Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions

[ExploderWizard]

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

The first bit you quoted is coming from the DM perspective and the 2nd from that of a player.

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."

"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. "

In case you missed that from the OP.

Or, as Mr. Miyagi would say: Remember, treasure table never replace, eye, ear, and brain.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I talk about distribution of monsters and treasure in my "Creating a Mythic Underworld Dungeon" musing.

I use the treasure types as guidelines for treasure in a lair (with a full complement of monsters per the number appearing guidelines). (OD&D Vol 2. Monsters & Treasure notes that "All Treasure is found only in those cases where the encounter takes place in the 'Lair'.") I include both wilderness lairs and also sections in dungeons/caves which comprise a lair (e.g. a whole series of rooms and chambers might make up an orc lair).

For the dungeon, I also use the guidelines presented in OD&D Vol 3. The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. According to those guidelines, 1/3 of the encounter areas in a dungeon will have a monster, and 50% of those monsters will have treasure. Also, 16.67% (1 in 6) of the encounter areas without a monster will have treasure. However, it is noted that "unguarded treasures should be invisible, hidden behind a secret door or under the floor, locked in hard-to-open strong boxes with poison needles or deadly gas released when they are opened. (There are many variants of the above possible and many other types of protection which can be devised.)" So even unguarded treasure isn't normally just lying around.

Lastly, I use the Monster & Treasure Assortments as a guideline for "level appropriate" monsters and treasures. The number of monsters encountered is especially useful, since it is intended for a single dungeon-type encounter, rather than a whole lair of creatures.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The determination of just where monsters should be placed, and whether or not they will be guarding treasure, and how much of the latter if they are guarding something, can become burdensome when faced with several levels to do at one time. It is a good idea to
thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monsterous guardians, and then switch to a random determination for the balance of the level.

- The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (OD&D) page 6

So what Gary is saying, in OD&D, is that you should roll most of the treasure (and monsters) randomly. It seems he changed his view by the time AD&D was published.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It seems [EGG] changed his view by the time AD&D was published.

Why do you say that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Determine relatively unimportant things randomly" does not conflict with the advice in AD&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Oh yeah, the "give monsters treasure with reason" advice in the DMG and the ogres with realistic treasure for a couple of rampaging brutes.

I agree that the DMG advice isn't a contradiction of the OD&D random treasure advice and guidelines. (Also, remember that the DMG also includes random monster and treasure tools, along with a note that a random generation system has proven useful when you need help in designing a dungeon.)

I think all EGG's advice is intended to be used together, as appropriate to the task at hand. The various methods and approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

Also, I think it's a question of focus. The advice in OD&D is mainly focused on large "underworld" dungeons with many levels and rooms. With such a dungeon, you definitely have important areas with carefully designed encounters, but you also have many less important areas that can be "filled in" with random help. I think the advice in the DMG tends to be more focused on smaller, "lair type" dungeons (which were definitely more common, as far as published dungeons go), and on those encounter areas you are carefully designing.

 

[rogueattorney]

I have played a lot with the random monster and treasure placements found in the 1981 Basic and Expert rules and the 1980 compiled version of the Monster & Treasure Assortments (which are different from the 1977-78 individual versions).

First, it is important to remember that these methods assume you have a few specially placed monster groups and treasures per level. Thus, on the first level of the dungeon you might have a mini-bandit complex near the entrance who have the gems recently stolen from the baron's treasury, some goblins in a far off section of the 1st level who guard an evil magic book, and a hidden magic fountain that answers questions asked by the pcs. You use the random placement guidelines to fill in the gaps in between your specially placed monsters and treasures.

The second thing to remember is that these methods assume fairly large, sprawling dungeon levels that are largely empty of encounters (traps, treasures, and monsters). Two thirds of dungeon rooms aren't going to have a trap, treasure, or monsters in it. It's up to the DM to make these "empty" rooms otherwise interesting.

I've found that in the first three levels of the dungeon the 1980/1981 products are very stingy with magical treasure. This becomes a bit of a problem by the third level when a lot of creatures (wererats, undead of various types, gargoyles, etc.) start popping up on the random encounter charts. Thus, it's pretty much a necessity to make magical weaponry among the specially placed treasures placed in your dungeon. You also probably want to give the players rumors and legends of these weapons and their putative locations so that once they've encountered and run away from their first shadow, they have a clue what to do about it.

The charts from the pre-80's D&D products are a bit less stingy with the magical treasure, but I don't know if it is so much so to alter the general approach I've outlined above.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I've found that in the first three levels of the dungeon the 1980/1981 products are very stingy with magical treasure. This becomes a bit of a problem by the third level when a lot of creatures (wererats, undead of various types, gargoyles, etc.) start popping up on the random encounter charts.

I agree, but I think the treasure tables' stinginess with magical weapons is offset by the possibility of magical weapons being present from the monster tables. For example, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and men (of various classes) all have a chance to be carrying magic items, and they're pretty common encounters on the tables.

In any case, the "detail important areas yourself and then use the random tables to fill in the blanks and for inspiration" is definitely the approach that I favor. I also like to total up the GPV of the treasure on a level and make sure it's in the ballpark for what I think the game requires (which depends on the number of players, the depth and size of the level, et cetera). I'll adjust it up or down, as necessary.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Superior play or metagaming?

Players using their knowledge of the game as a game is metagaming, but appropriate as part of "superior play." The only metagaming in D&D that is cheating is peeking at the DM's notes. "Playing dumb" by only acting on what your character "knows" is just that, in my opinion.

 

[Bullgrit]

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.

True, an exact equation does not exist, and I think this is an oversight in AD&D1. Well, we really didn't need an exact equation, but some more formed guidelines would have been helpful. All we really got as advice was basically, "don't be too stingy, and don't be Monty Haul."

What we got as actual hard-evidence examples were:
- Random treasure type charts -- often resulted in wildly varied treasures.
- Pregenerated characters in some modules -- some had 1st level characters with magic items, and some had 10th level characters with just +1 sword, +1 armor.
- Actual treasure placement in published modules -- This seemed to become the standard for most DMs without any other clues.

It would have been helpful for me, and I think for the game at large, for the DMG to have given some kind of yardstick for judging an appropriate average for treasure placement. I even think EGG did have a yardstick for judging this, because looking at his "adventure path" (Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, etc.), the xp in each adventure was enough to improve the PCs to a level matching the next adventure in the series. He had to either plan it to work that way, or it was just an incredibly lucky random guess, repeatedly.

I wonder if he avoided putting a yardstick for treasure in the DMG because he was concerned that DMs might feel tied to it? "I must not give more or less than this set amount."

Bullgrit