Monster & Treasure distribution in older editions

[ExploderWizard]

My point was: If treasure is always placed according to its value-to-challenge ratio, then Players can metagame to determine traps and monsters. If they find a piece of treasure apparently unguarded, then they can know there must be a trap protecting it.

"Oh, there's a chest in the middle of the room? And no monster around? Well, obviously, something bad will happen when we open the chest. It's the value-to-challenge rule of the DM's universe."

I think this is a bad idea, for it leads to/teaches metagaming. The fact that I can find occasional unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden treasure in some classic D&D modules tells me that the designers and authors also thought the "always place treasure according to the value-to-challenge ratio" is not the best method, also. They place some treasure "for the free" sometimes so that PCs/Players don't start "gaming the game."

I agree with the theory. The DMG also mentions that not all monsters will have treasure either. Beating a big scary monster does not always mean a good loot haul.

"Oh my, that's a big monster in that room. Maybe we should avoid this thing? But, on the other hand, we know it must have a lot of treasure in there. It's the value-to-challenge rule of the DM's universe."

In keeping with the DMG advice expressed above, the value/challenge ratio is a big picture campaign-wide practice. It is meant to be an average for the game as a whole and not applied rigidly to every nook and cranny of the campaign world. Can "free" treasure be found? Certainly, just as monsters can be encountered even in thier lair that are so poor that the PC's might take pity on them and leave them a few coppers.

When a dungeon designer throws in the occasional "for the free" treasure some place, the PCs/Players learn that the campaign world doesn't revolve around a set value-to-challenge calculation. They learn that sometimes monsters drop/lose pieces of treasure; sometimes the treasure's owner died while out of its lair; and sometimes a strange series of events leaves a treasure in some out of the way but unguarded, untrapped, and unhidden place.

And once the PCs/Players understand that sometimes treasure can truly be found "for the free," they will also come to learn that sometimes something that looks "for the free" is actually bait for a trap or monster. If every treasure is placed by a DM according to the value-to-challenge method, no PC/Player will ever fall for the treasure bait -- they will always approach any apparently "for the free" treasure knowing there is some guardian or trap protecting it.

Agree here too.

So, you see, I think the occasional “for the free” treasure in dungeons is a good thing. And I find examples of this good thing in various classic D&D modules. I went through a few more modules last night, and I found more examples. Should I list the examples here? Like 50ep in an untrapped and unguarded chest in U2. It would be a useless effort.

Some people (really, just one or maybe two, here) think that “for the free” treasure in a dungeon (even in small amounts) is a terrible thing. So they refuse to accept that examples exist in some classic D&D modules. They seem to think that such a terrible thing existing would make classic D&D a terrible thing.

Not me. The point of contention was " many examples from modules" and not the practice of placing the occasional bit of free treasure.

Having the module in front of me now. . .

The mist is basically just to prevent the PCs from mapping and easily navigating the “maze.” It’s a standard trope of D&D dungeons – for a maze to really be confusing, there has to be a magical effect preventing the easy mapping and navigation. (Like the minotaur maze in the Caves of Chaos.)

The text doesn’t say anything about the mist making fighting monsters more difficult. The text doesn’t say anything at all about or like, “If attacked the DM doesn't even need to tell them how many foes are there and some cannot be easily targeted due to the mist.”

And the mist doesn’t cover all of the maze – really it just conceals the turns/corners of the maze. Notice how there is no mist at any encounter area. Even the “for the free” treasure spots are mist-free. (See the attached image for a section of the maze. Not posting the whole maze for copyright reasons.)

And really, the wandering monsters: 1 in 6 chance every 3 turns (30 minutes) = average of 1 encounter every 3 hours. It’s quite possible the PCs could be finished with the maze in 3 hours. It’s possible, unless they rest or really loiter in the maze corridors, they won’t ever have an encounter while in the maze proper.

Which version do you have? It is possible that there were changes in the compilation version. I have the standalone version which plainly states that it is difficult to see a hand 6 inches from your face, counting is impossible (no mention of steps) and the mind being in a sort of fog that wears off instantly when exiting the mist. How could having an effective visual range of less than a foot and an inability to count foes (even if you could see them) not affect combat?

Wandering monsters do in fact wander (thus the name) so they have no "encounter area" and could be encountered in or out of the mist.

As I stated earlier this doesn't mean that there are no examples of free loot out there, this is just not a very good one.

 

[Bullgrit]

Which version do you have? It is possible that there were changes in the compilation version. I have the standalone...

I, too, have the standalone version.

Wandering monsters do in fact wander (thus the name) so they have no "encounter area" and could be encountered in or out of the mist.

Here we have a classic difference in DMing style.

You read the mist text and seem to think: This is a major environment hindrance and makes wandering monster encounters much harder.

I read the mist text and think: This is just to make the "maze" concept work. It has no effect other than making mapping and navigation difficult through the maze.

If I were running this adventure, and rolled for a wandering monster encounter, I would have it happen in one of the many open (non-misty) areas of the maze -- where both sides can actually engage one another.

It seems that if you were running this adventure, and rolled for a wandering monster encounter, you would have it happen in the mist areas -- where both sides would have extra difficulty even finding one another.

I guess both views are legitimate interpretations. Though, of course, I feel mine is the more accurate to the spirit/intent of the text

But then, I also look at the odds of a wandering monster encounter actually occurring, and I think it unlikely to matter anyway.

Edit: ExploderWizard, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I have misrepresented your interpretation on this, correct me. I don't think your interpretation is "bad."

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, wouldn't a wandering monster occur wherever the PCs happen to be? And there is a lot more maze than the image you scanned would make the case appear to be. Moreover, the text doesn't say that the monsters are disoriented; only the PCs. Finally, some monsters in the encounter chart (minotaurs) are naturally immune to the effects of mazes or have a very good sense of smell (the pack of 10 ghouls).

Again, simply read the text, which I have provided upthread. Warm-blooded creatures leave infravision traces visible for some time, while the PCs cannot see. Who, or what, are those infravision traces for?

Note also the final line on the description: "Wondering monsters [sic] will take their toll when bad play results".

If this doesn't make it clear that wandering monsters are expected to take their toll when the PCs are unable to navigate the maze effectively, what do you think it means?




RC

 

[the Jester]

Again, simply read the text, which I have provided upthread. Warm-blooded creatures leave infravision traces visible for some time, while the PCs cannot see. Who, or what, are those infravision traces for?

You do realize that almost all 1e pcs had infravision, right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You do realize that almost all 1e pcs had infravision, right?

What an amazing revelation.

Of course I am aware. Did you read the text, though? The PCs cannot see in the mists, so infravision doesn't help them. But an infravision track is left in the mist, presumably to help the monsters, all of which have infravision.

The text specifies that the PCs cannot see and are disoriented. It does not say that the monsters cannot see or are disoriented. It doesn't say that anything entering the mists cannot see and is disoriented. It says the PCs.

Given that (1) special information about visual trails left in the mist are given, and (2) it is explicit that the PCs cannot see (and therefore that information about infravision trails cannot relate to their vision), what rational conclusion do you draw?


RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

The text specifies that the PCs cannot see and are disoriented. It does not say that the monsters cannot see or are disoriented. It doesn't say that anything entering the mists cannot see and is disoriented. It says the PCs.

That may be what the literal text says, but it may also be a little too much of a "rat bastard" interpretation, even for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That may be what the literal text says, but it may also be a little too much of a "rat bastard" interpretation, even for me.

Perhaps. But the question is not how you or I would modify the text; it is what the text says.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Perhaps. But the question is not how you or I would modify the text; it is what the text says.

Does the text specifically say that monsters can see normally?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Does the text specifically say that monsters can see normally?

Go upthread and read it; I made it possible for you to do so.

(1) It calls out a special visual cue (heat signatures linger for infravision), and

(2) Specifies that the above does not help the PCs (PCs cannot see).

If nothing can see, what is the point of mentioning the visual cue?



RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here we have a classic difference in DMing style.

You read the mist text and seem to think: This is a major environment hindrance and makes wandering monster encounters much harder.

I read the mist text and think: This is just to make the "maze" concept work. It has no effect other than making mapping and navigation difficult through the maze.

This is what I read:

Pharaoh p. 16

Entering the mists, you feel slightly light-headed. Your mind wanders as you walk along. You cannot see anything, even by torch light.

Play: While in the mists, the characters cannot see anything. The mists diffuse all light so well that even very bright lights will appear as just bright haze. Also, the characters cannot count and have no sense of distance while in the mists. They cannot judge distances or remember how far they travel.

End Pharaoh

Yes. Reading the quoted text did seem to imply to me that the area was far more dangerous than a standard stretch of dungeon corridors.

Your interpretation was less harsh but just as valid. You were the DM so it worked however you decided. Scaling back the difficulty of the area made aquiring the treasures a bit easier (other changes notwithstanding).

If I were running this adventure, and rolled for a wandering monster encounter, I would have it happen in one of the many open (non-misty) areas of the maze -- where both sides can actually engage one another.

Which would be completely your choice. No such careful placement of wandering monsters is mentioned in the text. We all make canned adventures our own in some way.

It seems that if you were running this adventure, and rolled for a wandering monster encounter, you would have it happen in the mist areas -- where both sides would have extra difficulty even finding one another.

I guess both views are legitimate interpretations. Though, of course, I feel mine is the more accurate to the spirit/intent of the text

But then, I also look at the odds of a wandering monster encounter actually occurring, and I think it unlikely to matter anyway.

Edit: ExploderWizard, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I have misrepresented your interpretation on this, correct me. I don't think your interpretation is "bad."

Bullgrit

A wandering encounter would take place wherever the PC's happened to be when it came up. The human type wanderers might be just as handicapped as the PC's in the mists but the ghouls and minotaurs probably wouldn't be.

An encounter with even rather mundane opponents in an environment where no one could see or even know how many opponents there were sounds like a tense and exciting situation.