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

[Ariosto]

In other words, the evidence you claim supports your position doesn't actually seem to do so.

You arbitrarily ignore the far greater volume of evidence that in fact instructed me before ever I encountered the DMG. The textual fundamentalist waves "proof texts" at the orthodox traditionalist who is assuredly not about to chop off most of his understanding and "argue" from a feigned position of ignorance!

You make much of "TSR". I do not very much care how the Bloom brothers or other corporate functionaries conceived of D&D, when it comes to the matter of how it was designed to be played.

As I recall, there were plenty of articles in The Strategic Review and The Dragon concerned with designing dungeons (and towns, and wilderness areas).

The most fundamental matter is not whether one's "dungeon" has but 2 levels or 20 (although vertical mobility is indeed important) -- but whether it is an RPGA-style railroad, a big and extremely non-linear and dynamic environment, or something in between.

Where it, and its wider context, lies on that spectrum has much to do with the probability that any given adventure is going to "clean it out".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I looked through the 1e DMG last night, and the only reference I could find to "your main dungeon" was in the appendixes, as part of the intro for the random dungeon level generator. So, while I know that the "campaign dungeon" was an expected norm then, and I know that I knew this then, I am not at all certain how this information was actually communicated.

Weird. I wonder if it was via osmosis?

RC

 

[Storm Raven]

You arbitrarily ignore the far greater volume of evidence that in fact instructed me before ever I encountered the DMG. The textual fundamentalist waves "proof texts" at the orthodox traditionalist who is assuredly not about to chop off most of his understanding and "argue" from a feigned position of ignorance!

Such as Chainmail? You aren't the only one with access to those sources. They offer no support for your claims.

You make much of "TSR". I do not very much care how the Bloom brothers or other corporate functionaries conceived of D&D, when it comes to the matter of how it was designed to be played.

Interesting. You cite the Blumes (father and son, not brothers, by the way), who didn't take over TSR until well after the PHB and DMG were published. Steading was published in 1978. The Blumes didn't replace Gygax as head of the company until 1982. That's four years during which the company helmed by Gygax continued to pump out material entirely different than what you claim the style of intended play was.

Your claim is simply untenable.

As I recall, there were plenty of articles in The Strategic Review and The Dragon concerned with designing dungeons (and towns, and wilderness areas).

Cite one that suggests that DMs should by preference build megadungeons because that is the expected normal style of play. There is a thread on this board in which all the Dragon issues are being read in order. Go to the older ones listed and show us where that article is.

 

[Storm Raven]

Here's the problem with the "megadungeons were intended to be the norm" argument in a nutshell. The whole idea is based on this supposed mystic cabal of people "in the know" who got their training presumably from some secret network of people who could tap directly into Gygax's brain and divine what he intended instead of what he actually produced for people to use.

But then we have at least seven years of publishing from the inception of the game as a finished and published product until Gygax left his position as president and CEO of the company in which the published materials run entirely the opposite direction from the "megadungeons are the norm", with the only textual support being a very vague reference in a set of table in an appendix.

So, how are the masses of players who weren't part of the mystic cabal to divine this as the norm of play? The mystic cabal is clearly a tiny subset of those who will buy the books, meaning those who don't have the secret knowledge will vastly outnumber those who do. In the end, the secret knowledge will not be the norm of play. The norm of play will become what the books and the published supplements point towards: episodic dungeons of modest size. Just like modules.

 

[Ariosto]

Storm Raven, thanks for correcting the spelling, etc., of the Blumes. I do not see how that makes any less tenable my claim that I have little regard for their views (or those of others similarly divorced from it) when it comes to the question of Gary's intent in designing the game. More precisely, I have absolutely zero reason to think that it was designed to sell "modules". It was hardly something to avoid, from a business perspective, once Judges Guild proved the market -- but that is not the same thing!

As Raven Crowking notes, and as I have repeatedly, the Gygaxian AD&D books assumed much prior understanding on the supposedly "advanced" reader's part. "Osmosis" is a fair characterization of the process by which that was often learned.

Especially with Holmes as aid, it was certainly possible to gain an adequate understanding of OD&D; I know of some folks who even "got" the original set unassisted. A background in war-games in miniature was a help, and indeed war-gamers were the initially expected audience (hence the billing on the covers of the box and booklets). The basic premise, though, was set forth on page 5 of Volume 1:

First, the referee must draw out a minimum of half a dozen maps of the levels of his "underworld", people them with monsters of various horrid aspect, distribute treasures accordingly, and note the location of the latter two on keys, each corresponding to the appropriate level.

The first to acquire the booklets followed the instructions and set up campaigns, actual play therein being the way in which the next "generation" learned the game. Thus, even if one never read the seminal text, its essential concepts had been transmitted via oral tradition.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, thanks for correcting the spelling, etc., of the Blumes. I do not see how that makes any less tenable my claim that I have little regard for their views (or those of others similarly divorced from it) when it comes to the question of Gary's intent in designing the game.

The fact that the Blumes didn't take over TSR until 1981, well after all the modules we are talking about had been published is what makes your claim untenable. Gygax was running the show from 1975 to 1981. What TSR produced was what he wanted the company to produce. Hence, your disdain for the Blumes is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

As Raven Crowking notes, and as I have repeatedly, the Gygaxian AD&D books assumed much prior understanding on the supposedly "advanced" reader's part. "Osmosis" is a fair characterization of the process by which that was often learned.

And yet they gave actual advice that was cmarkedly different than the advice you assert was to be gleaned via "osmosis". That's what makes your claim untenable. Gygax could have given instructions about building multilevel megadungeons. Instead of that, he gave a handful of throwaway lines and a pile of non-megadunegaon advice and adventures. Effectively, you are claiming that the only ones who got it "right" were those with the ability to read Gygax's mind, and this mind-reading ability was supposeduly widespread enough to make this style of gaming the "norm".

I find this claim to be entirely unbelievable.

 

[Bullgrit]

I’m not seeing how the current debate [mega-dungeon or adventure path: which was the expected norm] is in any way related to the overall original topic of the thread.

Edit: the current debate has gone on for 5 pages.

Bullgrit

 

[Ariosto]

Storm Raven, I don't much care even what might be inferred on this count from the transactions of "TSR Gary" as opposed to "Dungeon Master Gary"! I see absolutely no reason to give the one persona greater weight when treating matters with which the other was chiefly (and previously, and subsequently) concerned.

Gygax did indeed "give instructions about building multilevel dungeons" in the DMG. Appendix A is a revision of a magazine article that was in turn an elaboration on the basic stocking methods in OD&D (and present in the later Basic and Expert sets as well). The encounter and treasure tables also were expansions of material from the original set.

What would be unbelievable anywhere but an Internet forum is the determined pressing of an "argument" so obviously incapable of convincing.

It seems in any case to have gone beyond even telescope range of the thread's topic -- so I will treat it here no more.

 

[Storm Raven]

I’m not seeing how the current debate [mega-dungeon or adventure path: which was the expected norm] is in any way related to the overall original topic of the thread.

Ariosto has claimed that somehow, adventuring in a megadungeon makes the acquisition of experience and treasure incredibly different from adventuring in a series of smaller dungeons. I have asked him to explain why, and thus far his responses have been entirely unconvincing.

I've also pointed out that the textual evidence he claims is exceedingly flimsy, and doesn't actually say what he claims. And that the entire publishing history of TSR is contrary to what he asserts the "expected style of play is". He continues to harp on the same piece of evidence (a set of tables in an appendix) while referencing magical mind-reading ability.

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, I don't much care even what might be inferred on this count from the transactions of "TSR Gary" as opposed to "Dungeon Master Gary"! I see absolutely no reason to give the one persona greater weight when treating matters with which the other was chiefly (and previously, and subsequently) concerned.

So now it isn't just that the Blumes somehow got their grubby corporate hands on the decision making (a claim which has been factually disproven concerning the modules and other products being discussed), now it is that Gygax simply acted in bad faith when he ran TSR?

Your argument gets sillier and sillier.

Gygax did indeed "give instructions about building multilevel dungeons" in the DMG. Appendix A is a revision of a magazine article that was in turn an elaboration on the basic stocking methods in OD&D (and present in the later Basic and Expert sets as well). The encounter and treasure tables also were expansions of material from the original set.

No, as I pointed out before, the tables you rely on are evidence that there were monsters considered appropriate opposition for high level parties. The fact that published material used that for things other than megadungeons shows that that was not necessarily their intended use. Given that just about everything other than the tables you cite directs DMs to design campaigns in a radically different way than a megadungeon, and the tables are at best ambiguous, one wonder why you think your argument could ever be considered convincing.

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that Gygax intentionally produced materials during his tenure as head of TSR that were incompatible with what the people playing the game were "normally" using it for. That's just ridiculous.

P.S. You do realize there is a forked thread on this topic, don't you?