Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5595640" data-attributes="member: 18280">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: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5056836-post44.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5056836-post44.html</a>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</blockquote>

Verification