Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8805239" data-attributes="member: 4937">I feel like this is at best a half-truth.&nbsp; Yes, it is easy for the first few levels to lose characters regularly, but at those levels characters are also easy to replace.&nbsp; Yes, if you could get the treasure without fighting that would be a win, but the trouble is that there are almost no published examples of play that show that as a viable option (even among early modules such as the A or G series) nor do the guidelines in 1979's DMG give us examples of dungeon construction that make combat avoidable and non-viable.&nbsp; Yes, paths are provided to evade pursuit or to negotiate with non-hostile creatures, but you don't get XP for that.&nbsp; Yes, it was necessary to be tactical and thoughtful in how you approached combat, but that's not the same tng.&nbsp; The normal D&amp;D cycle for as long as I've been playing was always, &quot;Kill things and take their stuff.&quot;&nbsp; Killing things was often the only viable way to take any things stuff, especially at low levels where thievery was basically impossible.&nbsp; And even then, most character concepts weren't particularly stealthy.&nbsp; Yes, it is true that a majority of your XP would come from treasure, but a tiny minority of treasure could be taken without a fight of some sort.&nbsp; And what percentage of your treasure came from XP depended very much on the campaign you played.&nbsp; If you took the rules for treasure in the Monster Manual as gospel, only about 2/3rds of your XP would come from treasure.&nbsp; Published modules made treasure much more abundant than the rules for treasure types, but again, published modules - especially Gygaxian modules - as examples of play strongly privilege combat as the means of victory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8805239, member: 4937"] I feel like this is at best a half-truth. Yes, it is easy for the first few levels to lose characters regularly, but at those levels characters are also easy to replace. Yes, if you could get the treasure without fighting that would be a win, but the trouble is that there are almost no published examples of play that show that as a viable option (even among early modules such as the A or G series) nor do the guidelines in 1979's DMG give us examples of dungeon construction that make combat avoidable and non-viable. Yes, paths are provided to evade pursuit or to negotiate with non-hostile creatures, but you don't get XP for that. Yes, it was necessary to be tactical and thoughtful in how you approached combat, but that's not the same tng. The normal D&D cycle for as long as I've been playing was always, "Kill things and take their stuff." Killing things was often the only viable way to take any things stuff, especially at low levels where thievery was basically impossible. And even then, most character concepts weren't particularly stealthy. Yes, it is true that a majority of your XP would come from treasure, but a tiny minority of treasure could be taken without a fight of some sort. And what percentage of your treasure came from XP depended very much on the campaign you played. If you took the rules for treasure in the Monster Manual as gospel, only about 2/3rds of your XP would come from treasure. Published modules made treasure much more abundant than the rules for treasure types, but again, published modules - especially Gygaxian modules - as examples of play strongly privilege combat as the means of victory. [/QUOTE]

Verification