Forked thread: Treasure & Advancement Rates

[pemerton]

There is no quota for advancement in AD&D.

<snip elaborations on above remark>

I think this is a somewhat narrow view of how AD&D was played, even if we confine AD&D to pre-Dragonlance 1st ed.

The correspondence and articles in Dragon from the early/mid 80s suggests that, whatever the rulebooks said or implied, there was a wide diversity of AD&D play.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Why?

To the PCs, they just killed some monsters. The experience of doing so is the same whether said monsters are crucial parts of the adventure or just some unlucky idiots who blundered into the wrong cave. The x.p. should reflect this by being the same ineither case.

Now if the problem is the PCs are only killing wanderers and not finding anything else (been there, done that), that's a different issue entirely. But they still get the x.p. for what they kill.

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.

I thought in those threads we determined this to be roughly correct in terms of levels per adventure, assuming the party took out (or otherwise dealt with) a reasonable amount of the opposition and found a reasonable amount of the available loot, in knowledge that they'll do better than expected in some adventures and worse in others.

The biggest variable is what gets done/found outside of the actual adventure.

The correspondence and articles in Dragon from the early/mid 80s suggests that, whatever the rulebooks said or implied, there was a wide diversity of AD&D play.

There still is.

Lan-"I prefer wandering treasure - so much quicker"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

So you're assuming that the 1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon?

Even when it's the exact same dungeon?

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Nagol]

3E creatures have never been hidden as well as some fraction of 1E treasure in modules. Clearing the module of creatures for xp and locating the treasures for xp are different types of activity.

This bacame an obvious difference in 2E play -- with the focus on story awards, class rewards, and creature xp; the frantic desire to strip the module bare in groups I DMed faded.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you're assuming that the 1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon?

Even when it's the exact same dungeon?

That doesn't make any sense.

It is obviously true that WotC noted that some 3e players were not getting all of the treasure that was their due, so they changed things even further in 4e to ensure that this would not be the case.

But, no, there is a big difference in finding treasure in 1e ("Tell me exactly what you do") and 3e ("I Take 20 on my Search check!").

The "exact same dungeon" using a sufficiently different rules paradigm isn't the "exact same dungeon". As soon as you put those Seach DCs on treasures, then they cease to be the same.

However, the general rates of advancement do not require "the exact same dungeon", and, as [MENTION=1713]Melan[/MENTION]'s examination of dungeon modules shows, the 3e average dungeon actually has far fewer decision points in its layout than the average 1e dungeon. In 1e modules, you can get to your goal and miss the big treasure down the other route; in 3e modules this is far less likely.

Moreover, if you are looking at the intentions of the designers, you will note (I hope) Mr. Gygax's advice in the 1e PHB: Set a goal, and stick to it. Don't get distracted from that goal unless there is some obvious benefit. That's a paraphrase, but I can and will pull the exact quote if you have any doubt.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: Yes, D&D was used for many things back in the day, but were I to use 4e other than the way it was intended, and then make claims about what 4e is on that basis, would you support those claims?

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: Apples and oranges. Treasure in a tournament module is a means of scoring for standings; characters in a tournament don't have to be given XP to reach the next level. They start where the GM places them, as pregenerated characters of a given level. There are a few tournaments that assume Part X is directly followed by Part X+1 (A3 and A4), but this is not always the case. And even in the A3 -> A4 transfer, the characters are assumed to start A4 in a fresh (if unequipped) state. So, no, not particularly relevant.

The winner of the G1-3 tournament burned down the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, bypassing almost all treasure, and used Speak With Dead to get directions to the next round (G2). Do you think that they played G2 at a handicap? Or do you think that they used the G2 pregens, at the same level, and with the same equipment, that everyone else did?




RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why?

To the PCs, they just killed some monsters. The experience of doing so is the same whether said monsters are crucial parts of the adventure or just some unlucky idiots who blundered into the wrong cave. The x.p. should reflect this by being the same ineither case.

Why? Read the statement carefully again, shift your mind into gutter mode and try not to laugh too hard.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why? Read the statement carefully again, shift your mind into gutter mode and try not to laugh too hard.

How did I miss that?!?!?!

 

[Bullgrit]

You know, I feel like I get vilified and hounded by some based on what the data in that thread showed. Some seem to think it was my original intention to prove a point, and that I collected the data, calculated it, and published it to support that point. I guess so many people are so cynical that they can’t consider that someone might put forward data in a neutral manner, for discussion, even if that data didn’t prove the point of view of the presenter.

I was quite clear and forthcoming in that thread, right from the first post, about why I was gathering and calculating the data. In fact, the data and calculations actually contradicted what I personally expected. I said this in the original thread. I have repeated this numerous times.

The biggest error I see in that original thread was my including a comparison with D&D3. I should never have presented it with a comparison. This set many people off, and it seemed to be the basis for starting most of the disagreement and argument over the data and calculations.

Everything about the data collected and calculated out of those classic modules seems to fit perfectly within their own framework. The treasure and xp seemed to match up perfectly for the PCs to advance in level and gear appropriately for the next step in the adventure path as designed. Even most people’s anecdotal experience matched what the data and calculations showed. The AD&D1 treasure and advancement rate *worked* pretty much exactly as advertised in the material from which the PCs would get the treasure and xp.

But by including a comparison with D&D3 – especially a comparison that suggested a strong similarity – some people had a visceral reaction to fight the data and calculations, (and my intellectual honesty), rather than to discuss how the source material worked properly. If I could go back in time and edit that information before it was published, I would just take out the comparison to D&D3. I honestly think that the data and calculation would then be taken as, “Well of course it all works out like that. Gygax designed the game, wrote the adventures, and planned it to work out like that.”

But with the comparison, some can’t accept the data and calculations, and must find some reason why it can’t be. We now don’t talk about the information, we end up just arguing about how it can’t be accepted, (and how the presenter is pushing his own point of view).

But if I removed the comparison, then I would be guilty of the intellectual dishonesty that I’m accused of by presenting the information. I would not be presenting the info neutral and fair, I would be editing to avoid having my own personal point of view contradicted.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

Read the statement carefully again, shift your mind into gutter mode and try not to laugh too hard.

Holy crap! Now I get it! LOL! (I can't give you more xp right now, but thanks for explaining the joke.)

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

So you're assuming that the 1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon?

Even when it's the exact same dungeon?

That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, yes it does. Systems matter.

On the gaining of XPs:
For a 3e party to gain pretty much all the XPs in the offering, they have to overcome all of the encounter challenges. In 1e, they must do that and then find all of the loot as well. More of a chance to miss stuff for the 1e group because hidden treasure is less likely to draw attention than live monsters or active traps.

On the finding of loot:
3e parties, given enough time, can take 20 on their searches. With a good search score and time, nearly all treasure should be findable. The DCs would have to be very high for a group of PCs not to find it with taking 20. 1e had been criticized here for requiring a 'pixel-bitching' style of searching to find everything.

So yes, I totally understand why you can reasonably expect a 3e party to have a higher rate of potential XP gain in an adventure compared to a 1e party. It's not that the different editions encourage one group to deliberately skip over content more than the other so much as it's a likelihood that group in 1e misses XP-generating content at a higher rate than the 3e group.