Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions
- Thread starter ExploderWizard
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
How?
"The characters cannot see" = the characters cannot see
"Also, the characters cannot count" = the characters cannot count
Where exactly am I scaling up from this?
Raven Crowking
First Post
This is an example of what it looks like when someone admits that they were wrong about something on the InterWeb. There are not many examples of this sort of behaviour out there. Some people do not know how to do it.
RC
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Recently rereading B1 In Search of the Unknown to run it for my game group, I came across a passage that made me chuckle, considering the contentious discussion going on in this thread.
Bullgrit
This was one of the very first modules I ever owned/read, way back in the beginning of my D&D gaming. It is specifically designed and written to train new DMs how to make a dungeon and how to run a game.In Search of the Unkonwn said:
Bullgrit
Raven Crowking
First Post
[A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
- Module B1, Page 24
I wonder if you also chuckled when you read that?
One would think that, by now, you would stop trying to raise this strawman. But, I guess, hope springs eternal, right?
I would love to read, anywhere, where anyone has found contentious the idea that "Occasionally a treasure may be easily noticed, but this should be the exception rather than the rule", rather than your (thusfar unfounded) statement that "There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon."
Add to this the idea that you could rank player skill on a level from 1 to 10, with 1 being rank amature and 10 being the most skilled a player can be. Most players will rank 4-6. With me?
A good DM will include rewards that can be obtained by each of these ranks, with the harder rewards only being obtainable by the higher ranking players. In addition, the more difficult it is to obtain a reward, the greater the reward will be. Thus, while most characters will gain a significant amount of treasure, few will gain close to all of it, and what is gained will actually vary from party to party based upon their actions in the fictional gamespace.
A good example of this is the Ring of Three Wishes in Module G2. It is only obtainable if one defeats a remorhaz without using any fire magic (fireball, flame strike, etc.). Arguably, the players have to realize that the killing field probably contains treasure, and that fire spells will melt a portion of the glacier, thus removing that treasure from their reach. In addition, they have to search the area effectively, and then figure out what the ring is. A challenge, if played properly, for players ranking about 7-8 (IMHO).
This is similar to the major treasure near the Giant Crayfish in T1; it players prod the water with anything other than their hands, it slips away and is lost.
In G3, there is another Ring of Three Wishes hidden in a box with 71 other rings, none of which is immediately distinguishable from the others. This is part of a larger treasure hoard that will take work to identify the important treasures therein, and figure out a way to transport them. One of the rings has contact poison (no save) on it, so that incautious players will have a death as well as three wishes (thus presumably using up one of the wishes). This is, I estimate, a challenge for players ranking 4-6 to get the ring, about 6-7 to get the ring without someone dying while examining the treasure (there are other traps).
These are only estimates, mind, and my ideas are hardly the be-all and end-all of how hard it should be to obtain X, Y, or Z.
It is absolutely true that "Occasionally a treasure may be easily noticed" and equally true that "this should be the exception rather than the rule". The DM has to reward rank 1-2 players, after all!
RC
(Sorry for the cross-post, but it seemed relevant.)
- Module B1, Page 24
I wonder if you also chuckled when you read that?
One would think that, by now, you would stop trying to raise this strawman. But, I guess, hope springs eternal, right?
I would love to read, anywhere, where anyone has found contentious the idea that "Occasionally a treasure may be easily noticed, but this should be the exception rather than the rule", rather than your (thusfar unfounded) statement that "There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon."
Add to this the idea that you could rank player skill on a level from 1 to 10, with 1 being rank amature and 10 being the most skilled a player can be. Most players will rank 4-6. With me?
A good DM will include rewards that can be obtained by each of these ranks, with the harder rewards only being obtainable by the higher ranking players. In addition, the more difficult it is to obtain a reward, the greater the reward will be. Thus, while most characters will gain a significant amount of treasure, few will gain close to all of it, and what is gained will actually vary from party to party based upon their actions in the fictional gamespace.
A good example of this is the Ring of Three Wishes in Module G2. It is only obtainable if one defeats a remorhaz without using any fire magic (fireball, flame strike, etc.). Arguably, the players have to realize that the killing field probably contains treasure, and that fire spells will melt a portion of the glacier, thus removing that treasure from their reach. In addition, they have to search the area effectively, and then figure out what the ring is. A challenge, if played properly, for players ranking about 7-8 (IMHO).
This is similar to the major treasure near the Giant Crayfish in T1; it players prod the water with anything other than their hands, it slips away and is lost.
In G3, there is another Ring of Three Wishes hidden in a box with 71 other rings, none of which is immediately distinguishable from the others. This is part of a larger treasure hoard that will take work to identify the important treasures therein, and figure out a way to transport them. One of the rings has contact poison (no save) on it, so that incautious players will have a death as well as three wishes (thus presumably using up one of the wishes). This is, I estimate, a challenge for players ranking 4-6 to get the ring, about 6-7 to get the ring without someone dying while examining the treasure (there are other traps).
These are only estimates, mind, and my ideas are hardly the be-all and end-all of how hard it should be to obtain X, Y, or Z.
It is absolutely true that "Occasionally a treasure may be easily noticed" and equally true that "this should be the exception rather than the rule". The DM has to reward rank 1-2 players, after all!
RC
(Sorry for the cross-post, but it seemed relevant.)
Last edited:
Just for the sake of curiosity, what number of examples would have to be provided in order for them to qualify as "many examples" and not merely "some examples?"
I ask this because it is obviously this important distinction between some and many which has disturbed your sensibilities. There have been multiple examples presented that I would think could be reasonably viewed as "unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden" over the course of this thread. You yourself have subscribed to the belief that they constitute "some examples" of the item in question. Is the distinction between some and many enough to warrant the resulting internet angst this discussion has produced?
How much more than "some" is "many"? I would say that there have been at least "a few" examples presented. Is this much less than "many?" (According to a Discworld troll, there is not much distinction
). If Bullgrit had provided 5 examples, would that have been enough? 10? 25? At some point, I think we have to be willing to look past raw semantics to examine what the presenter is trying to communicate.
This is what Bullgrit was trying to communicate with the comment you take offense to, RC. I don't think fretting over the specific value of an indeterminate numerical qualifier seriously impinges on the merit of this idea.
Raven Crowking
First Post
With a good deal of leniency as to what "unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden" means, this is potentially true, but there is no clear-cut example thus far. Even so, I accept a priori that some few examples very likely do exist, which are clear-cut.
"Some few" however, is not "many".
"Many" implies "not uncommon", which implies rather the opposite of "exceptional". If there are many examinations of bad grammar in published writing, then bad grammar is not "the exception rather than the rule". (It doesn't make it the rule, either, but it makes it hardly exceptional -- it rather implies that there is no "rule" about grammar in published writing!)
(Shrug)
If he means that there are "some few" examples, then I have no problem with that statement. But all evidence thus far, AFAICT, is to the contrary, as he could have ended this argument long ago by simply saying as much.
Or, even more simply, by not pretending that "Occasionally a treasure may be easily noticed, but this should be the exception rather than the rule." was ever in contention.
RC
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
A single clear example from five seperate modules would demonstrate, to me, that there are "many examples" and I would withdraw my claim, and say that Bullgrit was right.
RC
Scribble
First Post
Please send me a copy of each of the old modules so that I might search for myself.
Thanks!
Raven Crowking
First Post
Please send me a copy of each of the old modules so that I might search for myself.
Thanks!
Sorry, but my copies are not for sale. They are even less for "give".
(Can't give you XP for your wit, though, until I spread more around!)
Similar Threads
