither DM is absolutely wrong.

I'm ok with that. I want the game to support different approaches. I can't tell you what the 'one true approach' is. I can tell you what approach was promoted by Gygax based on his modules and the 1e DMG, and that was, treasure should rarely be unguarded and if unguarded should probably be hidden in some fashion. Gygaxian dungeons are liberally sprinkled with forgotten treasures awaiting the careful and curious player. Gygaxian treasure is often in the form of art objects, some of which aren't obviously valuable, some of which aren't particularly portable, and many of which involve some interaction with the enviornment to find.

In the case of this silver baton, I don't think its a particularly classic Gygaxian puzzle. I think that there is some difficulty determining from the text how he planned to run the room. I know how I would run the room, and have described it in detail, but I'm almost certain Gygax would have run it differently although I'm not sure exactly what that different way would be. I think the fact that this was an introductory module and this was a low value treasure meant that he wasn't particularly interested in hiding it from even minimal interaction. From a Zork perspective, this is a treasure you don't get alot of points for and which primarily serves to teach the new player, "You can sometimes find hidden treasures if you interact with things."

Some DMs see treasure as something they want to the PCs to find, even if they don't put in any effort to discover it. Some DMs see treasure as something to keep out of the PCs' hands, even if they spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to locate it. And then there's the whole range of DMs in between.

But Gygax spent several pages of the 1E DMG addressing this very point. Gygax very certainly believed that somewhere in the range in between was 'skillful play'. Gygax believed that the reward should merit the effort, and that the effort should be sufficient to keep the players interested because of the challenge, but not so much that the players became frustrated or bored.

Exactly how that balance is achieved will I think depend on the skillfulness and demeanor of a particular group of players, but I will say that I've very little sympathy for the player that demands of the DM easy access to treasure with little effort as the player's right. I have very little empathy with the player that demands that the treasure they find meet some absolute standard of expected treasure and if it doesn't they are somehow being cheated. I think this is not skillful play. Skillful play on the part of the DM is that the amount of treasure is sufficient reward for the effort and that the player resources are sufficient to meet the challenge posed. Skillful play on the part of the player is utilizing the resources you have at your disposal to overcome the challenges you face, even when and especially when those resources aren't the ideal ones for the job. I actually do believe that the idea of planning out what treasures you are going to have at some future point in the game is bad for the game and actually detrimental to player enjoyment. A fixed treasure reward is sort of the McDonald's of D&D gaming. On the one hand, it's nice to going into a restaurant and know exactly what to expect, but on the other hand there is a whole world of gastronomical and culinary excellence waiting to be found by the more adventurous sort that is willing to risk it.