Forked thread: Treasure & Advancement Rates

[Raven Crowking]

Forked from AD&D 1st Edition WIR S1 Tomb of Horrors [SPOILERS!! SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!!]‏ - Page 5 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine

No matter how many times Raven Crowking says things like this, no matter how badly he mischaracterizes the data and my commentary, and no matter how many times he spams the same flat-out lies regarding my position, I hope people can see that he is only throwing a tantrum at having FACTS – directly from the source material -- presented that apparently contradict his personal beliefs about what classic D&D adventures contained.

I absolutely welcome anyone to read those links. And I absolutely agree that anyone can make up their mind for themselves. Read the "facts" for yourself. Try to read them from EN World, though, so you can get more than one side. In fact, if you read through to the end, let me know in this thread, and I'll XP you as soon as I can. If there is anything else I can do to encourage you to read through the EN World thread, please let me know!

There is a difference between "facts" (or "FACTS" if you prefer), and suppositions drawn from those facts, that you then take as fact. Module X has a potential haul of Y gp and Z xp is a fact. What that means, in terms of actual game play, is a supposition. When your suppositions are directly contradicted by the testimony of the people responsible for the game, it might be time to reconsider what you think are "facts" (or "FACTS" if you prefer).

I am also shocked at how influential I apparently am. It seems that when people disagree with Bullgrit's conclusions, it isn't because they've read, comprehended, and rejected his thesis. No....they have been cleverly duped by my "lies". Some EN World members should apparently put more into their Will saves, or stop using Wisdom as a dump stat. I mean, really, I don't even have that many ranks in Bluff!

(Which is why I don't play poker!)

I have him on my ignore list.

Yes, now you're gone and from this moment on
I'll be crying, crying, crying, crying
Yeah, crying, crying over you

No worries, Bullgrit. Thanks for the heads up. I must have missed your subtle hints......Hey! No wonder I didn't win that free tee shirt! <---(Unless not obvious, joke.)

Seriously, I wish you well. But, I'll still call you on this stuff when you trot it out. I also would hate to see misrepresentations become accepted truth.


RC

 

[Vespucci]

Bullgrit just put you on "ignore"? I think you just lost.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what your dispute is, Raven.

There seems to be three claims:

(1) The purely factual statement of "there is X amount of treasure and Y amount of monster-killing XP in these published adventures.

(2) The conclusion drawn from this that characters of level A are likely to have B amount of treasure.

(3) The conclusion drawn from this regarding how quickly characters would level up while playing through these adventures.

The first claim doesn't seem to be disputed.

I pointed out in the pre-forked thread that the second claim doesn't seem to be affected even if we assume PCs were only gaining 60% of the available treasure (while facing 80% of the monsters).

And Bullgrit, in the pre-forked thread, also linked to an analysis showing that even using a 75% acquisition of all XP only resulted in reducing the level achieved by 1. So there doesn't seem to be a huge discrepancy in terms of claim 3, either.

So the real crux of this disagreement seems to come down to varying interpretations of what percentage of the treasure and what percentage of the monster-killing XP would be accrued by groups in actual play. Could you explain exactly what percentage you feel would be a reasonable one and why this percentage so completely invalidates the generalized conclusions of Bullgrit and Quasqueton?

 

[Lanefan]

I absolutely welcome anyone to read those links.

By "those links" do you mean Quasqueton's various threads from a few years back on treasure and advance rates in various classic adventures?

Lan-"asking because I'm too lazy to wade through the parent thread"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what your dispute is, Raven.

B/Q makes a claim regarding the expected rate of levelling in AD&D 1e, compared to D&D 3e, based upon his analysis of those modules. The claim that it is possible to gain X treasure, or that one can gain Y experience points if you slay the monsters is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that, if you assume only Z% of the possible wealth/XP is received, that you will only have Z% of the possible wealth/XP.

B/Q then goes a step further, however, and supposes that this shallow analysis somehow demonstrates that characters level as fast or faster in 1e, as compared to 3e.

It is a shallow analysis because it does not (and, indeed, cannot -- as B/Q himself admits) take into account factors in 1e that mitigate against even full accumulation. It is also possible, as Melan has done, to analyse the potential paths available in a module, and one can quickly see that the module can be completed while only recovering a fraction of the treasure. Moreover, if one assumes "Greyhawking" of the module, it is possible to calculate exactly how long searching everywhere will take, by applying the square footage to the "1 turn/10 feet" rule in the 1e DMG where 10 minutes is 1 turn.

But, my reasoning is set out in Q's EN World thread. B/Q's analysis is relatively shallow, ignores many factors in play, and his conclusions are not fact (or FACT, if you prefer).

Finally, if one follows B/Q's reasoning, one has to accept that Mr. Gygax is objectively wrong when he states the levels of PCs in his own game and Blackmoor. Or, alternatively, one has to accept that Mr. Cook is objectively wrong about his stated expectation of levelling rates in 3e.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

There is no quota for advancement in AD&D. You can get three characters in a row killed without gaining a level. You can get in on a big haul and go up a level from one adventure.

You can get in on a big haul and find that the DM reduces the x.p. value (DMG p. 84). You can get in on a big haul and find that you need another (for no further x.p.) just to pay training costs (DMG p. 86).

You can search every nook and cranny for small treasures, and thereby miss out on the big ones that others carry off meanwhile.

You can proceed aimlessly or unluckily and take home nothing from a foray but x.p. for beating off wandering monsters.

You can join 50 expeditions per real year with a single character, or just 4 each with three characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Exactly so, Ariosto. Sorry I can't XP you right now.

 

[Rel]

RC, I'm not going to close this thread. I'm not even going to insist that you edit anything. I'll simply say that your insistence on directing this at somebody who you know has you on Ignore, and the inclusion of those song lyrics in the OP, cast you in a very poor light. Since I think that recently you've been a pretty decent dude, and since I know that my opinion of you is very important to you, I thought I'd bring that to your attention.

Also I'd be remiss if I did not comment on this:

You can proceed aimlessly or unluckily and take home nothing from a foray but x.p. for beating off wandering monsters.

...and say that I would hate for this to become the basis on which I ever awarded experience points.

 

[the Jester]

I think the fundamental disconnect here is that Bullgrit is not looking at how many sessions it takes to complete an adventure. That's the real difference.

His numbers are good, but the disparity isn't even something that he addresses.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can proceed aimlessly or unluckily and take home nothing from a foray but x.p. for beating off wandering monsters.

Oh they might take away more than that but I doubt they would want it.

...and say that I would hate for this to become the basis on which I ever awarded experience points.