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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5596407" data-attributes="member: 55271">I find it honestly disappointing that when someone asks about a specific, questionable claim that you're making that your response is to simply start talking about something else. That kind of shell-game is just a waste of everyone's time.But, as we've already established, varying these factors by any reasonable degree doesn't seem to have any truly meaningful effect on the general conclusions Bullgrit is making.Ironically, this actually ends up correcting the numbers back towards matching Bullgrit's conclusions regarding PC wealth at a given level.We can see from Bullgrit's data that roughly 75% of the AD&D XP available in these modules takes the form of treasure. Bearing that in mind...If we assume that a 3E group faces 100% of the combat encounters and 100% of the treasure, then the numbers basically match Bullgrit's conclusions for 3E characters. (This, of course, is absurd. Characters playing through these modules typically won't achieve a 100% clear on a complex, I don't care what edition we're playing. But let's go with it.)Now, let's assume that a 1E group does a 60% clear on treasure with a 100% clear on combat encounters. That means the 1st Edition group will net 70% of the available XP. This means that the group will be advancing slower than Bullgrit's "perfect clear" data indicates; but notice that instead of lagging 40% behind on treasure at a given level, the gap is actually much smaller.Although, honestly, this is all pretty much <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. I've actually had the experience of running the same modules in both OD&D and D&D3 within mere days of each other. (And I've done it both ways: D&D3 modules run in OD&D; classic modules run in D&D3.) My experiences with AD&D are older than that, but I'm not really convinced that AD&D is so radically different from OD&D that it's going to make a huge difference here.The paths taken through the adventure are simply not radically different between editions.The reality is that there are not vast secret areas in most AD&D modules that are unlikely to be discovered by AD&D players. And the vast majority of the available treasure (particularly magic items) are either carried by the NPCs or laying out in plain sight.There are exceptions to this. But, by the same token, I've had plenty of D&D3 groups fail to discover or recover major treasure hauls for all sorts of reasons (failing to search the right room, failing to recognize the value of the treasure, etc.).If these effects were sufficient to significantly affect the pace at which levels were acquired, however, you're then forced to acknowledge that AD&D characters were much more wealthy than their D&D3 counterparts and usually had access to far more magic than D&D3 characters.But I'm guessing you're not willing to concede that, either.This seems to be Crowking's M.O. in these discussions. If talking about actual play isn't working he'll swap the conversation to tournament play; if tournament play isn't convenient he'll talk RAW; if RAW isn't convenient he'll talk about how things hypothetically played at Gygax's table. There might be something valid in all that if his point was that YMMV is the rule of the land when it comes to AD&D; but he doesn't seem to like it when people reach that conclusion, either. He has a deep, vested, and highly prejudiced need to dispute that D&D3 basically plays like pre-3E versions of the game.In general, what I've seen here and in skimming over the older threads tends to confirm that Bullgrit's methodology is basically sound and the conclusion that leveling and wealth-by-level were basically pretty similar between AD&D and D&D3 appears to be generally accurate.Bearing in mind, of course, that:(1) Individual results may vary considerably.(2) Using the training rules will tend to slow advancement (but lots of people ignored them).(3) Using the XP-for-treasure rules will greatly speed up advancement (but lots of people ignored them).I know that my actual play experience with pre-3E featured much slower advancement. But that's because I ignored the XP-for-treasure rules. (My desire for that slower pace of advancement has also led me to consciously modify the 3E XP rules, albeit in different ways.)</blockquote>

Verification