Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)

[Raven Crowking]

So, as I said, moot. Your objection has been noted, and found wanting.

As has yours.

As much as you might like to be, you are not the arbiter of what is a good/compelling argument, except in terms of what convinces you.

Can you show me any evidence that any argument has ever changed your mind, no matter how compelling the evidence/argument presented? Where you ever said X and then, on consideration, realized not-X?


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

As has yours.

As much as you might like to be, you are not the arbiter of what is a good/compelling argument, except in terms of what convinces you.

Can you show me any evidence that any argument has ever changed your mind, no matter how compelling the evidence/argument presented? Where you ever said X and then, on consideration, realized not-X?

Sure, I've changed my mind on things. Not incredibly often though. And certainly not on this question.

If you have 15-16 encounters, and they are intended to take the PCs from first to third level, then in the 3e rules, about ten of them will have to be at least double the average EL appropriate for the party. If some of the encounters are below the average EL appropriate for the party, then more encounters will have to be double, or some of the encounters will have to be more than double.

The situation with the Moathouse, comparing a 3e party going through it (using a converted version) with a 1e party going through it, one finds that they level up after about the same number of encounters. You might not like the information (as you seem to be heavily invested in the idea that level advancement in 1e was almost impossible, and required the PCs to walk through miles of two foot deep snow uphill both ways, while 3e PCs step on a butterfly and go up a level), but that's what it is.

All of the complaining about how the comparison isn't apt because it doesn't account for treasure being hidden, or for training time and so on is basically small beer. Why? Because Q didn't include experience from selling mundane gear (and in low level dungeons, that's often as valuable as the "treasure") and didn't include experience from acquiring magic items (or selling them). In other words, he left out of the 1e comparison a significant amount of material that would increase the 1e rate of advancement. So to quibble over whether the Pcs would have gotten 80% or 90% or 100% of the treasure is simply rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, I've changed my mind on things. Not incredibly often though.

Can you point to even one post, prior to this date, that where you've done so? Because, AFAICT, this is about ego for you. Certainly the constant stream of insults re: people of other opinions seems to point this way.

And certainly not on this question.

Then why would anyone bother to credit your opinion on it? It is my general observation that only in questions where one is open-minded does one have anything valuable to contribute. This applies to myself as well; where I am most close-minded, I am also least valuable as a person to speak to.

And despite your hyperbole to the contrary, I have said more than once exactly the type of evidence needed to convince me I am wrong. If you really wanted to do so (rather than merely wanting to insult me [as well as other people]), you could run the numbers.

You haven't done so.

I wonder why?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

For fun, I just reread Page 1 of this thread. Here are a few things that I noted:

In KotB, the 3e party gains 5th level to the BD&D party's average 3rd. In BD&D, that's 3/5th the leveling of 3e.

In VoH, Q assumes that all treasure is valuable for XP, which has been pretty thoroughly debunked in this thread. Because the treasure is end-loaded in VoH, there is significant XP loss. Factor this in, and we again see something more in line with KotB.

This will change the starting XP for Q's analysis of ToEE as well, and therefore the final XP totals.

Q doesn't actually tell us the XP a 1e party would gain from Sunless Citadel, which greatly limits the value of his math here. We know that the 3e modules end where they say they will; surely this isn't a controversial finding. What we need to know, for adequate comparison, is where the AD&D party ends when the same module is converted.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Then why would anyone bother to credit your opinion on it? It is my general observation that only in questions where one is open-minded does one have anything valuable to contribute. This applies to myself as well; where I am most close-minded, I am also least valuable as a person to speak to.

I didn't say I wasn't open minded on this issue. I said that I haven't changed my mind. Based upon the information presented thus far, I see no reason to.

And despite your hyperbole to the contrary, I have said more than once exactly the type of evidence needed to convince me I am wrong. If you really wanted to do so (rather than merely wanting to insult me [as well as other people]), you could run the numbers.

And despite the fact that your assertions have been repeatedly looked at and assessed, the fact that they haven't led the the conclusions you want them to has led you to discount the results and instead throw up some other supposed problem. And you are saying other people are being disingenuous?

You said lots of treasure was hidden in 1e modules. It was shown that this is not the case. You have said that treasure was hard to move in 1e modules, and it was shown that this amounted to a tiny amount of treasure. You have said that in 3e modules the PCs will be expected to get everything, and this was shown not to be the case. You have quibbled over the implied ELs of 1e encounters, and this was shown to not be a problem because of the larger assumed party size and lmore limited number of actual encounters.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to dispute Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And despite the fact that your assertions have been repeatedly looked at and assessed, the fact that they haven't led the the conclusions you want them to has led you to discount the results and instead throw up some other supposed problem. And you are saying other people are being disingenuous?

No. I am saying thier assessment is extremely inadequate.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to accept you conculsions drawn off Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

OTOH, I'll be happy with the specific data that I specifically asked for, rather than someone else's assessment of the relevance of said data.

And, BTW, there is a difference between saying that Q's analysis does not prove conclusion X, and saying it does prove conclusion Y. I am not saying that conclusion Y -- what my experience was -- need be the normative case. I am saying that the data does not prove that your conclusion (X) was the normative case.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

No. I am saying thier assessment is extremely inadequate.

The problem is that you aren't contesting assessments, but rather facts. When the facts don't match what you want, you call them assessments. Its a nice rhetorical dodge, but it isn't very convincing.

Thus far, I fail to see any reason presented to accept you conculsions drawn off Q's analysis. I don't see any reason to change my opinion on this issue, because you haven't given any reason for anyone to do so. It is clear that you have a conclusion that you want the data to show, and until you can massage it into that conclusion, you won't be happy.

I don't care what the conclusion is one way or the other. I played 1e, I played BD&D, I played 2e, I played 3e. I was there in the old days. I have no reason to want one conclusion over the other. But the data points towards one conclusion, and thus far nothing you (or any other poster objecting to the conclusions) has said points away from that conclusion when the objections are assessed by referencing the source material.

OTOH, I'll be happy with the specific data that I specifically asked for, rather than someone else's assessment of the relevance of said data.

I doubt it. Every time someone has provided you with relevant data, you've gone on to raise some other objection, or to claim that the data is somehow wrong (without giving anything specific).

If you think there is critical data missing, let's see it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thankfully, neither you nor I is arbiter of what is "relevant", nor what is "fact".

 

[Storm Raven]

And, BTW, there is a difference between saying that Q's analysis does not prove conclusion X, and saying it does prove conclusion Y. I am not saying that conclusion Y -- what my experience was -- need be the normative case. I am saying that the data does not prove that your conclusion (X) was the normative case.

No one is saying that. It would be impossible to do so given the volume of house rules that were used. In point of fact, several times in this thread people have commented that the varying experiences demonstrated are based in large part on the impact of what appear to have been fairly common house rules (for example, removing the GP = XP rule).

The intent is to find out what the publisher of the game appears to have thought the play experience would be like. Whether their expectations matched reality is not the question. But if you look through the modules with and eye to what a sample party would derive from it using the baseline rules you can get an idea of how they thought these adventures would work in actual play. In other words, what were the expectations TSR (or WotC) had concerning how these modules would play out. I think that Q has done an excellent job doing that.

 

[billd91]

No one is saying that. It would be impossible to do so given the volume of house rules that were used. In point of fact, several times in this thread people have commented that the varying experiences demonstrated are based in large part on the impact of what appear to have been fairly common house rules (for example, removing the GP = XP rule).

The experience implied by being able to loot the entirety of these modules and gather all of the kill value XPs implies some pretty heavy house rules in place as well as has been alluded to here and discussed a bit more fully in this thread.

1e is chock full of ways to waste potential experience point awards while adventuring and unable to train up for the next level barring house rules to prevent it. Any analysis that assumes no or insignificant waste injects error.

 

[Bullgrit]

1e is chock full of ways to waste potential experience point awards while adventuring and unable to train up for the next level barring house rules to prevent it. Any analysis that assumes no or insignificant waste injects error.

This concept was addressed early in the thread.

Any xp that might be lost . . . can be more than made up for by adding in the magic item xp (for using or for selling). A +1 sword (for example) is worth 400 xp to the character using it, or it can be sold for 2,000 gp which would be translated to 2,000 xp for the whole party.

So, for example, the Moathouse magic treasure is worth 9,600 xp if used (more than the total monster xp), or 33,800 gp/xp if sold (over 4 times the total monster xp). Selling the items increases the xp award from 38,148 xp to 71,948 xp.

The Dungeon Level 1 (ToEE) magic treasure is worth 12,610 xp if used (559 xp short of the total monster xp), or 76,400 gp/xp if sold (almost 6 times the total monster xp). Selling the items increases the xp award from 42,855 xp to 119,255 xp!

There was a lot of xp left out of the AD&D1 calculations. Is it enough for people to consider it balanced out versus what would have been lost or wasted?

Bullgrit

 

[Storm Raven]

The experience implied by being able to loot the entirety of these modules and gather all of the kill value XPs implies some pretty heavy house rules in place as well as has been alluded to here and discussed a bit more fully in this thread.

1e is chock full of ways to waste potential experience point awards while adventuring and unable to train up for the next level barring house rules to prevent it. Any analysis that assumes no or insignificant waste injects error.

The analysis didn't assume "no or insignificant waste". In fatc, the analysis understated the available experience to be garnered in each 1e module. If you assume that the adventurers would miss out on or otherwise "waste" a quarter of the available experience, the experience gained just from having gained magic items would compensate for that leakage.

And that's not the point. The point is to stand up modules from each era and see how they would play out if played to their full potential. If one assumes that you would have substantial wastage in the 1e modules, one has to also make similar assumptions about the 3e modules. 3e players are just as likely to skip encounters, miss treasure, and otherwise lose out on potential experience. So, if you are going to discount the 1e totals, you have to do the same for the 3e ones. And so it coumes out as more or less a wash.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No one is saying that. It would be impossible to do so given the volume of house rules that were used.

If you are making a claim that it is possible using these 1e modules to level in 1e as in 3e, then Q's numbers demonstrate this to be true.

If you are making a claim that it is likely or that the publishers imagined it to be likely, Q's numbers fail to demonstrate this. Unless, of course, one accepts some of the same assumptions Q does. Q seems to acknowledge this in Post 25. In this regard, the quotes in Post 30 would be more telling than Q's numbers, if they were linked so that we could read them in context.

Insofar as what Gary thought was likely, a linkback to the post those quotes were taken from might be sufficient evidence as to what TSR considered normative in 1e, depending upon the context the quotes were taken from (as far as I am concerned at least).

Q's analysis would still be at a great variance from my experience, though it may be that my experience -- though widespread -- wasn't Gary's expected norm. (Shrug.) In which case, I am luckier than I thought I was.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, this would also demonstrate that WotC failed to meet one of their 3e objectives. Although they didn't realease data as to average rates of leveling (AFAICT without actually digging up the pre-release Dragons), they did intend 3e to level significantly faster than its predecessors.

 

[billd91]

There was a lot of xp left out of the AD&D1 calculations. Is it enough for people to consider it balanced out versus what would have been lost or wasted?

Bullgrit

Not really, no. Since there's a big difference in XPs awarded for kept items vs XP awareded as treasure XP and a significant likelihood of lots of the magic item treasure XP being up for easy loss due to selling it after XPs are awarded, assuming that they balance is a HUGE assumption.

 

[Storm Raven]

BTW, this would also demonstrate that WotC failed to meet one of their 3e objectives. Although they didn't realease data as to average rates of leveling (AFAICT without actually digging up the pre-release Dragons), they did intend 3e to level significantly faster than its predecessors.

Well, 3e does level faster than 2e did. And in practice probably faster than 1e did, since it seems that many people didn't use the GP = XP comparison (which would have skewed the way the modules played by far more than any assumption that PCs would miss treasure, or have to deal with training).

 

[Storm Raven]

Not really, no. Since there's a big difference in XPs awarded for kept items vs XP awareded as treasure XP and a significant likelihood of lots of the magic item treasure XP being up for easy loss due to selling it after XPs are awarded, assuming that they balance is a HUGE assumption.

As has been shown the XP awarded for keeping magic items amounts (in the modules given) to about as much XP as gained from killing monsters. if sold, the XP gain goes up to something like two to three times the total amount of XP gained from all other sources.

 

[billd91]

The analysis didn't assume "no or insignificant waste". In fatc, the analysis understated the available experience to be garnered in each 1e module. If you assume that the adventurers would miss out on or otherwise "waste" a quarter of the available experience, the experience gained just from having gained magic items would compensate for that leakage.

And that's not the point. The point is to stand up modules from each era and see how they would play out if played to their full potential. If one assumes that you would have substantial wastage in the 1e modules, one has to also make similar assumptions about the 3e modules. 3e players are just as likely to skip encounters, miss treasure, and otherwise lose out on potential experience. So, if you are going to discount the 1e totals, you have to do the same for the 3e ones. And so it coumes out as more or less a wash.

Again, we come back to the question of reasonable error. In order for the 1e modules to be played up to full potential, a lot more behaviors and variables must be assumed than for the 3e modules. For the 3e modules, you just have to assume that all encounters are satisfactorally dealt with. Making a comparable assumption in 1e may not even get you the kill XPs because of the potential for loss. To net the other XPs for treasure, even more assumptions of timing, thoroughness, and transport capacity must be made.

Making inferences about character advancements for typical play need to keep that in mind.

 

[Obryn]

I'd say probably the core issue is that you're looking at what are probably the two most-often-houseruled parts of AD&D.

Tons of people didn't use gp for xp. I mean, it's understandable why not - getting money doesn't make you a better fighter!

Tons of people also didn't use training rules. Isn't that what you just did in the dungeon, after all? What's better training than killing orcs?

They were such common houserules that they were mutated beyond recognition by the time 2e hit. And completely absent by 3e.

So yeah. I'll go back to what I said before - for the sake of this discussion, you're not even talking about the same game. If you change any of these variables - and from what I can see on this thread and others, changing at least one was normal - the whole equation skews. You're not going to convince the other person, because you're not going to convince them that their experiences never happened. And you've moved past convincing any readers on either side, I think.

-O

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that you aren't contesting assessments, but rather facts. When the facts don't match what you want, you call them assessments. Its a nice rhetorical dodge, but it isn't very convincing.

That one cuts both ways. It is just as much a rhetorical dodge to assert a thing is a fact as to assert it isn't. Real facts speak for themselves. If you have to insultingly lean on people to get them accepted, you have already lost, sir.

So, how about you and RC disengage. Stop responding to each other in this thread. It is clear you aren't going to change each others' minds, so just agree to disagree and stop badgering each other.