Forked thread: Treasure & Advancement Rates

[billd91]

I suspect, though, that a lot of groups who played through (for example) G1-3 may have waived level-training requirements - that seems to have been a fairly common houserule.

And even those who used the level-training rules would have had mostly name level PCs in the G modules, who can self train. So the training may not be much of a speedbump in any event.

<snip>

I do seem to recall that levelling slowed down a lot around name level - a fighter needs 125,000 (I think) to get from 8 to 9, but twice that to get any further level. But a 9th or higher level figther doesn't gain the capacity to earn XP at twice the rate. I think the biggest difference in 3E/4e levelling rates is in this respect - there is no name-level speed bump on levelling.

Since you're mentioning the G series here, Bullgrit's analysis does show a notable difference appearing between 1e and 3e leveling... and that's even with the assumptions of getting out with all of the filthy lucre and leveling on time. Some of the characters will be as many as 6 levels higher at the end of the G series in 3e than 1e characters.
And that's also even with the 1e modules having a LOT of treasure.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suspect, though, that a lot of groups who played through (for example) G1-3 may have waived level-training requirements - that seems to have been a fairly common houserule.

In the case of G1-3, that is actually recommended in the module...and for obvious reasons. G1-3 as written assumes that the characters move forward more-or-less on demand; they are not given time to train. This is not a problem in tournament play, where gaining levels is not based on XP received. It is a big problem in campaign play, where the GM should either allow breaks between forays (so as to allow characters to train) or not require training, for the obvious reason that characters will otherwise get stomped flat before the module series is done.

But, again, it should be noted that (in the case of G1 at least), when it was first presented in tournament form in GenCon those who won the scenario (i.e., those who got the farthest/were judged to have done the best) didn't find the treasure.

It is also perhaps apropros to mention that, within the tournament structure, there is a strict real-world timeline that needs to be followed. The more time you spend following false leads (including trying to obtain unnecessary treasure), the worse you do. In the tournament structure, being overly greedy can make you lose -- exactly in accordance with the "good play" guidelines Gygax wrote in the 1e PHB!

In some modules, such as C1, an in-game time limit may also exist.

Module C2 says, on pages 2-3:

In tournament use, a real time limit of three hours is recommended. Play should begin when the character sheets are passed out and end when 3 hours have passed. There is no scoring bonus for finishing early, but parties that react quickly and avoid time-consuming situations will have the advantage of more time to spend on the later (more lethal) encounters.​

This is hardly uncommon to tournament play. Most (if not all) such modules present things that can consume time without actually helping the party to achieve its victory conditions. Knowing where to spend your time, and how much time to spend, is a player skill that these modules were intended to test.

Not taking this into account is going to skew results, when extrapolating to regular campaign play, considerably.


RC

 

[Stoat]

I'm having a hard time following the discussion here.

As I understand it, the the criticism of Bullgrit's methodology is:

1. Bullgrit assumes that the players will find all of the treasure, and the players might not.

2. Bullgrit fails to consider the rules for training.

Is that right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is 50% an acceptable number? Let’s look at the leveling rate for the AD&D1 party if they only got half the potential XP available in the adventures.

I don't believe that there is any presumption in AD&D 1e about what characters are going to get out of the adventure.

Examine T1, for instance. Out of the potential treasure in the module, Lareth the Beautiful holds:

+1 Plate
Staff of Striking
9 pp
1,000 gp gem
Serving pieces and goblets worth 4,000 gp
Alabaster box full of unguent worth 800 gp
String of matching fire opals worth 15,000 gp
Phylactery of Action​

This is in chamber 18 of the Moathouse, after the PCs have very likely already gotten the XP needed to level. It represents (discounting the magic and XP for defeating Lareth himself) 20,845 potential XP -- a rather significant chunk of what the Moathouse has to offer.

AD&D 1e is full of devil's choices. If the PCs press on, they don't get the full XP because there is a limit on how much XP they can gain until they level. If they choose not to press on, they can go and train for some weeks, giving Lareth the chance to either reinforce the Moathouse or (more likely) clear out to some other spot. Either way, the PCs are very, very unlikely to successfully gain anywhere near the full potential XP value in the Moathouse.

Moreover, should they manage to slay Lareth, and should they even manage to gain full XP from the module, it is very likely that a 10th level assassin will soon be visiting them, and some -- perhaps all! -- of those XP will be lost due to party attrition.

(And party attrition is another factor to consider when trying to guestimate average levelling speeds!)

The point is that, in AD&D 1e, you are free to use whatever % of potential XP you like to draw your conclusions, but doing so does not make your conclusions fact. There is no golden bullet.

OTOH, Gary Gygax did give specific information as to the period of play that occurred in Greyhawk and Blackmoor, and what the highest level PCs in those settings were (as brought up in your previous thread). Also, as brought up in your previous thread, Mr. Gygax told you directly what levelling rate he considered normal in 1e.

Those are, IMHO, far, far better indicators than attempts to extrapolate a % of potential XP from a module without taking the specifics of the module into account. Shallow analysis garners data, but it is not necessarily data that is germaine to the conclusions you are drawing from it.


RC

 

[Bullgrit]

If the issue is how difficult/easy it is to find the treasure in the modules, why doesn't somebody do a thread going through the modules on a room by room basis pointing out where the treasure is and speculating on how likely a party would be to find it?

Wouldn't satisfy anyone:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/270458-silver-baton-torch-stub-t1.html

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm having a hard time following the discussion here.

As I understand it, the the criticism of Bullgrit's methodology is:

1. Bullgrit assumes that the players will find all of the treasure, and the players might not.

2. Bullgrit fails to consider the rules for training.

Is that right?

That is partially right.

A list of what one might gain in modules X, Y, and Z, combined with an arbitrary % of what we will decide is gained, doesn't actually tell us anything useful regarding expected levelling rates in 1e. There are too many mitigating factors.

1. It is not enough to find all of the treasure; due to the training rules, when you find it is as important as that you find it. Or possibly more.

2. The expectation that the PCs will discover and carry out X% of the treasure in any given module is arbitrary, regardless of the value of X. EDIT: Bullgrit seems to show strong awareness of this problem here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5056836-post44.html

3. Campaign play includes XP attrition due to many reasons, included, but not limited to, level drain, curses, certain magic items, death, failure to have enough gold to train, failure to find a trainer to train, etc.

(1) and (2) could be ameliorated by a deeper analysis than that which B/Q provides. This analysis would have to take into account the location of xp-generating factors in the module itself, to determine what is likely to be lost both by pressing on, and by not pressing on; the area that the module covers; the layout of the module (is it possible to bypass entire sections?); time limits imposed by the module ala C1 and C2; etc.

Simply put, while it is possible to rationally extrapolate better data from the modules than B/Q did by a deeper analysis, it is uncertain that said data would actually be relevant to drawing firm conclusions.

You could get a better educated guess about expected levelling rates. You would not get facts.


RC

 

[billd91]

I'm having a hard time following the discussion here.

As I understand it, the the criticism of Bullgrit's methodology is:

1. Bullgrit assumes that the players will find all of the treasure, and the players might not.

2. Bullgrit fails to consider the rules for training.

Is that right?

Those are two of my issues, but I won't speak too strongly for anyone else. That undermines none of Bullgrit's data collection, nor the possibility that some characters could be achieving the levels set out by his data. But if someone were to then use his data to conclude there's no difference in leveling between 1e and 3e and that claims that 3e levels faster were wrong, then I'd say there's a problem with how people are drawing their conclusions - mainly, they aren't accounting for what happens when the initial assumptions aren't met. They're using the data to make broader conclusions than are warranted.

 

[Rel]

Forgive me if this is straying from the topic at hand, but I'd just like to interject that the arbitrary and incredibly gamist XP RAW of 1e are among the things I like absolute least about that system. I don't ever recall abiding by them but, if we had, I could totally see the players handling the situation mentioned above about Lareth like so:

DM: "...and with that Lareth's lifeless body falls to the ground. You get #XP for killing him. And for his treasure..."
Players: "Wait!"
DM: "What?"
Players: "That treasure isn't ours yet."
DM: "What do you mean? You killed Lareth!"
Players: "Yeah but he's clearly got some good gear and right now it's just laying on the floor of the dungeon. We haven't claimed it yet."
DM: "Why not?"
Players: "We've all gained a level and need to train. Ok, Thief, you and the Cleric are going to go back to town together to train while we guard the dungeon. When you get back the Fighter and Magic User can go train. Then, once we're all back, we can claim Lareth's treasure and get the XP for it. Ok let's go!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, but we are not discussing whether or not you like the rules, Rel. We are discussing what the rules are.

Also, when the fighter and magic-user come back from training, there is no guarantee whatsoever that thief, cleric, and treasure are still there. The module specifies that, if Lareth is slain, discreet enquires will be made in Hommlet, and a 10th level assassin will arrive within 3 weeks to eliminate any targets that enquiry supplies.

If the assassin comes from Verbobonc, that is time to make enquiries, 10 leagues of travel to get to Verbobonc, time to locate/hire the assassin, and 10 leagues of travel back.

When Lareth stops communicating with the Temple, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the Temple will send some people to find out what happened within a week or so. The odds are good that the fighter and magic-user are still off training when the cleric and thief are beaten, and taken -- with the treasure -- back to the Temple of Elemental Evil so that some less-than-discrete enquiries can determine who their friends are.

"What happened?" says the fighter to the magic-user.

"XP attrition due to character loss," says the magic-user to the fighter.​

The fighter and magic-user now get to face the 10th level assassin.

Context-Choice-Consequence are, IMHO and IME, the key to good GMing. And in T1, the context is clear, as are some of the consequences. No, this is not a choice that I would expect to work out well for the players at all, at all.

And AD&D 1e wasn't a game designed to rocket to level 20. Love it or not, it is full of devil's choices, where you can have X, or Y, but not both.

EDIT: Does anyone have a link to the WotC market survey prior to the release of 3e? I seem to recall that one of the reasons that it was made easier to get to level 20 was that it was very uncommon to play higher level characters in earlier editions, according to their market survey. I could be wrong about that, but I'd like to check.

EDIT to the EDIT: The link is here (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html) but it doesn't have that info. I might have to read all of the lead-up Dragons.....One thing that I did find, of interest to the high mini-centricity of WotC editions was

Effect of miniatures addition to RPG mix:

Few miniatures owned/used: $139 total RPG spending
Many minis owned/used: $4,413 total RPG spending​

That's a huge incentive to link purchasing minis to playing the game!



RC

 

[Stoat]

Wouldn't satisfy anyone:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/270458-silver-baton-torch-stub-t1.html

Reasonable people may disagree about how easy or difficult it is to find the treasure. In fact, the difficulty is going to change from group to group. However, IMO, the current discussion on that topic is too abstract to be interesting or informative.

I don't know much about training times. How does your analysis account for them?