More to the point, what does the original statement have to do with the what the OP was discussing?
Well, my original statement, (which I stand by, regardless of how one poster argues against it and refuses to accept examples he requested), was in reply to the OP's statement. Turning on the "three pages back machine":
ExploderWizard said:
Recognizing treasure that looks to be too easily won and using caution is an aspect of superior play.
Bullgrit said:
What about treasure found literally just lying around? There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon. Is this bad design? Or is it verisimilitude for the game world?
My point was: If treasure is
always placed according to its value-to-challenge ratio, then Players can metagame to determine traps and monsters. If they find a piece of treasure apparently unguarded, then they can know there must be a trap protecting it.
"Oh, there's a chest in the middle of the room? And no monster around? Well, obviously, something bad will happen when we open the chest. It's the value-to-challenge rule of the DM's universe."
I think this is a bad idea, for it leads to/teaches metagaming. The fact that I can find occasional unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden treasure in some classic D&D modules tells me that the designers and authors also thought the "always place treasure according to the value-to-challenge ratio" is not the best method, also. They place some treasure "for the free" sometimes so that PCs/Players don't start "gaming the game."
"Oh my, that's a big monster in that room. Maybe we should avoid this thing? But, on the other hand, we know it must have a lot of treasure in there. It's the value-to-challenge rule of the DM's universe."
It's like the whole always-balanced encounters idea: "Oh my, that's a big monster in that room. Maybe we should avoid this thing? But, on the other hand, we know this adventure is for our levels, so we should be able to overcome it. It's the balanced-encounter rule of the DM's universe. Let's attack."
When a dungeon designer throws in the occasional "for the free" treasure some place, the PCs/Players learn that the campaign world doesn't revolve around a set value-to-challenge calculation. They learn that sometimes monsters drop/lose pieces of treasure; sometimes the treasure's owner died while out of its lair; and sometimes a strange series of events leaves a treasure in some out of the way but unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden place.
And once the PCs/Players understand that sometimes treasure can truly be found "for the free," they will also come to learn that sometimes something that looks "for the free" is actually bait for a trap or monster. If every treasure is placed by a DM according to the value-to-challenge method, no PC/Player will ever fall for the treasure bait -- they will always approach any apparently "for the free" treasure knowing there is some guardian or trap protecting it.
To me, a perfect gaming situation would go something like this:
Player1: "There's a jeweled ring in the middle of this room? That's suspicious."
Player2: "We found that gem unguarded in the previous room. What's wrong with this ring being here?"
Player1: "That gem was in the corner of an unused old store room. This ring is in the middle of a well-traveled foyer. That gem was probably dropped and forgotten and unrediscovered. This ring looks placed, right in the middle of the room, and it couldn't possibly be missed by anyone else passing through here."
Player2: "So, you're saying this is trapped?"
Player1: "Yep, I figure so."
Player2: "It looks like a valuable ring."
Player1: "Yes, it does. Valuable enough that I'm trying to think of a way to get it without setting off whatever trap or monster is guarding it."
See, Player1 is a superior player, and recognized a potentially dangerous situation. Player2 is an inferior player, and would have fallen for the trap if not for the wisdom of his comrade. If every treasure in the DM’s game world followed the value-to-challenge idea, even the inferior player would know that no treasure is free, and he, too, would know that the ring in the middle of the room
has to be guarded or trapped. Not because he’s wise, but because he simply knows the DM follows a value-to-challenge rule.
So, you see, I think the occasional “for the free” treasure in dungeons is a good thing. And I find examples of this good thing in various classic D&D modules. I went through a few more modules last night, and I found more examples. Should I list the examples here? Like 50ep in an untrapped and unguarded chest in U2. It would be a useless effort.
Some people (really, just one or maybe two, here) think that “for the free” treasure in a dungeon (even in small amounts) is a terrible thing. So they refuse to accept that examples exist in some classic D&D modules. They seem to think that such a terrible thing existing would make classic D&D a terrible thing.
I mean, if a piece of treasure literally lying on the floor of a dungeon corridor is argued to be considered guarded because wandering monsters might happen by. I guess treasure in an unguarded and untrapped chest would be argued to be considered as hidden because it’s not in plain sight (like my milk is hidden in the refrigerator).
ExploderWizard said:
In addition, there are many items of "treasure" just lying around inside the maze and some of it is cursed.
See, here is an example of what I find good about having some treasure just lying about. If no real treasure was ever just lying about, then the PCs/Players would know to never, ever pick up anything that looks like treasure just lying about. They would never be caught by a cursed item.
But PCs/Players who know that sometimes real treasure
can be found just lying about, they are tempted to pick up something that might turn out to be cursed.
ExploderWizard said:
Having re-read about the area last night I discovered that wandering monsters are only part of the challenge of the area. The entire maze is mist filled, subdues light, disallows knowledge of direction or even the ability to count! The PC's minds are in a magical fog while in the place. This makes any encounter with wandering monsters that much more deadly. If attacked the DM doesn't even need to tell them how many foes are there and some cannot be easily targeted due to the mist.
Having the module in front of me now. . .
The mist is basically just to prevent the PCs from mapping and easily navigating the “maze.” It’s a standard trope of D&D dungeons – for a maze to really be confusing, there has to be a magical effect preventing the easy mapping and navigation. (Like the minotaur maze in the Caves of Chaos.)
The text doesn’t say anything about the mist making fighting monsters more difficult. The text doesn’t say anything at all about or like, “If attacked the DM doesn't even need to tell them how many foes are there and some cannot be easily targeted due to the mist.”
And the mist doesn’t cover all of the maze – really it just conceals the turns/corners of the maze. Notice how there is no mist at any encounter area. Even the “for the free” treasure spots are mist-free. (See the attached image for a section of the maze. Not posting the whole maze for copyright reasons.)
And really, the wandering monsters: 1 in 6 chance every 3 turns (30 minutes) = average of 1 encounter every 3 hours. It’s quite possible the PCs could be finished with the maze in 3 hours. It’s possible, unless they rest or really loiter in the maze corridors, they won’t ever have an encounter while in the maze proper.
So, OK, if someone wants to say that no treasure in a dungeon is ever truly unguarded and untrapped and unhidden because it’s in a dungeon at all, then fine. We’ll just agree to disagree. Your image of a true good D&D dungeon is not sullied by what I think is a good aspect of it.
Bullgrit
