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

[Storm Raven]

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.

Well, the problem with worrying about this element is multifold. First off, the amount of treasure "hidden" in modules has been shown to be a fairly small portion of the total. The amount of trasure shown to be incredibly cumbersone and difficult has been shown to be almost trivial (if you look back at the horde used as an example from G3, the 15,000 pounds of copper and silver amount to only about 3,320 gp value out of a horde with total worth of 206,000 gp - less than 1.5% of the total). So the only thing you are left with that might have a significant impact is the assumption that the PCs will lose out on XP due to training, but since Gygax has asserted he never played using those rules, it is unlikely that TSR assumed others would either.

And the issue here is that the modules aren't being assumed to be played optimally, at least insofar as the XP calculations go. The calculations explicitly exclude XP for magic items, which even if not sold, amounts to a huge chunk. The PCs could literally miss a quarter of the monsters and treasure in an adventure and still come up with as much (if not more) experience as listed in the examples due to the gain from magic item XP. If the examples assumed that the PCs would play through the adventure optimally, then the XP calculations would be much higher, and the 1e PCs would advance even faster than they are shown to be doing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

This is true.

It is also true that, if we can only go by texts, then we have to assume that the training rules, search time rules, wandering monster rules, healing rules, etc. were in force.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, the amount of treasure "hidden" in modules has been shown to be a fairly small portion of the total.

You keep saying this, but this is untrue.

First off, it presupposes that your definition of what "hidden" means is a valid one.

Second, it presupposes that the single module you allowed for is a large enough sample to be statistically significant. The second module examined, you dismissed the significant amount of "hidden" treasure (although you agreed it was hidden) on the basis that the PCs would "have to" find it to get to the next adventure in the series. This in itself presupposes that the DM has no other means of getting the PCs to that region, and that the DM is unwilling to allow them to fail (and simply not go there).

Likewise, your sample set for cumbersome treasure is limited, which you need to assume to be of statistical importance to draw the conclusions you do.

Finally, you need to assume that Q's offset (his not including magic items) is equal to the offset for suboptimal play.


None of these assumptions are ones that I am willing to make on the basis of the evidence supplied.



RC

 

[Storm Raven]

You keep saying this, but this is untrue.

I am only responding to refer you to Umbran's post.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am only responding to refer you to Umbran's post.

Sorry. Missed it. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

RC

 

[kitsune9]

The iconic first adventure for AD&D1.
So the AD&D1 party averages level 3.33, and the D&D3 party averages level 3.

Quasqueton

This is cool stuff. Thanks!

 

[fanboy2000]

As another note, from the original designer himself:

The number of XPs given to rise a level was initially intuitive, later on based on the play of my campaign group. I think that 52 sessions to reach 10th level is about right if the time per session is about four hours. Longner sessions would reduce the number accordingly.

If getting from 1st to 8th level took 40 game sessions, as I suggested above, (1 level per 5-6 game sessions), they could reach level 10 in about 52 game sessions, just as EGG said was proper in his mind/intention/experience.

This was my experience in 3e, 3.5, and now 4e. All those games have approximately 4 hour play times, and advanced to about level 10 in a year.

The “release notes” from WotC on the reformulating of the D&D xp chart and rate, said that they wanted a group to be able to reach level 20 within 2 years. That would mean the group could reach level 10 in 1 year (52 weekly game sessions). (I’ve heard “2 years” and “18 months”, but I can’t find the information on the WotC Web site right now.)

Two years is about what I experienced as a DM in 3e. My longest running D&D game was over two years and the players got to about level 20. The group took occasional breaks to play different games, so it was probably 104 actual 3e game sessions to level 20. (The campaign's last adventure was the Bastion of Broken Souls).

Also note:

If play was intensive dungeon crawling, the 52 play sessions might take up only a few weeks of game time, with several adventure sessions being the continuation of a single day of delving.

This is also consistent with my experiences with editions 3 on up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fanboy2000, I would find these quotes rather more convincing than the rest of the thread, if there was a link-back to the original quotes, so that they could be read in context.


RC

 

[fanboy2000]

Fanboy2000, I would find these quotes rather more convincing than the rest of the thread, if there was a link-back to the original quotes, so that they could be read in context.

Quasqueton quoted Gygax back in post thirty (page 2). The blue square will get you back to that post. Though, I suspect you want the link to the quote from Gygax. That I don't have. Quasqueton might be able to tell you where he got them.

 

[Bullgrit]

I would find these quotes rather more convincing than the rest of the thread, if there was a link-back to the original quotes, so that they could be read in context.

I doubt it, but here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-108.html#post2766231
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-108.html#post2766491

Bullgrit

 

[fanboy2000]

I doubt it, but here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-108.html#post2766231
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-108.html#post2766491

Bullgrit

The guy who asked the original question beat me to it! That said, while I was searching I also found this tidbit: Quasqueton asks Gygax about adventure design at TSR.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3e is more Gygaxian than by the book 1e, due to the training rules, which Gary didn't use.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I doubt it, but here:

Why do you doubt it?

Or is this simply an attempt to be "slyly" insulting?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

3e is more Gygaxian than by the book 1e, due to the training rules, which Gary didn't use.

Is the impression you got from Gary that he thought 3e more Gygaxian? AFAICT, he wasn't overly fond of it.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Looking at Gary's quotes in context, it seems clear , within his own campaign, that he expected the average player to take 52 4-hour sessions to get from level 1 to 10. IOW, 208 hours of game play.

Somewhere upthread, someone quoted what WotC expected in terms of character growth in a year's weekly sessions. Can anyone point me to that post?

If the goal is really to find out what WotC and TSR considered the expected norms to be, these are (IMHO) the important posts. If WotC concurs that a year's play in 3e should lead to level 10, I am convinced.

(Not within their expectations, mind you, but convinced that Q is correct as to what their expectations were.)

RC

 

[fanboy2000]

Somewhere upthread, someone quoted what WotC expected in terms of character growth in a year's weekly sessions. Can anyone point me to that post?

If the goal is really to find out what WotC and TSR considered the expected norms to be, these are (IMHO) the important posts. If WotC concurs that a year's play in 3e should lead to level 10, I am convinced.

Here is the closest I could find: Monte Cook comments on the final draft of the XP section of the 3e DMG.

Several important points:

1. Character are supposed to level up every 13 or 14 encounters.
2. Or, and here's the important part, about every 4 sessions or so.
3. However, he also states that the math hasn't changed from 2e at all.

Mathematically, you’ll notice similarities between the progression of a given CR’s worth in this system and the previous system’s Challenge Level reward progression. That’s because the amount of XP needed to gain a level did not change between these two systems, nor did our desired advancement rate (gaining a level about every four sessions, or every 13 to 14 encounters appropriate to your character). A 1st-level character in a group of four players is going to get 75 XP per level-1 encounter, just as in the previous system.

Clearly, neither Mr. Cook nor Wizards of the Coast anticipated that, nine years later, people would be debating the rate of advancement between 1e and 3e.

Bastards!

 

[billd91]

Here is the closest I could find: Monte Cook comments on the final draft of the XP section of the 3e DMG.

Several important points:

1. Character are supposed to level up every 13 or 14 encounters.
2. Or, and here's the important part, about every 4 sessions or so.
3. However, he also states that the math hasn't changed from 2e at all.

Well, no. He's saying that math hasn't changed from some previous system. But the way he describes it, it's clearly not either 1e nor 2e. There must have been something else they were experimenting with or had previously presented in some other source.
The dead give away is the statement that the amount of XP needed to advance hadn't changed. The XPs needed between 2e and 3e did change, substantially.

 

[fanboy2000]

The dead give away is the statement that the amount of XP needed to advance hadn't changed. The XPs needed between 2e and 3e did change, substantially.

Thanks, that was confusing the heck out of me. I'm completely unfamiliar with 2e's xp system, so I didn't see that. This is a link to some of the previous xp system's they were experimenting with. I didn't look at them because I was focused on what actually went into the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

[*]Or, and here's the important part, about every 4 sessions or so.[/LIST]

I agree with you that this is the important part, and expectations can be examined in light of it.

52 divided by 4 = 13, indicating that WotC expected one to reach approximately 13th level over the course of 52 sessions (barring any statements located that dispute Monte Cook which are deserving of more weight than this....something I find unlikely unless they are later statements by Monte himself).

Gary expected one to reach approximately 10th level in the same period.

So we can see, based on this information, that the expected rate of advancement (by these parties) for 3e is greater than that for 1e, although not too greatly so. (3e characters have 1.3 the expected advancement of 1e characters.)

That is less disparity than I would have expected (I would have expected a 1.5 variance, or 15 levels in 3e to 10 levels in 1e). My mileage certainly varied in actual play experience with 1e, and I imagine that others have had their mileage vary with 3e as well.


RC



EDIT: BTW, this is at some variance with Q's work, I note, which demonstrates in the AD&D modules that the 1e character rate of advancement was slightly higher than that of the 3e rate of advancement.....IOW, opposite of what the linked statements show was expected. I do, therefore, contend that I was correct not to accept the conclusions as "proven" on that basis. YMMV.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Note RC, you are taking the 4 sessions thing as a literal statement. That's not what the quote says. The quote says "around" four sessions. True, it could be three, but, it could be five or six as well.

13 in a year vs 10 in a year is pretty much exactly the same AFAIC. At least close enough for government work.

And, funnily enough, fits my play experience almost perfectly. Who'da thunk?

You're not going to get exact parallels here. There's far too many variables to get exact numbers. For example, if a group actually did clean out all those modules, then flogged all but a few of the magic items, they'd be a couple of levels higher, quite possibly.

Strangely enough though, they could miss out on almost half the treasure that Q outlines and the difference is only 1 level.

As I said 13 and 10 are pretty close. Not a huge variance anyway. Splitting hairs is not going to prove anything.

I guess the most accurate conclusion would be: Leveling in 1e and 3e, assuming that you play pretty close by the rules, will result in very similar leveling over the first ten levels or so.