D&D 5E Schrodinger's Loot

[Libramarian]

Why didn't the DM roll the treasure when he created the encounters? If he's prepared enough to know there's an ogre fort in the hills, he's prepared enough to roll (or simply choose!) its loot. It's not like the rules say you roll after the encounter is done.

He doesn't yet know if the encounters will be Easy, Average, or Tough.

Yes, this. Because I don't necessarily know what level the PCs will be when they encounter them. And the definition of Easy/Average/Tough encounters changes significantly every level (an Average encounter is roughly equivalent to a Tough encounter of the previous level and an Easy encounter of the next level). I don't want to update the world every character level. I want the PCs to have a static world to adventure in, for at least 2 or 3 levels.

 

[tomBitonti]

If there were a correspondence between opponent level and treasure, wouldn't the problem work itself out?

Players *could* seek out weak opponents, but they would be rewarded with (on average) weak treasure. Since adventuring sorts aren't supposed to be satisfied by weak treasure they should look at the 17cp that the last goblin had and ask themselves where to find better loot.

To me that says that the proposed treasure tables are badly designed: They should have an expected treasure result which will not satisfy a party facing only weak opponents.

The problem of Shroedinger's treasure then becomes, more simply, the problem of Shroedinger's opponent: Why would a tribe of goblins suddenly become a tribe of ogres because the party is now a couple of levels stronger? That is the simpler, core, problem. Now, that might happen as a natural evolution of the game environment. I'd say that outside of a story (managed by the DM) which replaced the goblins with ogres, the goblins would stay goblins, and they would still have their crappy loot.

There should be a correspondence of monster level and treasure level. Weak opponents should have unsatisfying treasure. Monsters should not morph into more difficult monsters in a fixed location without a story reason.

Thx!

TomB

 

[kerleth]

Libramarian: My argument isn't that it is logical that the troll gets worse stuff as the party levels. I apologize for being unclear. Let me try to put it another way. Pretend you are seeing the world through a character's eyes. Why is it expected that every troll has similar loot? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that one eats bears and has almost no treasure while another ambushed a poorly guarded caravan and took the shiny stuff back to their cave? And you will probably never know the history of random monster you slaughter. My argument is that the circumstances surrounding how any given monster got it's loot are going to be different from the circumstances of any other monster. So why SHOULD they give out similar levels of treasure? The random tables are "invisible", like an algorithm that controls treasure drops in a video game. They are simply a risk vs reward management system. Finally, my "mimicking" comment was a reference to how that method would end up very similar to "loot by monster level" in that case. My response to Lost Soul may clarify further.

Lost Soul: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about a hypothetical sandbox situation where the characters tried to find out rumors about good loot, correct? In that case, judge the encounter difficulty by what level they are when they go asking around. The campaign world isn't a set piece, it changes as time goes on. If the players slay the goblins, then perhaps the dragon is slain by someone else, or gives the magic sword to a trusted servant, etc. OR you just let it keep the sword. When the pc's go after it later, they'll be getting better treasure, but that would closely simulate a "higher level monsters give better treasure" style chart. OR you just make the dragon tougher. They haven't tangled with it, so they don't know how tough it really is yet. All they heard were rumors about it's power. And if they know enough info about it that they can estimate it's power level ahead of time, then it could instead have allies which they weren't aware of.


All: I think part of the reason we aren't seeing any sort of "treasure by monster level" chart is because of people railing against expected wealth by level. Instead they are using a method very divorced from this to give those people what they asked for. In the end, it is a tool to assist the dm. If you don't want them to have a belt of storm giant strength at 1st level, don't give it to them. If you like the randomness of less tightly controlled "expected wealth" then go with it. I'm not saying that the tables are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm saying that we are looking at them from the "programmer" point of view rather than the "player" point of view and may be getting a false impression.

P.S. I would like to apologize if any of my posts were offensive or condescending. I can be like a dog with a bone sometimes, and don't always consider what my words may sound like to those on the other end.

 

[Nytmare]

Yes, but it's a pretty big component of the system. It's easy enough to choose a treasure, but balancing risk vs. reward can get tricky. That's why you have guidelines. Guidelines that you can't apply if you don't know what level the PCs will be when they encounter the encounter don't help.

But the DM has a sea of options available to them between the players asking the initial question, and the point that the players actually get their hands on the treasure.

The rumors were false, they attack the dragon on poker night when all of his buddies are over, the sword is cursed and makes you pick a fight with the closest lizard, the princess is in a different castle.

Are you balking at the idea of the game world existing as a bunch of quantum states? The fact that the world isn't a static, concrete, set of places filled with exact monsters each with individual lists of unchanging equipment?

 

[LostSoul]

I am going to reply to each sentence individually for no other reason than that it will amuse me.

Lost Soul: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about a hypothetical sandbox situation where the characters tried to find out rumors about good loot, correct?

Yep.

In that case, judge the encounter difficulty by what level they are when they go asking around.

That is an intriguing idea. There's some possibility there. Discovering rumours early on in the campaign would provide you with quite the bonus later on. Question: in what way do the players, through their PCs, discover rumours? It seems like it would be a pretty central point of play - I'd almost suggest (reasonably) complex rules about the placement of rumours and how they are discovered. I'm thinking something relating to risk (sages in the wild, magic divining stones guarded by undead) or some other cost (time + GP).

(The reason for the rules would be because it directly impacts the currency of the game.)

The campaign world isn't a set piece, it changes as time goes on.

That's how I like to play these days.

If the players slay the goblins, then perhaps the dragon is slain by someone else, or gives the magic sword to a trusted servant, etc. OR you just let it keep the sword.

That can happen. I am not a huge fan of NPC adventuring parties but I know that some are. I think they can make the campaign world a lot more dynamic. (I try to do this with regular NPCs.)

When the pc's go after it later, they'll be getting better treasure, but that would closely simulate a "higher level monsters give better treasure" style chart. OR you just make the dragon tougher.

I don't follow.

They haven't tangled with it, so they don't know how tough it really is yet.

I don't like where this is going...

All they heard were rumors about it's power.

Yep. That's the information the players have. That's what they base their decisions on. In order for them to make informed decisions, the information they have must be at least somewhat reliable.

And if they know enough info about it that they can estimate it's power level ahead of time, then it could instead have allies which they weren't aware of.

In this specific format of play, the players make decisions about where they want to take the game. They control the pace, the level of risk they are willing to face, and (therefore) the rewards they reap. In order to make decisions they need to have information. If they can't rely on the information they have, then the decisions they make might as well be random - which is to say, they aren't decisions at all.

If they make a decision, there must be consequences to that decision - both good and bad. If the end result of making the choice to - let's say - tackle the dragon last because they want to gain some levels before facing it, and the encounter with the dragon is just as difficult as it would have been earlier, their choice (to power up first) has been taken away.

That's why you don't want to change the power level (the risk) of the dragon, why you don't want to change the loot (the rewards), and why you want to provide the players with reliable rumours.

So when the players decide that they'd like to look for a powerful magic sword, and go after that - as DM you tell them the risks they face, so they cna make a choice, and the consequences of their choice.

"So any rumours in this little town?"
"Well, this one captured goblin says that their leader has a sword that protects him from fire, is covered in frost, and emits a blue-white glow."
"The red dragon in the mountains - who has a small clergy of hot babes who worship him - comes down to the town every full moon and extorts GP and hot babes."
"The moon is waning right now, so about three weeks until the next full moon."

Then the players can decide to do whatever they feel like. "Let's take on the goblins, grab their sword, and use it to kill the ogres, then head south. I don't really feel like taking on a dragon."

P.S. I would like to apologize if any of my posts were offensive or condescending. I can be like a dog with a bone sometimes, and don't always consider what my words may sound like to those on the other end.

No apology necessary!

 

[LostSoul]

Are you balking at the idea of the game world existing as a bunch of quantum states? The fact that the world isn't a static, concrete, set of places filled with exact monsters each with individual lists of unchanging equipment?

Not necessarily, but I do want the ability to easily generate that static world. (Well, static to start off with.) That is, I understand the value of having things left uncertain to all involved until they are discovered in play, but I'd like it if there were also guidelines on how to easily create a static world.

What they have right now will work reasonably well, I think - just roll on the table that you think, as DM, feels right for your sanbox. Or just pick something. I think the magic item generation could be a lot better for your sandbox DM, though. I'm thinking treasure types with bell curves that ramp up based on the bad-assery of the monster in question, though not all bad-ass (or wimpy) monsters need have the same treasure type. (Golems, being bad-ass, might not have much treasure, but a wimpy dwarf might have a decent chance for lots of gems.)

 

[kerleth]

My list of example "answers" to the problem was just that, a list. Obviously, some of them won't apply to your style. To clarify, the "changing difficulty by adding allies" idea was only if you had a problem with them picking up the same sword for what should only be an average encounter now. I myself would lean more towards a "things have changed, and since you killed the goblins the dark knight of curbstompia has now allied with the dragon" style if I had a problem with that.

The part that you didn't follow, about simulating a "higher level monsters give better treasure chart" was a reference to letting the dragon keep the sword. Let us say that the rules comes with two systems. One is level based. That chart is seperated into various xp ranges. When determing random treasure for an encounter your roll for results listed in the area where that encounters xp is at. The higher xp encounters would yield greater treasure. The other chart is a rarity chart. Let us say you used the rarity chart for the level 1 pc's, rolling for a tough encounter. Then they didn't go there until they were 3rd level. The encounter may only be average now. So the treasure would be better than it should be. This, however, would end up similar to how the first chart would have supplied better treasure for the higher level encounter anyways.

It may be worth considering doing both an xp range chart, and a rarity chart. I know there is a limited page count, and we can't have a module for EVERYTHING, but I believe both methods have some merit. On the other hand, there might not be enough payoff on two things with that much overlap. I hope wotc has some similar debates. May the best chart win!

 

[jrowland]

Schrodinger's Loot had my mind go to the 4E loot system:

DM: You have defeated the troll! There is 1 level 5 treasure parcel containing a level 5 magic item. Who is it for?

Player A: I am good, Player B needs his staff.

Player B: Yeah!

Player C: hold on! I need my armor!

Narrator: If the treasure a staff or armor? You have to open the box to find out.



As for this thread, relative difficulty is fine if its a random encounter rolled on a table with random rolled loot. For pre-built encounters, or published ones, the loot is fixed by the DM or the scenario writer, so its moot. If the DM is to "place" treasure, then setting guidelines for loot based on relative difficulty is just that: a guideline. The DM could always place something else.

 

[Balesir]

Schrodinger's Loot had my mind go to the 4E loot system:

Well, it had your mind go to something, but what you described was not "the 4E loot system".

 

[jrowland]

Well, it had your mind go to something, but what you described was not "the 4E loot system".

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that 4E loot system is not Schrodinger's Loot-in-a-box. In fact, now that I look, Schrodinger isn't mentioned anywhere. How silly of me.