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

[Storm Raven]

So, some trends for which later editions often take heat may in fact have been set in motion at the turn of the decade. That "dungeon modules" so rarely fit that description literally, and in other ways inadequately met the need for examples of the kind of campaign play for which the rules had been designed (Isle of Dread, packaged with both Expert sets, ranking among the better), hardly helped matters.

So, your argument is that TSR intentionally published items that were incompatible with the style of game that was intended to be played, and never gave anything more than cursory countervailing instructions in their products?

And further, that somehow, despite the scantest direction given in the products to this end, the norm was for people to figure out that they were "supposed" to play using megadungeons and do so?

I find this implausible in the extreme.

 

[Hussar]

That "dungeon modules" so rarely fit that description literally, and in other ways inadequately met the need for examples of the kind of campaign play for which the rules had been designed (Isle of Dread, packaged with both Expert sets, ranking among the better), hardly helped matters.

Again, I have a bit of a problem with this. The Expert rules are almost entirely written based on wilderness adventuring. The only mega-dungeon stocking tools that you are given are a single page near the back of the book. The Adventure section, OTOH, runs for 4 pages, and does not mention dungeons a single time.

Heck, from the "Scope of the Rules" on page X3:

The Dungeons and Dragons Expert Set continues the material presented in the DD Basic Rulebook. that booklet covered dungeon expeditions and allowed characters to progress to 3rd level.
...
Adventures will take place outside the dungeon. A "wilderness" area will be an even greater challenge to players with stronger monsters and greater wealth to be won.

...
Through the rules ofhte D&D Expert Set, the campaign area can be extended to cover an entire world. This wider world is limited only by the creativity of DM's and players.

Doesn't seem to me that for B/E D&D at the very least, the mega-dungeon campaign was even on the radar.

 

[Ariosto]

There is really not much to say about the false dichotomy. "First, you say that a horse has four legs; then you say it has a head and a tail; which is it?"

The sum of my previous post is that I can see how the text might be inadequate outside the tradition; a failing of AD&D, regret for which I think Gygax expressed in later years.

However, the matter of dungeon and campaign is in my experience so widely lucid to those who started with OD&D, or were taught by those who had, and so often attested over so many years by Gygax and others, that I cannot pretend the misunderstanding is on the part of the "traditionalists" rather than the "exegetes".

That the misunderstanding might be widespread, and that it -- in combination either with willful disregard for the guidelines, or with ill-considered guidelines promulgated later -- might produce a situation in which character advancement is reliably slow, is another matter.

 

[billd91]

They could be low if an AD&D DM was stingy with treasure. But that's not the question being asked. The question being asked is what did the publisher of the game appear to expect the rate of advancement to be, and the way to figure that out is to look at the materials the publisher provided for the game.

Assuming that the publisher intended that the game would be played in an entirely different manner because of a few throwaway lines and tables in an appendix when everything else points the other way is simply not a coherent argument. Further, assuming that a mere change of venue would radically alter the expectations the designers had for advancement is completely unsupportable.

A significant problem comes up even when trying to figure out what the publisher thought the default mode of play was (or giving out treasure) because the modules are not necessarily in accord with the treasure-designing guidelines.

I did a little number crunching for G3 and, based on the tables in the back of the Monster Manual, treasure types of monsters involved, and numbers of creatures, the monetary treasure in the G3 haul (as calculated by Q) is FAR above what the tables would suggest, on average. I calculated in the neighborhood of 300,000 gp, assuming the rolls averaged out to approach the expected values and virtually everything counted as being in its lair (including the mind flayers, who presumably were not).

So that leads back into Hussar's poll in the other thread. Did the DM make up his own adventures and use the Treasure Type tables? Or did he use modules that packed in a higher treasure value than the Monster Manual prescribed norm? Did he use modules that might have skimped on the treasure?

 

[billd91]

Again, I have a bit of a problem with this. The Expert rules are almost entirely written based on wilderness adventuring. The only mega-dungeon stocking tools that you are given are a single page near the back of the book. The Adventure section, OTOH, runs for 4 pages, and does not mention dungeons a single time.

The Expert rules may have focused on wilderness, but the Basic ones did not. And I'd be willing to bet the Basic edition sold quite a bit more copies than the Expert rules did. It's natural with any series. People check out the first, it grabs them or not, those in grabs buy the next installment, those it does not don't progress up the chain.

But I don't think that points to the "mega"dungeon as the expected form of play, just dungeoneering in general, whether small, medium, large, or supersized. That would further be reinforced by modules in the whole (A)D&D line, the majority of which were dungeons rather than wilderness like Isle of Dread.

 

[Ariosto]

Module play is not "incompatible" with campaign play, any more than an exhibition ball game is incompatible with league play. A wilderness, scattered with keeps, steadings, shrines, enchanted caverns, etc., is not only not incompatible with a dungeon but an assumed compliment to it.

The books provided all (apart from paper, pencil and imagination) that was necessary to create a dungeon. The Geomorphs and Monster and Treasure Assortments were additional aids.

Creation was part of the game! Drawing maps and stocking them was part of play, part of the FUN.

"Hey! We'll sell you the makings of a super fudge banana split ice cream sundae -- and someone to eat it for you!"

Yes, apparently it took a new generation of game designers to grasp that plan.

 

[Storm Raven]

Double post

 

[Storm Raven]

There is really not much to say about the false dichotomy. "First, you say that a horse has four legs; then you say it has a head and a tail; which is it?"

It is a dicthotomy. You claim that having tables that show lists of (for example) ninth level monsters and treasure is clear evidence that this should be used for making megadungeons. But we have adventures that seem to use this material without this being part of a megadungeon. Rather, it uses it to provide for an adventure for high level characters without regard to the venue.

In other words, the evidence you claim supports your position doesn't actually seem to do so. Rather, based upon the available information, it supports the idea that the tables could be used to provide opposition for higher level characters without regard for the setting that opposition takes.

The sum of my previous post is that I can see how the text might be inadequate outside the tradition; a failing of AD&D, regret for which I think Gygax expressed in later years.

But that doesn't do anything to support your as of yet entirely unsupported claim that megadungeon delving was the norm. Or that it was intended to be. TSR and Gygax had plenty of opportunity to make this clear, yet for dozens upon dozens of published products released over the course of several years they simply did not do so. There weren't any campaign design articles in The Dragon (a wholly controlled organ of TSR at the time) that gave megadungeon design advice (in point of fact, all the ones I can remember were decidedly not megadungeon campaigns). One can only conclude that they did not intend to make such a clarification.

 

[Bullgrit]

From post #30:

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 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.

Bullgrit

 

[Storm Raven]

Module play is not "incompatible" with campaign play, any more than an exhibition ball game is incompatible with league play. A wilderness, scattered with keeps, steadings, shrines, enchanted caverns, etc., is not only not incompatible with a dungeon but an assumed compliment to it.

No one is saying you couldn't play using a giant megadungeon. What is being disputed is that TSR intended that this should be the norm, and that it actually was the norm.

The materials provided by TSR didn't point to this conclusion at all. The fact that most campaigns seemed to not take this up as the style of play is consequently completely unsurprising to me. You've made claim, and haven't supported it at all. You've cited flimsy evidence in the text that doesn't actually support what you claim, ignored countervailing text, and ignored the actual publishing history of the company. You've claimed special knowledge based upon your supposed greater experience (which I have pointed out is not actually greater than me or the other posters here). Thus far, you are just pounding the table, and that's just a dog that won't hunt.