Overlooked Dragon Hoards

[TarionzCousin]

I've seen the opposite happen far more often; the players "find" treasure where the DM hasn't placed it.

Example:

My 3E group played through "The Quicksilver Hourglass" from Dungeon #123. It is for level 30 characters and features appropriate monsters, like Adamantium Golems. While we were fighting them, we kept trying to calculate how many gold pieces they were worth.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I have had characters walk around with powerful items they never identified and thus never used to their full extent. That is kind of like missing a hoard.

I have had something similar though slightly more hilarious -
I had a group that kept giving their highly magical items to an NPC follower simply because they never ID'd them and considered the occasional magic item to be a morale booster - imagine if you will a 7th level 2nd edition party with mostly +1 weapons and armor with a 1st level orc follower fighter with +2 full plate, a +2 shield and a +3 longsword, and wearing boots of feather falling...
The party glowed, the orc radiated...

 

[billd91]

Regarding my dragon hoard anecdotes: Neither scenario was anything like a random wandering monster encounter, and the Player/PCs knew it. Whether the setting could be considered "non-standard" dragon lairs, well I don't know what a "standard" dragon lair is.

Anyway. If backtracking a dragon about 50 feet is illogical, then I guess I need to just keep it in mind the next time I design a dragon encounter.

How do the PCs know they'll only be backtracking the dragon 50 feet and not scores of miles? The probability that the dragon's lair is some distance away changes the logic of your situation. If they have some reason to believe the lair is so close, then sure, of course it's worth backtracking right away. But if they assume the lair is probably farther or not so open, then the possibility of finding the lair may not be strong enough to warrant changing their other priorities.

If I was playing in a game and we were fighting an army that had recently sacked a town (and I'd consider recent to be within the last few game months), I don't think I'd expect the dragon's main lair and hoard to be there. Booty collected from the town, maybe. But I don't think I'd expect to find the dragon's main lair.

 

[billd91]

Huh? You know how that game session went, and you know what the Players' intentions were? That's quite a crystal ball you have.

Bullgrit

Before you poke at anybody else speculating on what your players were doing, you might want to think about why you are left wondering why they didn't find the dragon hoards. It strikes me that you aren't in their heads and reading their minds much more than we are. Have you asked them why they didn't go searching for the dragon hoards?

 

[billd91]

spam

Reported.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've seen the opposite happen far more often; the players "find" treasure where the DM hasn't placed it.

Example:

My 3E group played through "The Quicksilver Hourglass" from Dungeon #123. It is for level 30 characters and features appropriate monsters, like Adamantium Golems. While we were fighting them, we kept trying to calculate how many gold pieces they were worth.

I hate that kind of thing. It's usually a case of lazy adventure design (or in this case stupid monster design).

In Earthdawn this happens distractingly often.
For some reason, designers feel it's cool to put items created from Orichalcum or True Elements in their adventures. E.g. finding a wrecked air-ship that had been harvesting for True Air (using an Orichalcum-traced net) or fighting pirates on a steamship with cannons (which require kernels of Elemental Fire which are kept in an Orichalcum box) or a newly discovered Caer with walls created from Elemental Earth and traced with, you guessed it, Orichalcum.

It's the equivalent of finding a throne cut from astral diamond in D&D 4e.

So, what's a DM to do? Replace everything with something that makes more sense or invent a (usually silly) reason why the pcs cannot capitalize on it, no matter what (it's cursed, demon-tainted, or turns to dust if transported somewhere else, etc.).

 

[Bullgrit]

<sigh> I give a bare-bones reference to a scene, and then people start making leaps and assumptions beyond anything I posted, to the point where I'm being called out to defend myself.

A standard dragon lair is well-protected and a death trap for intruders. It's a place where humanoids don't go, and where most that show up at the lair should die before the dragon has to deal with them.

For every one you can show me like this, I'll show you two that are not. In fact, both the dragon encounters I mentioned were taken, at least in spirit, from published classic D&D material.

I'm not going to go into the details of the scenarios, as I don't think that will actually do any good for anything or anyone. Whether the Players/PCs or you think the scene wasn't a standard or logical "lair" doesn't matter. The treasure *was* right there, around a corner or through a doorway, (with no impediments). If you think saying, "I'll walk over and look behind the structure," or "I'll walk over and look through the doorway," is silly in this scene, then don't worry about. You're probably not going to miss out on anything by not bothering.

Bullgrit

 

[Barastrondo]

<sigh> I give a bare-bones reference to a scene, and then people start making leaps and assumptions beyond anything I posted, to the point where I'm being called out to defend myself.

I don't think it's about accusing you; it's more about your players, or perhaps more to the point, players who would behave similarly in such a circumstance.

If you think saying, "I'll walk over and look behind the structure," or "I'll walk over and look through the doorway," is silly in this scene, then don't worry about.

I don't think saying that is silly. However, I also don't think that not saying it is an "unbelievable scenario." I would file it under "unlikely to very believable, depending on context."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In any case, I find it quite amusing when players don't bother to look for hidden treasure and miss out on caches of money or sweet magic items.

I don't automatically mind being old school on treasure and making the players work for it, but I do want the mode of play to be clear to everyone up front. Maybe this is because I alternate between two fairly extreme methods:

1. There is roughly the expected amount of treasure. Maybe not expected according to the standard rules, but certainly consistent with the campaign. Most treasure is reasonably easy to get, as a byproduct of doing whatever the campaign is about. We aren't even really focused on the treasure, unless players get attached to certain pieces. Stuff gets left lying around all the time, because the game is not about amassing treasure or doing something with the treasure (or funds from it).

2. There is a lot of treasure available--technically anyway--far more than the rules would normally warrant. Some of it is easy to find. Just pick up those weapons and armor off the orcs you just killed. Some of it is harder to suss out. Some of it is ridiculously hard to recognize--and it you don't think to investigate those runes or detect magic on the pile--your loss. As the same time, it is often difficult to efficiently detect and cart what is available. A big part of the game is deciding when and where to haul something out. It all tends to work out well enough, though a spat of unusually inspired or uninspired play can result in being temporarily flush or deprived, respectively.

I don't mind being a bit of a hard-case with some of the treasure in the second case. The players know what we are playing, and it is their choice when to pursue hunches or hints versus when to focus their attention elsewhere. They can't get the satisfaction of successfully following a tiny, obscure clue if I don't give them tiny, obscure clues. Mixing the two methods, however, I've found to be rather dickish.

 

[Mark CMG]

I won't make any assumptions about any particular case in the thread above, and details won't be forthcoming for the questions I was prompted to ask, so I'll just say that if players are missing the "obvious" then there is a possibility the descrption given the players by the facilitating GM could have more clear. In general, players can only act on the input given to them so, barring any in game reason causing them to hurry away after defeating any creature expected to have treasure, then it is worthwhile to examine the communication channels between the players and their only source of information.