Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions

[ExploderWizard]

Quote: Hussar
Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.

See, to me, the books say if I kill a given monster, it should have a particular treasure. That treasure gives a certain percentage chance of various coinage and magic items. It does not say anything about burying 25% (an arbitrary number I picked out of the air) of the value in some out of the way vault that the PC's are expected never to find.

So, despite the fact that I'm given no guidance as to how much wealth is actually a "reasonable amount", I'm just supposed to know, somehow, how much treasure I should make unavailable for the players.

Because:


Quote:Raven Crowking
A single lucky roll does not net you a vorpal sword, because when the GM set up the encounter, either the vorpal sword was used against you (in which case, you needed to be lucky!) or it is well hidden/guarded/trapped.
appears no where in the description of the vorpal sword. I'm not exactly sure how that wyvern is supposed to be using the vorpal sword, or why the wyvern has a very well hidden vault. I guess if I roll a particular treasure for my wyvern, I'm supposed to have magically inherited the ability to know how much treasure is the right amount to make available.
__________________


I forked this topic off because I think it is worthy of discussion on its own. The discussion here has a broader focus than just 1E and balance. Feel free to discuss this topic about any older edition of D&D.

A note about treasure types & tables: (these points are all from my possibly addled memory as I do not have access to my books right now)

The treasure types shown for a given monster represent the optimum treasure considering the maximum number of creatures guarding them.

Translation: If monsters of species X have treasure type D for instance then what is shown for that treasure type are the possibilities for a lair of such creatures at or close to maximum value shown under number appearing for the monster. This means that if species X were goblins that have a treasure type of D and thier number appearing were 20-200 then they would have the full value of treasure type D only if the number appearing approached the 200 maximum.

A patrol of 6 goblins will not have such a hoard simply because of treasure type.

This is in keeping with the risk vs reward theme present in the game.

Random tables are there to assist the DM with ballpark amounts for a given treasure type and are not meant to be slavishly adhered to.

Guidance:

Since treasure is the largest source of XP, its availability and difficulty to obtain are major campaign concerns. The 1E DMG has an entire paragraph dedicated to warning DM's about handing out too much treasure. The rate of advancement is partially controlled by the DM who decides how much treasure there is to be won and partially by the players who decide the size of the brass ring they want to reach for. Too much greed expressed by facing very dangerous foes in the hopes of a big payday will likely result in PC deaths.

Exactly how much treasure measured in finite amounts mapped to threat levels quantified by some expression does not exist. It is the DM's task to determine these things for his/her campaign.

Difficulty:
The difficulty of obtaining treasure goes beyond just how threatening the guardian is in combat. Traps/tricks and concealment of loot all add to the difficulty of obtaining it. The same amount of treasure might be guarded by a tough monster alone in one area and by weaker foes in another. The treasure of the weaker foes might then be trapped, hidden, or both. Recognizing treasure that looks to be too easily won and using caution is an aspect of superior play.

 

[Bullgrit]

This has been somewhat discussed before with some actual rolling on the treasure table: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/182808-ad-d1-treasure-types.html

I think it is worthy of discussion on its own.

The problem with these kinds of discussions is:

Person A says, "The DMG says X, so that is how it was meant to be handled."

Person B says, "But the MM says Y, so that is how it was meant to be handled."

Person C says, "But Gygax said Z in Dragon Magazine, so that is how he meant it to be handled."

Person D says, "The various published modules showed nothing like X, Y, or Z."

Person E says, "We didn't play it by X, Y, or Z, because we didn't know/care/like what it said. So we played as M, and that was how we felt it was meant to be handled."

Person F says, "However it was meant, at least it was still better than how D&D [current edition] handles it."

For myself, I was sort of like Person E -- I didn't really follow the treasure type rules as written. I just placed the treasure I thought made sense, or that I wanted the PCs to find.

Bullgrit

 

[Yabanjin]

I love randomized treasure (and rolling on random tables generally) as a source of inspiration and variety, but adhering to them really slavishly can produce some undesirable results. A DM should always try to finesse treasure rewards in such a way that they very closely hew to the challenge players face in obtaining them, especially under the GP=XP regime of first edition.

Risk vs. reward is the one thing that, in my mind, should be readily discernible for players, and something the players and their characters should always have in mind. When the players know that facing a greater challenge leads to greater rewards, they're less likely to blame TPKs on DM fiat, because they know that it's a risk they chose to take on. Likewise, they're less likely to grouse about small treasure rewards, because they know that killing one crippled kobold with a rusty sword will usually only get them a rusty sword for their troubles.

So in my mind, treasures appropriate to the challenge in getting them goes hand in hand with another good DMing practice: making available to players enough information to judge the difficulty of their endeavors, and providing them ample opportunity to choose their challenges on that basis. That means that a good DM won't spring a 12 HD dragon on 2nd-level characters without giving them some means of escape, and he won't have an NPC suggest they go root around in its lair without very grave warnings of doom and deadliness.

 

[Bullgrit]

The difficulty of obtaining treasure goes beyond just how threatening the guardian is in combat. Traps/tricks and concealment of loot all add to the difficulty of obtaining it. The same amount of treasure might be guarded by a tough monster alone in one area and by weaker foes in another. The treasure of the weaker foes might then be trapped, hidden, or both. Recognizing treasure that looks to be too easily won and using caution is an aspect of superior play.

[Emphasis mine.] Superior play or metagaming? Balanced dungeon design or slavish adherance to risk/reward numbers?

What about treasure found literally just lying around? There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon. Is this bad design? Or is it verisimilitude for the game world?

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

What about treasure found literally just lying around? There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon. Is this bad design? Or is it verisimilitude for the game world?

Please. Regale us with your many examples, that we may answer your question. Please use the exact wording in the module text, and let us know which module and which area.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

This has been somewhat discussed before with some actual rolling on the treasure table: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/182808-ad-d1-treasure-types.html

The problem with these kinds of discussions is:

Person A says, "The DMG says X, so that is how it was meant to be handled."

Person B says, "But the MM says Y, so that is how it was meant to be handled."

Person C says, "But Gygax said Z in Dragon Magazine, so that is how he meant it to be handled."

Person D says, "The various published modules showed nothing like X, Y, or Z."

Person E says, "We didn't play it by X, Y, or Z, because we didn't know/care/like what it said. So we played as M, and that was how we felt it was meant to be handled."

Person F says, "However it was meant, at least it was still better than how D&D [current edition] handles it."

For myself, I was sort of like Person E -- I didn't really follow the treasure type rules as written. I just placed the treasure I thought made sense, or that I wanted the PCs to find.

Bullgrit

I am not so concerned with the value distributions of the tables themselves or the perceived value of these methods over treasure distribution methods of more modern systems. How the tables were actually used (or not) in play is the intended topic.

If we were to compare older distribution methods with newer ones as it relates to preparing for games then I would compare this with cooking.
The older methods speak in terms of dashes and pinches while the newer ones make use of tablespoons and teaspoons.

The systems differ and are each appropriate for thier intended goals.

 

[ExploderWizard]

[Emphasis mine.] Superior play or metagaming? Balanced dungeon design or slavish adherance to risk/reward numbers?

What about treasure found literally just lying around? There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon. Is this bad design? Or is it verisimilitude for the game world?

Bullgrit

What about the dragon fought many miles from its lair? A tough battle with a very doubtful payoff. The risk/reward paradigm is an overall big picture view. Where some monsters might have excess treasure others may have nothing at all.

In an attempt to discourage metagaming by known formula the occasional unguarded treasure or monster lair devoid of treasure helps adventurers learn to never assume anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Note that, without specifics, we might be talking about Room Y, where there is an unguarded treasure, that can only be reached by going through rooms A to E, all of which have guardians/tricks/traps/whatever.

 

[Bullgrit]

In an attempt to discourage metagaming by known formula the occasional unguarded treasure or monster lair devoid of treasure helps adventurers learn to never assume anything.

But you said:

Recognizing treasure that looks to be too easily won and using caution is an aspect of superior play.

You seem to be advocating pulling the rug out from under "superior play" to prevent it.

Edit: For my own gaming, I prefer to set (or find) treasure as fitting for the game world and logic. I have never, in any edition of D&D, strictly followed the treasure placement rules. In my mind, superior play is not based on players calculating the risk:reward ratio, but rather "reading" the in-game logic. "How in the world did this lowly orc come to have a ring of wizardry? We should look into this."

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

Don't see your logic there, Bullgrit.