An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Numion]

Yes, but that analysis just took raw numbers into account, and didn't examine (for instance) how easy it was to obtain/find areas of given modules, nor how easy it was to identify treasure for what it is.

I might be wrong, but by my memory it did. People called out this "1e fact" that much of the treasure was well hidden. IIRC Quasqueton replied that only a tiny minority was.

About the identification, I dunno .. sounds a bit incredible that a major factor in treasure gaining was throwing away / selling cheap stuff because you didn't know what it was. Anyway, the amounts were so Monty Haulish that a few trinkets getting lost in the mix wouldn't really affect the overall haul.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I might be wrong, but by my memory it did. People called out this "1e fact" that much of the treasure was well hidden. IIRC Quasqueton replied that only a tiny minority was.

I'd have to go through the adventure again to pull out numbers and gp value, but from my play experience (many groups, many times) I'd have to say that the barest fraction of potential wealth comes out of B2. Indeed, I first encountered B2 as a player, and I got almost nothing for my pains compared to what is in there.

Of course, this might go down to campaign styles/DMing styles as well. I, for one, never assume that magic weapon automatically glow when held, and have never played with a DM who did. That might account for some of the difference.

In any event, replying that only a small minority was hidden is not the same thing as doing an actual analysis.

About the identification, I dunno .. sounds a bit incredible that a major factor in treasure gaining was throwing away / selling cheap stuff because you didn't know what it was.

Why not? It happens in my 3.X game all the time.

As an easy example, foodstuffs, crates of mercantile goods, and even a barrel of wine might be valuable, but how many 1st level parties have a cart to haul that stuff around in? And, if they do have a cart, who wants to guard it - and whatever pulls it - while the rest of the party goes into the caves?

IMC, the caves changed in response to the PCs (and this is actually suggested to occur in the text of the module). So, when the PCs cleared out the orc males and went on to the bugbear caves, the (noncombatant) orc females and young grabbed what they could when they left. A similar thing happened with the bugbears. And, in the case of my 3.X PCs, they simply couldn't bring themselves to butcher/bully the noncombatants to get their stuff, even when they saw them flee the caves.

(The prisoners in the bugbear caves were great. I changed one to a dwarf seeking a lost mine, one to an orc - who turned out to be cohort material - and the betraying berserker became an Alderhald...my world's Vikings...that couldn't speak their language. Really, really good fun all around. )

 

[Numion]

I'd have to go through the adventure again to pull out numbers and gp value, but from my play experience (many groups, many times) I'd have to say that the barest fraction of potential wealth comes out of B2. Indeed, I first encountered B2 as a player, and I got almost nothing for my pains compared to what is in there.

I'm confused .. I thought we were talking about ToEE. I don't know about B2 .. unless that is ToEE

Disregard.

As an easy example, foodstuffs, crates of mercantile goods, and even a barrel of wine might be valuable, but how many 1st level parties have a cart to haul that stuff around in? And, if they do have a cart, who wants to guard it - and whatever pulls it - while the rest of the party goes into the caves?

Well, I don't think 1st level parties shouldn't have less access to cartloads of treasure anyway. But if they do, I think finding guards for the cart would be no problem, considering the xp ratios of treasure vs. creatures in 1E. The carts are where the xp is.

A similar thing happened with the bugbears. And, in the case of my 3.X PCs, they simply couldn't bring themselves to butcher/bully the noncombatants to get their stuff, even when they saw them flee the caves.

That's just bad playing. Or was it good?

 

[jdrakeh]

Classes, races, (ok, these first two are combined in the RC) levels,hit points, spells, monsters, alingment, XP and treasure as the two primary (mechanical) rewards...these aren't superficial.

Even smaller details, like armor as damage avoidance (vs. damage reduction), the predominance of gold and silver coins, encumbrance based on weight, the possibility of attracting henchmen/cohorts and followers at higher levels, the special abilities/qualities of many creatures...these are all things that are noticed in play.

RC is certainly rules light compared to the three core rulebooks of the current game. And it has some things that make it distinct. But the diferences still seem small when comparing different RPGs to D&D (any edition).

But what do you see as the big differences?

That's the ticket. I think that the similarities are substantive and the differences are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in design between the many editions of D&D.

[Edit: To clarify, I once thought differently, but my life philosophy has changed a great deal since then and, as a result, so has my outlook on life.]

[Re-Edit: Changed my initial edit to remove any possibility of it being perceived as espousing malicious intent.]

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's just bad playing. Or was it good?

Good, says I.

One of the orc clans had their surviors dedicate themselves to the prowess of one of the PCs. They renamed themselves the "Two Swords" clan.

 

[thedungeondelver]

If I were to run 1E (and I am seriously considering it) I would hew pretty close to what Gygax wrote in the DMG (never having played *any* published 1E adventures, I don't know if the modules followed the DMG advice or not): treasure should be in forms and places that make the pcs work for it, above and beyond the fights and/or traps. A 1,000 gp gem is good, but a 1,000 gp rare and very fragile vase is better. Statues and paitning and inlaid gems. After all, if the goal is treasure -- which it seems to be, even moreso that combat -- then the goal should be the hardest thing to attain.

I was very surprised by a great deal of the suggestion in the 1E DMG regarding encounter design and treasure placement. It goes so against most of the stories I hear or read about peoples' "old skool" game experiences that I wonder if anyone -- designers included -- actually read the book "back in the day".

By jove, I think you've got it.

Also: re the old modules? Yes...and no. The "big seven" (G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3 and Q1) are very clear vis-a-vis combat. Not much in the way of "alternate" rules introduced in those. However, much of the rest is left up to the DM in many instances in those modules. They're not meant to be opened and run without reading through and doing some work, first, so watch out for that.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Nevermind

 

[Reynard]

That's the ticket. I think that the similarities are substantive and the differences are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in design between the many editions of D&D.

See, I have a hard time understanding how people can not see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right. But when I look at things aside from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences. because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

See, I have a hard time understanding how people can not see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do...to me, they are not the same game.

You're not alone; my opinion is similar.

 

[thedungeondelver]

You're not alone; my opinion is similar.

*cough* same here.