AD&D1 Treasure Types

[tx7321]

I also need to add, I didn't use the treasure tables unless it was a lair, or equiv. (small parties would be assigned something lower but I usually still role to keep the element of nuetrality and chance to the game.

And I also would temper what I rolled for treasure depending on the tempo of the game. I allow the chaotic and unusual, but only when it doesn't ruin everyones fun by reducing the epic feel (making treasure ho-hum for instance). Treasure and magic are still supposed to be relatively rare and often protected.

Foster, does it mention anyware how many creatures go to make up a lair, and how to proportion for large and small lairs)? For instance, if you ran into a cave with 20 knolls living in it, that would likely have less treasure then one with 200. I think treasure is probably the most DM controlled element of the game.

 

[Garnfellow]

Weren't the treasure values intended to reflect the maximum number of creatures in lair, and you were supposed to prorate the amounts based on the actual number of creatures appearing?

(Or maybe I may have just done this as a super-stingy DM.)

So if you had a tribe of 10 hoblobs (normally 10-100 appearing) with treasure type A, and you roll 1,000 gp, you were supposed to reduce that amount to 10%, or 100 gp.

I remember once trying to develop an average value chart for each treasure type, but the variation was so great as to make the effort worthless.

 

[Quasqueton]

does it mention anyware how many creatures go to make up a lair,

Note the “NO. APPEARING” in the posted data, straight from the Monster Manual.

and how to proportion for large and small lairs)? For instance, if you ran into a cave with 20 knolls living in it, that would likely have less treasure then one with 200.

Rolling 30d10 for the number appearing (orcs) kind of keeps the variance very small. You aren’t likely to get 30 or 300. It is very likely to stay around 165.

Weren't the treasure values intended to reflect the maximum number of creatures in lair, and you were supposed to prorate the amounts based on the actual number of creatures appearing? So if you had a tribe of 10 hoblobs (normally 10-100 appearing) with treasure type A, and you roll 1,000 gp, you were supposed to reduce that amount to 10%, or 100 gp.

No.

Quasqueton

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I liked the way the 1e/2e treasure tables varied the kinds of treasures according to the monsters, but as many have pointed out, it doesn't really take into account whether that orc lair is 40 orcs or 400. I really think that a new look, more interesting look at how treasure is generated would be a cool product. I started on something along those lines but never got very far.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

No.

Quasqueton

I agree with almost everything Quasqueton says, except for this one word.

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.

 

[Delta]

How do you mean? What is incomplete? I don't understand your statement.

A full description would include shape of distribution and any parameters which control that distribution. One example might be: Normal distribution, with mean m, standard deviation s. Having only the mean (average) might be frustrating because it is only partial information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

 

[Delta]

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.

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.

Hmmmm, perhaps this thread really goes in Rules.

 

[T. Foster]

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.

Hmmmm, perhaps this thread really goes in Rules.

The MM and DMG are (seemingly) contradictory on this. As Delta states, the MM says that the treasure type is for the mean # appearing and that fewer or greater numbers should be adjusted down or up accordingly. However, as P&P states, the DMG seems to suggest that the treasures listed in the MM represent the maximum, not the mean. 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)?

 

[Ourph]

But, what would they spend it on? IME, GPs back then just sort of accumulated, unless you decided to spend them on building a keep or something. Magic items weren't generally figured to be readily available to be purchased or contracted.

Primarily, more and better henchmen and training. Both of those were intended to be (and IME were) a huge drain on PC resources that more than compensated for the occasional large-ish treasure haul.

 

[Garnfellow]

Ahhhh, it's all coming back to me now . . . the contradiction between the DMG and the monster books, so on and so forth.

I definitely used the "treasure is based on max numbers appearing," and prorated all my treasure accordingly. What a pain in the $!%& that was!