Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions

[Lanefan]

Fascinating write-up, grodog.

I know that when I write a module-style adventure the distribution of opponents and treasure varies greatly depending on the situation.

A dungeon or castle or whatever that is currently in active use by its original builders: there's gonna be opponents everywhere, and most if not all of the rooms/chambers/caverns will be in use for something; most intelligent creatures aren't going to build something just to leave it completely empty. The treasure will be in logical places based on what those who reside in the place would probably do with it; and if there's traps or defenses the users will also have ways around them - which may or may not help the PCs: for example, a creature immune to fire could happily put fire-based defenses everywhere...

A dungeon or castle or whatever that is not in active use, or is a ruin: then it gets much more random. It may have been raided already (successfully or not), other users may have come and gone, things may have moved in (and brought their own treasure), and so forth. Large chunks of it could be empty, or be no-man's-land zones between competing groups of inhabitants. Traps etc. will also be more random - some might be broken, others forgotten, the bypasses might have caved in, etc.

As for amount of treasure in total, given as there's no way to predict how much of it the party will actually find, I don't worry about placing to a total. I chuck in what makes sense (well, most of the time) and if the PCs get rich, ::shrug:: so be it.

Lanefan

 

[the Jester]

So, half an example. Can anyone do better? With the "many examples" Bullgrit claims, surely it shouldn't be hard to come up with one clear example?

In Pharoah, inside this cool pyramid dungeon, there are coins on the floor in plain sight. They aren't trapped, and iirc they are close to the start of the dungeon. However, I seem to recall the pyramid being difficult to get into in the first place.

 

[Bullgrit]

Raven Crowking is on my ignore list, so I don't see what he says unless someone else quotes him. And I normally wouldn't bother responding to those quotes, but my honesty is being directly questioned. So I must clear this up.

In Pharoah, inside this cool pyramid dungeon, there are coins on the floor in plain sight. They aren't trapped, and iirc they are close to the start of the dungeon. However, I seem to recall the pyramid being difficult to get into in the first place.

The very first room in Castle Caldwell had a sack of coins under a table. Unless you count hidden treasure (although finding it was as simple as saying "Search the room") as guarded then there are plenty of examples of treasure laying about.

Just off the top of my head:
- In the Moathouse of The Village of Hommlet there is a silver baton sitting in a torch bracket. No monster, no trap.

- In the Temple of Pharoah there's a ring of protection +3 lying in the middle of an empty room. No monsters, no traps.

There are, indeed, many examples of treasure lying about unguarded and untrapped in published classic modules. It wasn't the norm, but it wasn't unheard of, either. It ain't a sin, so I don't know why anyone would get riled up about mentioning it.

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I normally wouldn't bother responding to those quotes, but my honesty is being directly questioned. So I must clear this up.

Your honesty isn't being questioned, merely your understanding/presentation of the facts. I'll pull out my Hommlet & Pharoah and see what the module actually says, whether or not items are hidden, whether or not the "unguarded" items are in face trapped or guarded, and so on.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

[Emphasis mine.]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?

- In the Moathouse of The Village of Hommlet there is a silver baton sitting in a torch bracket. No monster, no trap.

What happened to "unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden"? Not an example.

There are, indeed, many examples of treasure lying about unguarded and untrapped in published classic modules.

This implies a change of term. There are many examples of treasure unguarded and untrapped; there are precious few (if any) "unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden".

ExploderWizard, your choices for phrasing your sentences in the above reply rub me the wrong way. You're throwing out loaded buzz words, and speaking with an attitude that I don't enjoy conversing with.

Pot, meet kettle.



RC

 

[the Jester]

How do you rate the examples from Pharaoh, though? Is the fact that the whole dungeon hidden enough to make the treasures count as hidden? Or is the fact that once you're in, there is in fact unguarded, untrapped, unhidden treasure enough of an exception that proves the rule?

 

[Bullgrit]

How do you rate the examples from Pharaoh, though? Is the fact that the whole dungeon hidden enough to make the treasures count as hidden? Or is the fact that once you're in, there is in fact unguarded, untrapped, unhidden treasure enough of an exception that proves the rule?

Huh? Using that logic, then even the monsters of the dungeon are all hidden. If the PCs can't find the dungeon (because it's "hidden"), then the whole adventure is kinda . . . not played.

"...proves the rule?"

What rule is being proved/proofed?

That there is some unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden treasures in classic D&D adventures is not a rule -- it's just an observation.

Edit: The One Ring was unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in The Hobbit.

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

How do you rate the examples from Pharaoh, though? Is the fact that the whole dungeon hidden enough to make the treasures count as hidden? Or is the fact that once you're in, there is in fact unguarded, untrapped, unhidden treasure enough of an exception that proves the rule?

I haven't the text for Pharoah with me right now; I'll have to wait until I can read the encounter area text. (Some reference here would be useful.) In any event, the statsment I think misleading is

There are many examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon.

I would have no objection to "There are one or two examples in published AD&D1 modules where treasure is found unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in a dungeon."

By looking at those examples, we could then answer Bullgrit's questions, at least subjectively, to wit:

Is this bad design? Or is it verisimilitude for the game world?

We might also be able to put the whole "Everything in the module will automatically be found/recovered" meme to rest, at least in terms of 1e.


RC

 

[billd91]

Edit: The One Ring was unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden in The Hobbit.

That's because it is essentially an entity wanting to be found. So it's not much of a comparison.

But though there is occasional stuff lying around, unguarded, untrapped, and not very well hidden, it's usually not terribly significant or it serves as a warning to other delvers. Ultimately, it's not worth arguing over and it is a very small proportion of the treasure anyway. In any event, it's not much of a "proof" that 1e had any kind of methodology about leaving treasure to be found without a challenge. Most treasure was exected to be challenging to obtain in some fashion with the more effective parties expected to obtain more of it than less effective ones.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's because it is essentially an entity wanting to be found. So it's not much of a comparison.

Not to mention that Bilbo had to deal with goblins and Gollum in order to actually get the One Ring. The "challenge then treasure" normative of D&D is reversed, but there is still a real challenge inherent in Bilbo's recovery of/escape with the Ring.


RC