Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions

[the Jester]

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.)

I don't even know that I still own Pharaoh, sorry. But it's in the pyramid dungeon, I believe in spaces between the tricky mist-filled halls.

 

[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?

Quick note: Unless the module locations were used as part of a sandbox game (and this is probably not true in most cases), then how hard it is to find the pyramid is moot if the module begins with you standing outside of it.

Again, though, a hidden side dungeon/level is another matter. Earlier editions did reward players for finding hidden areas.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't even know that I still own Pharaoh, sorry. But it's in the pyramid dungeon, I believe in spaces between the tricky mist-filled halls.

I believe I have it at home. I'll try to take a look this evening (I am at work now); if not, as soon as I can.

It seems, though, that you are implying that the PCs must deal with "the tricky mist-filled halls" to get at the space where the treasure is. If this is true, then it would not qualify, as it sounds like a trapped and/or hidden space.

RC

 

[Bullgrit]

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

It's not meant to be a comparison. It's meant as a humorous note. Apparently the humor in the statement was too hidden (or too well guarded, or too deviously trapped).

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.

I fully agree. I haven't seen anyone here posit or argue against what you say here.

Bullgrit

 

[the Jester]

It seems, though, that you are implying that the PCs must deal with "the tricky mist-filled halls" to get at the space where the treasure is. If this is true, then it would not qualify, as it sounds like a trapped and/or hidden space.

IIRC the mist-filled halls are where you start the dungeon, and the tricky bit is that they confuse direction, leaving you disoriented- but there is no trap or hidden bit. They just mess up the mapper.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I fully agree. I haven't seen anyone here posit or argue against what you say here.

It's inherent in the OP, and the thread from which the OP was forked.

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.

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.

One of the threads Bullgrit links to in his .sig includes considerable discussion of how much treasure is expected to be found in a module. While here he says that he agrees that "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.", there he seems to feel that all parties will be of the "completely effective" type.

It is a meme I would be happy to see killed, and have its stuff taken.

IIRC the mist-filled halls are where you start the dungeon, and the tricky bit is that they confuse direction, leaving you disoriented- but there is no trap or hidden bit. They just mess up the mapper.

Thanks. Again, I'll try to take a look at it tonight.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unless this has changed in Desert of Desolation (which I was able to reference), the ring mentioned earlier is a Ring of Contrariness (not a Ring of Protection!), and there are several treasures that might be found hidden in the maze, which contains wandering monster encounters that attack the PCs while moving about the maze. The maze is also located only after overcoming several challenges.

Sorry, unless Pharoah was changed quite a bit when it became part of Desert of Desolation, this doesn't qualify.

Still keeping count on a fingerless hand.

 

[the Jester]

Unless this has changed in Desert of Desolation (which I was able to reference), the ring mentioned earlier is a Ring of Contrariness (not a Ring of Protection!), and there are several treasures that might be found hidden in the maze, which contains wandering monster encounters that attack the PCs while moving about the maze. The maze is also located only after overcoming several challenges.

Sorry, unless Pharoah was changed quite a bit when it became part of Desert of Desolation, this doesn't qualify.

I'd argue that once you're in the maze, you're in the maze.

If you are counting wandering monsters as treasure guardians, then I think you're stretching your definition of treasure guardians pretty far, frankly. Every* old school module had wandering monsters.

*Every, in this case, meaning every one that I can recall.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A couple of things relate, though:

(1) You have to overcome guardians to get to the maze. Saying "once you're in the maze, you're in the maze" is like saying "once you're in the king's treasure vault, you're in the king's treasure vault" -- it removes all consideration of how hard it is to get there in the first place.

Contrast this with the bag of coins+ in Caldwell, which is poorly hidden, and which requires the PCs to deal with no guardians prior to finding it.

(2) Wandering monster encounters in D&D have always had a function of "prevent wasted time", which includes preventing PCs from searching everywhere (i.e., pixel-bashing). However, the wandering monster encounters in the maze seem specifically to make the maze more dangerous than the surrounding area in terms of wanderers. I.e., the less time the PCs spend in the maze the better. This seems to be intentional design to me.

IOW, D&D has always had wandering monsters, but it is possible to make wandering monsters within a selected area more difficult and more frequent so that they effectively become guardians.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

Unless this has changed in Desert of Desolation (which I was able to reference), the ring mentioned earlier is a Ring of Contrariness (not a Ring of Protection!), and there are several treasures that might be found hidden in the maze, which contains wandering monster encounters that attack the PCs while moving about the maze. The maze is also located only after overcoming several challenges.

I always believed that the treasure in the maze is intended to both be a clue and a subtle trap that punish players that just grab up everything that they find. First, IIRC about half the magic items in the maze are cursed items representing essentially the same degree of danger as a trap (without looking like a trap). When I converted the module to 3e, I assigned CR to the entries with cursed items. You got XP for bypassing them. More to the point, negotiating the maze successfully requires recognizing certain markers - like the persistant smells in some passages and the occasional landmarks - or recognizing that you are going in circles and the utility of creating your own. Removing the treasure from the intersections (without leaving something in its place) means that the maze gets progressively harder to navigate, because the treasure is a rather essential landmark to help you stay oriented. Those players that pick up everything or which don't recognize the utility of having a marker on the floor (always take chalk into a dungeon!) remove an essential 'clue'.

In 4e terms, the entire maze is one vast encounter area. I felt some of the treasure in the maze was excessive (but that's probably the result of needing to ensure leveling when on a published adventure path), but I don't think you can make the claim its not hidden, gaurded, or protected by a trap.