AD&D1 Treasure Types

[Mycanid]

I agree with Treebore, the randomness of treasure type lent itself to the unpredictable and chaotic nature of the game (the possibility of extremes). A party could grow rich very quickly. Yet the finding of such wealth was, to a degree, balanced by the deadly random monster tables that were equally unpredictable in their devistation. It was a rare character, in the old days, that lasted a year.

Yes indeed! This was one of my favorite aspects of the game back then. I often found, though, that rather than using the tables as strict references, I used them as general ones and then would ... err ... stock the treasure accordingly. I especially enjoyed coming up with the why and wheretofore of the presence of said treasure in said location! To me this added a little bit of "module depth", if you will.

 

[Quasqueton]

You were definitely supposed to adjust treasure values by the number appearing. The relevant section is just after "Monster Populations and Placement" in the 1e DMG. Basically, the rule was that the given treasure was supposed to apply to the maximum number of creatures, and if you got fewer, you were supposed to reduce the treasure proportionately.

If you've got a tribe of 171 orcs, you're supposed to roll the whole treasure and then use 171/300 of the total. I can't imagine very many people actually doing this.

See below.

Well, minor detail: that would contradict the MM (p. 5) where it says it's "based upon the occurence of a mean number of monsters" and goes on to recommend downgrading treasure for fewer-than-mean-monsters, and possibly upgrading treasure for greater-than-mean-monsters.

Yes.

Quasqueton

 

[Roadkill101]

I learned to use the Treasure Type tables from the red Basic book, so I never actually bothered to read how to use them per the DMG or MM. Furthermore, I only read enough to interpret how the tables worked without bothering to read enough into how to apply the results.
Most of the time, I only used the individual treasure types, so I could tell the players what they were looting from the corpses of slain monsters. So for a lair of orcs I'd only bother with using Tresure Type L and apply the result to all the orcs, usually adding a little more to the purses of the elites.
I used my own judgement for treasure hoards found within a lair.

 

[Gansk]

I took all the unique monsters in the MM (Demon and Devil lords, Tiamat, Bahamut, etc.) and gave them the maximum treasure possible according to their treasure type. I included the maximum gp value of magic items. I then divided the total gp by the XP of the monster.

The average ratio of treasure to XP for these monsters was around 3.25.

I have been using that ratio ever since to evaluate whether treasure hoards are too excessive. You would be surprised how many modules exceed this ratio. Cutting the treasure down to this level has made the game more challenging IMO.

 

[RFisher]

I have to add that I like treasure being fairly random. I don't feel it has to be too carefully balanced v. the "challenge" of what guards it. A remnant of a once great tribe of orcs might still have an exceptional horde, while a quickly growing band could easily have strained resources.

Perhaps we can put it down to Gygax simply having a change of heart in the 2 years between when the MM was published (1977) and the DMG (1979). But then why is the MM description repeated more or less verbatim in both FF (1981) and MM2 (1983)?

Heh. Following the old TSR rule of "last published wins" the DMG way would have only reigned between '79 & '81. (^_^)

I suppose you could chalk it up to the growing distractions Gygax had to deal with in his later years at TSR & nobody else caring.

I'd just say that nobody at TSR thought that these sort of details needed to be given too much attention. They assumed the audience could work out such things on their own. They assumed that was part of the fun.

I have been using that ratio ever since to evaluate whether treasure hoards are too excessive.

Very interesting!