Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5056918" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm ok with that.  I want the game to support different approaches.  I can't tell you what the 'one true approach' is.  I can tell you what approach was promoted by Gygax based on his modules and the 1e DMG, and that was, treasure should rarely be unguarded and if unguarded should probably be hidden in some fashion.  Gygaxian dungeons are liberally sprinkled with forgotten treasures awaiting the careful and curious player.  Gygaxian treasure is often in the form of art objects, some of which aren't obviously valuable, some of which aren't particularly portable, and many of which involve some interaction with the enviornment to find.In the case of this silver baton, I don't think its a particularly classic Gygaxian puzzle.  I think that there is some difficulty determining from the text how he planned to run the room.  I know how I would run the room, and have described it in detail, but I'm almost certain Gygax would have run it differently although I'm not sure exactly what that different way would be.  I think the fact that this was an introductory module and this was a low value treasure meant that he wasn't particularly interested in hiding it from even minimal interaction.  From a Zork perspective, this is a treasure you don't get alot of points for and which primarily serves to teach the new player, "You can sometimes find hidden treasures if you interact with things."  But Gygax spent several pages of the 1E DMG addressing this very point.  Gygax very certainly believed that somewhere in the range in between was 'skillful play'.  Gygax believed that the reward should merit the effort, and that the effort should be sufficient to keep the players interested because of the challenge, but not so much that the players became frustrated or bored.Exactly how that balance is achieved will I think depend on the skillfulness and demeanor of a particular group of players, but I will say that I've very little sympathy for the player that demands of the DM easy access to treasure with little effort as the player's right.   I have very little empathy with the player that demands that the treasure they find meet some absolute standard of expected treasure and if it doesn't they are somehow being cheated.  I think this is not skillful play.   Skillful play on the part of the DM is that the amount of treasure is sufficient reward for the effort and that the player resources are sufficient to meet the challenge posed.  Skillful play on the part of the player is utilizing the resources you have at your disposal to overcome the challenges you face, even when and especially when those resources aren't the ideal ones for the job.  I actually do believe that the idea of planning out what treasures you are going to have at some future point in the game is bad for the game and actually detrimental to player enjoyment.  A fixed treasure reward is sort of the McDonald's of D&D gaming.  On the one hand, it's nice to going into a restaurant and know exactly what to expect, but on the other hand there is a whole world of gastronomical and culinary excellence waiting to be found by the more adventurous sort that is willing to risk it.</blockquote>

Verification